Agenda item

To respond to any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2.

 

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 12 July 2022.

 

Question from Councillor David Munro:

 

To: Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability

 

“Surrey County Council are intending to carry out extensive repairs to BOAT 520 at Frensham Common in the near future. This has aroused significant opposition amongst local residents and others who have pointed out that the works will cost a great deal of money, cause significant disturbance to wildlife and vegetation in this important SSSI, and, in their view, are unlikely to achieve their main aim which is to reduce the adverse impacts of the current intrusive use of the BOAT and surrounding areas by 4-wheeled drive vehicles and motor-bikes. Local people believe that the best way to control future damage to the environment is through a Traffic Regulation Order. I agree with their assessment.

 

Given that the Council's draft Biodiversity Policy and Action Plan rightly emphasises that Waverley-owned and managed sites such as Frensham Common should have their bio-diversity protected, and if at all possible improved, does the Portfolio Holder agree with a great many local people that Surrey County Council's proposed action is potentially very damaging to the Common and that Waverley Borough Council should oppose it? If so, what actions will the Council take?”

 

16.1    The following question was received from Councillor Munro in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

 

“Surrey County Council are intending to carry out extensive repairs to BOAT 520 at Frensham Common in the near future. This has aroused significant opposition amongst local residents and others who have pointed out that the works will cost a great deal of money, cause significant disturbance to wildlife and vegetation in this important SSSI, and, in their view, are unlikely to achieve their main aim which is to reduce the adverse impacts of the current intrusive use of the BOAT and surrounding areas by 4-wheeled drive vehicles and motor-bikes. Local people believe that the best way to control future damage to the environment is through a Traffic Regulation Order. I agree with their assessment.

 

Given that the Council's draft Biodiversity Policy and Action Plan rightly emphasises that Waverley-owned and managed sites such as Frensham Common should have their bio-diversity protected, and if at all possible improved, does the Portfolio Holder agree with a great many local people that Surrey County Council's proposed action is potentially very damaging to the Common and that Waverley Borough Council should oppose it? If so, what actions will the Council take?”

 

16.2    In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, the Leader responded on Councillor Williams’ behalf:

 

“Councillor Munro is correct that the Council's Biodiversity Policy and Action Plan emphasises that Waverley-owned and managed sites such as Frensham Common should have their biodiversity protected, and, if possible, improved. Waverley Borough Council recognises the local concerns and will emphasise to Surrey County Council the desirability of a TRO consultation to allow local views to be heard.

 

WBC is a key stakeholder along with the National Trust being the custodians of the site, and we will of course always seek to influence decision making to ensure that the best interests of this highly designated site are upheld. However, whilst we can attempt to influence and direct SCC and Natural England, we are not in a position to make a decision on this matter.

 

Historically, following various meetings concerning the BOAT that involved Jeremy Hunt, residents SCC & ourselves, there was an agreed approach between all parties; WBC to implement interim measures, SCC to repair the BOAT, monitor its use and then if required seek a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

 

As part of agreed interim measures following previous meetings, WBC rangers and its appointed contractors have undertaken works in June 2021 restricting the width of the BOAT route and preventing further damage to the surrounding common by installing 184 Chestnut posts. To date these actions have been effective and over time they will allow the surrounding habitats and species to recover by natural succession and reclaim these formally damaged areas where the BOAT had expanded beyond its designated area.

 

Whilst the works proposed by SCC to extensively repair the BOAT 520 at Frensham Common have potential to be expensive, SCC have yet to share the details of such repairs with us, so we are unaware of what will be proposed as surfacing for the BOAT and to what extent it will be resurfaced.  SCC had indicated the repairs would be started from May 2022, and clearly this has not occurred so far. The matter of funding the BOAT repairs is entirely a SCC matter to consider and the main intention is to make the route less attractive and perhaps more boring to drive on for vehicles, thereby reducing its attraction. This would obviously need to be monitored, as it is very clear that anti-social driving is an issue now.

 

In respect of such proposed works being damaging to the environment, due to the site’s designations, SCC would need to fully consult with Natural England, in order to agree the specifications, methods of construction, storing of materials etc. in such a way as to not damage the surrounding habitats. However, WBC would also seek in this instance to ensure full consultation with local residents, as there is clearly a strong local feeling about the nature of the repair of the BOAT and a very prevalent view that, following repair, the route should, in any case, be closed to motorised traffic.”

 

The Leader also undertook to raise the matter with County Councillor David Harmer.

 

16.3    The following question was received from Councillor Seaborne in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

 

“In March 2021, tenants vacated a pleasant two-bedroom 1970s council property in central Bramley. Fifteen months later, at the time of preparing this question, the property has still not been re-occupied although I understand the situation may be about to change.  Nevertheless, this situation represents the deprivation of housing for a family on Waverley’s waiting list and a loss of rent approaching £8,000.

 

Moving on to Ockford Ridge site C, residents have been decanted from the 20 or so old houses that have now been demolished but the complexities of procurement, exacerbated by Covid, have contrived to extend the total project time by many months.  Building is yet to start on the 30 properties planned for the site.  Again, we have a situation where residents on the housing waiting list will have to stay there for much longer, and the HRA is missing out on large amounts of rent, this time running to several hundred thousand pounds.

 

I haven’t delved into the detailed status of other HRA development and redevelopment projects, but it seems highly likely that there are delays to other projects.  This can be seen from the fact that the financial outturn for 2021-22 for Housing Delivery presented to Executive in early July was £9.65 million against an approved budget of £18.63 million.  This is almost a 50% underspend so delays must be widespread.

 

Can members please be told:

 

·         what were the budgeted and actual losses of rental income from houses in the development and redevelopment programmes for 2021-22: and

·         what are the budgeted and currently projected losses of rental income for 2022-23? 

We are all aware that redevelopment and development projects are not easy to execute, particularly bearing in mind the circumstances over the past two years. Nevertheless, the fact that perfectly good houses are standing empty for over a year, and that the Councill is suffering very significant loss of rental income caused by the delays, call for remedial action and clear communication to Members and affected Waverley tenants. Can members please be told what steps are being taken to address these challenges?”

 

16.4    Councillor Palmer, Portfolio Holder for Housing (Delivery) gave the following response:

 

“Thank you, Cllr Seaborne

 

The property in question has been allocated to a Waverley tenant who is moving from a property that will be demolished in order to enable new development to take place. Considerable discussion has taken place between the Council and the tenant to ensure that as far as possible, the tenant’s requirements for their new home can be met. There have been various aids and adaptations that have had to be made, and the Council has tried to reasonably accommodate the wishes of the tenant. It is hoped that the move will take place very soon.

 

Turning to delays in the programme, most of the Council’s developments are regeneration projects. These inevitably take longer to bring forward than simply acquiring a clean site and building new homes. Much of the time taken is in working carefully and sensitively with our tenants to ensure they are prepared to move to a decant property while work is being undertaken, and then be offered a new home in the development. We are dealing with our tenants’ lives at the deepest level, and many have lived in the same home for a long time. A brand new home is a great incentive to move but appropriate engagement with tenants is vital. There have been tenants who are the last to occupy a home on a site earmarked for redevelopment and have needed a great deal of care and support to enable them to move. There are also other delays, including the length of time it has taken to secure planning permission and complexities in tendering contracts. We also follow a due diligence process, and we source external scrutiny of financial appraisals and viability to ensure value for money – this is especially pertinent in the light of the impact of build cost inflation on recent tenders.

 

With regard to delays to Site C at Ockford Ridge, the contractors expect to start on site next month.

 

Consideration of the Site C planning application at Committee was delayed by the requirement to provide additional information for consideration which had not been previously requested. We issued the Selection Questionnaire which is the first stage of the tender with the scheme (subject to planning) and then when consent was in place, we issued the Invitation to Tender (ITT) to those shortlisted contractors. We leave the period where the properties can be occupied for as long as possible.

 

The disconnection/stopping up and other pre-demolition processes take time. At Ockford Ridge Site C we decanted tenants and completed the disconnection process ourselves and tendered for a demolition contractor. We left the site occupied for as long as we could and tendered the Build Contract with tenants in occupation.

 

Holding properties when they become available for use under license and leaving the tenants in the properties where they hold the secure tenancy is the best route. There is certainty of a home to meet need when we are ready to push the move button but there is the risk of delay which extends the use under license. If we don’t do this, we risk not finding a home for tenants in time.

 

Going forward, we are looking at procuring a contractor to complete works to decant and license properties so that we are not delayed and our maintenance contractor, Ian Williams, is not pulled away from standard void and repairs work.

 

Responding to your questions regarding rent loss, we budgeted for £144,272 for the year 2021-22, and the actual rent loss was £128,597 - £15,675 less than forecast.

 

We budgeted for £112,014 for 2022-23, and the forecast loss is currently £102,652, resulting in a projected saving of £9,362.

 

We take every possible step to mitigate void loss. For properties that are hard to let, or earmarked for demolition and regeneration, there are two ways we can ensure as many properties as possible are occupied, and rental income is achieved. Clearly these are short term options, but they not only ensure maximum use is made of the homes during that period but also the Council receives income and properties that may be empty are not subject to vandalism.

 

A number of homes are leased to Ethical Lettings, a social and ethical lettings agency offering guaranteed rent and a free management service to landlords across Surrey & Southwest London. Ethical Lettings works with a number of local councils and supports tenants to establish better financial stability and quality of life.

 

Ethical Lettings let to homeless households under assured shorthold tenancies for up to two years and thus provide essential housing for those who would otherwise be in temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast.

 

Other properties are being occupied under the Council’s Guardian scheme. Those who would otherwise be homeless are offered a home which is due to be demolished on a temporary license. This not only provides a roof over their head but enables the homes to be lived in and looked after.

 

All Guardians have received Council Tax support and Housing Benefit; all are paying rent and there are no arrears to date.

 

Finally, I can give examples of how this works for the benefit of those in housing need and for the Council. We have provided accommodation for a single woman, expecting a child, two single mothers, each with two children, a single father with two children and three single people with complex needs.

 

Four homeless households occupying homes under the Guardian scheme have moved on to secure social housing, and that is the aim for the remaining licensees.

 

We will continue to use as many homes as we can to provide short term accommodation, working with our Guardians to ensure they can move to longer term secure and affordable housing.

 

I can assure Cllr Seaborne that the Housing Service works tirelessly to ensure that all homes are occupied wherever possible, and void loss minimised.

 

Cllr Seaborne helpfully recognises that the issues that need to be addressed in regenerating our housing stock and proving additional homes are very complex. To that end, Officers would be happy to sit down with Cllr Seaborne and any other local member to explain these matters in more detail.”

 

16.5    The following question was received from Councillor Hyman in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

 

"Mr Mayor,

 

The Council's duty to protect the endangered habitats and species of the SPAs, as confirmed in the 2018 People Over Wind and Sweetman Ruling, is set out in simple terms within the 2019 NPPG on Appropriate Assessment (Ref.65-006) which concludes that

 

"competent authorities must now assess the robustness of mitigation measures through an appropriate assessment".

 

Will you as Mayor please clarify for residents that as Natural England have confirmed to the JSPB that they are still unable to provide evidence of the effectiveness of their SANG and SAMM mitigation strategies, and hence no complete Appropriate Assessment yet exists, habitats applications cannot therefore be lawfully consented?"

 

16.6    At the request of the Mayor, Councillor Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development gave the following response:

 

“The Planning Authority have sought confirmation from Natural England following the JSPB meeting. Natural England have not changed their position on the effectiveness of SANG and SAMM and have reviewed Appropriate Assessments (AAs) undertaken by the Council since the JSPB and continue to raise no objection to the detail within them.

 

The Planning Authority will continue to keep our Appropriate Assessments up to date, and where there is additional information will look to incorporate it within the document. We will also continue to seek Natural England’s advice, as Natural England are the ‘’nature conservation body’’ for the purposes of the Habitat Regulations.”