Cabinet considered proposals for providing more housing opportunities for key professional groups who took up employment in the Royal Borough.

Cabinet was addressed by Heidi Swidenbank from Cox Green Academy, who commented that key worker housing was essential if schools were to recruit and retain the highest quality staff. In the current climate it was extremely difficult to recruit, with schools often having to re-advertise because of few or low quality applicants. The housing market in the area was equivalent to London where teachers could access inner London weighting and key worker housing. Ms Swidenbank had a great staff, some of whom were looking for promotion. Of her senior leadership team, three staff members were looking to relocate because of the cost of living.

Cabinet was addressed by Richard Pilgrim, who commented that when he started his career at Charters 32 years previously, properties owned by Berkshire County Council were readily available at affordable rents. There was no such priority today despite the recent crisis. Advertising costs  annually ran into the tens of thousands, yet often no enquiries were received. This had previously been in specific subjects but was now across the board. Private schools in the area often offered accommodation as part of the package, which added to the problem for local schools. Unprecedented funding pressures meant newly qualified teachers (NQT) were needed. Good and outstanding schools offered promotion opportunities but NQTs could not afford the cost of living. A strategy was needed to stop the downward spiral.

Cabinet was addressed by Liz Clark, who commented the problem had existed for a number of years but was now at crisis point. She was the longest serving headteacher in the borough at 17 years. In previous times headteachers would have received a significant number of applications and therefore would have been able to shortlist. Now headteachers could no longer be confident of expecting applications with any certainty. Affordable housing was one barrier to recruitment. She referred to one Maidenhead school that had 3 NQTs. Two still lived at home with their parents and wanted to move out but could not afford rental costs; one wanted to buy locally but was aware a deposit of £60,000 was needed. At the same school there were two youngish members of the senior leadership team who had been trained as part of succession planning, but may need to move elsewhere because of the cost of living. Another Maidenhead school said the risk of no key worker housing was long commutes, which were not possible given the workloads. In addition, pension changes and national criticism of the profession were issues. The least that could be done would be to offer key worker housing.

The Chairman thanked all school staff in the Royal Borough for the work they did to give Royal Borough children the best opportunities going forward.

The Chairman explained that the council could not change the housing market but through its own portfolio of properties it could help to build a borough for everyone. The council was investing heavily in the bricks and mortar of schools but there was also a need for strong leadership and teaching staff. Key worker housing was part of the solution. Via the council’s trading company, RBWM Property Company Ltd, a number of properties would be converted using existing social housing S106 funds to be offered as key worker housing at affordable rents. The initial suggested level was 80% of market rates. A further £500,000 would be used to provide DIYSO in conjunction with Housing Solutions. The Chairman also highlighted that the Borough Local Plan would include an affordable housing target of 30% for new developments in the borough. The proposal for key worker housing would lead to a reduction in yield, therefore the council was effectively putting council tax payer money in to support key workers.

The Chairman acknowledged the comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Panels and confirmed that all questions raised would be responded to directly, with the responses placed in the public domain.

The Lead Member for Adult Services and Health commented that as a Chair of Governors at a borough school, he was aware of the issues raised by the public speakers.  He was also aware of the need for key worker housing for newly qualified social workers, both in children’s and adult services.

The Lead Member for Highways and Transport commented on one school that had arranged a flat share for two NQTs, to enable them to afford to live in the borough.

The Lead Member for Planning fully endorsed the report, in particular the wider definition of a key worker.  He also welcomed the fact that planning officers were included in the definition. He highlighted that the Housing Solutions DIYSO scheme operated across the whole of the borough.

The Lead Member for Finance commented that he was acutely aware of the problems as a Governor himself. Schools often found that no applicants came forward, with the main reason being the cost of living. The borough needed to be a proactive facilitator of the lower end of the housing market. As Lead Member he was aware of the financial implications: By virtue of the proposed policy the council would receive a direct reduction in yield from 3.2% to 0.7% less. This equated to a subsidy of £130,000 per annum.

Councillor Walters highlighted that the Planning and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel had endorsed the report, with some comments in relation to prioritisation.

The Lead Member for Children’s Services commented that the report showed how the council was supporting other organisations in the borough that also put residents first, including teachers and the emergency services.

Councillor Mrs Jones stated that she fully supported the proposal, however she highlighted that the figure of 80% may or may not be achievable on key worker salaries. The level needed to be set appropriately to ensure the scheme succeeded.  It would also be important to ensure those running the schemes had the skills and expertise to ensure success. The Chairman commented that the figure of 80% was indicative and would be looked at carefully. He referred to a meeting he was due to have the following week with Housing Solutions, who had much experience of the issues.

Councillor Beer commented that given the nearest prison was in Reading he did not feel prison workers should be included in the definition.

It was noted that the first recommendation should refer to point 2.5 (rather than 1.5) and should be amended accordingly.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet:

i)       Approve the revised definition of key worker, see point 2.5, and further consultation with partners, including local schools.

ii)     Delegate authority to the Managing Director/Strategic Director Adult, Children and Health Services, the Leader of the Council and the Lead Member for Finance to transfer the properties designated for affordable housing to RBWM Property Company Limited, following refurbishment, see point 2.10.

iii)    Approve the plans from RBWM Property Company Limited for delivering key worker housing by 31 March 2017, see point 2.10.

iv)    Note that the £500k agreed for investment in existing Do It Yourself Shared Ownership schemes will be invested with Housing Solutions Limited to focus on key worker housing, see point 2.14.

v)     Approve one-off funding of £10K to Housing Solutions Limited to deliver a new shared ownership scheme specifically for key workers, see point 2.15.

vi)    Authorise officers to work with housing associations and the Homes and Communities Agency to deliver a variety of shared ownership schemes in the Royal Borough, with a particular focus on key workers.