To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 30 June 2016.

The Head of Commissioning - Adult, Children and Health, Hilary Hall, informed Members that the report set out proposals for providing more housing opportunities for key professional groups: teachers, social workers and clinical health staff, who take up employment in the Royal Borough.  It was noted that the proposals were set in the context of the local manifesto commitment and the government focus on home ownership.

Members were informed that the Royal Borough’s key worker private rental property portfolio would be managed through the Council’s trading company, RBWM Property Company Limited, with the purpose of optimising the property portfolio.  It was noted that refurbishment of the portfolio would be funded through existing Section 106 monies allocated for affordable housing and then transferred to the Company for rental.

The Head of Commissioning - Adult, Children and Health explained that work would continue with housing association partners to develop innovative schemes for key workers, releasing the agreed £500k of investment into the existing Do it Yourself Shared Ownership scheme and developing partnership agreements with the Homes and Communities Agency to release investment to support key worker housing.

The Planning & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel asked the following questions – they hoped the answers would be available for the Cabinet meeting on Thursday night:

•   That all Military Personnel (Army, Airforce, Navy) be included in the key worker definition.

•   If a key worker gained accommodation and then their location of employment changed (e.g. to High Wycombe) would they lose their accommodation?

•   How would the prioritisation of applications from key workers be undertaken?  It was felt criteria needed to be clear from the start or it would be challenged.

•   Covered by key worker policy?

•   If a key worker changed profession would they lose their home?

•   Are there any limitations on who key workers could sell their property to?

•   How does para 2.7 square with para 2.5 – will their be further refinement?

•   Para 2.10 (‘over the next 18 months….’) – the Panel was under the impression that the Council did not have a defined policy type and that it preferred ownership to rental options?

•   Are they 100% rented?  On assured shorthold tenancies?

•   It was suggested that they key worker document on the web had reduced in detail and might need to be re-looked at again.

•   Would salaries be looked at when deciding whether someone qualified as a key worker?

•   It was stated that the shared ownership scheme might or might not involve a key worker – it was asked whether this was true as key worker housing was listed in the report under the key implications section as being a measure of success?

•   That the terms needed to be set out along with information about how it could be renewed (if renewal was an option).

The Planning & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel agreed in principal with the recommendations in the report to Cabinet but felt that it was not a workable scheme as it currently stood as the report was lacking detail.