To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.

Question from Councillor J Walker to Councillor Brennan.

“Who are our Registered Partners and how is this decided/vetted/agreed?”

Councillor Brennan responded by stating that the terms social housing and registered provider were defined in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 Act.  Social housing included low-cost rental, such as affordable rent properties, and low-cost home ownership.  Registered providers included local authority landlords and private registered providers, such as not-for-profit housing associations and some for-profit organisations.  The largest registered provider in Rushcliffe was Metropolitan Thames Valley followed by Platform formerly known as Waterloo, which was the Council’s key partner in rural exception site schemes.  Given their presence in the Borough, the Council worked with those providers the most; however, it could work with any.  Importantly, any proposal put forward by a registered provider to deliver additional affordable homes was carefully considered.  Appropriate checks were undertaken before any Capital Grant Allocation was made, in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation and its policy and regulatory framework, including the Capital Budget and the Social and Affordable Homes Policy.  Registered providers of social housing in England were controlled by the Regulator of Social Housing and their functions were also set out in the 2008 Act.

Councillor J Walker asked the following supplementary questions to Councillor Brennan.

“How did the Council decide if they were a good match for our Borough and whether we take account of their records of dealing with communities, history of sustainability, and also when was it brought to Full Council to agree?”

Councillor Brennan responded to the first question by stating that providers were chosen by officers under a Scheme of Delegation, following a due diligence and value for money process.  There were only so many registered providers in the Borough, and the Council choose to work with those that it had a track record with.  In respect of the monitoring of their track records in the communities, Councillor Brennan advised that she would provide a written response to that question.

The Vice-chairman reminded Councillor Walker that for future reference, she was entitled to ask one supplementary question, as a follow up to her original question. 

Question from Councillor Thomas to Councillor Brennan. Councillor Thomas was unable to attend the meeting, so her question was read out by the Vice-chairman.

“Given that para 4.10 of the report details a number of options already available for spending the Affordable Housing Capital Budget to support the delivery of affordable housing, will the consultant’s report help the Council provide more affordable housing as soon as possible?” 

Councillor Brennan responded by stating that the Council had a strong track record in the delivery of affordable homes and the purpose of the consultant’s work would be to explore any additional tools or options that the Council might wish to explore to further expand the routes to the delivery of affordable homes.  This increase in funding offered the Council the opportunity for a more strategic response to local needs. 

Councillor Thomas asked a supplementary question to Councillor Brennan, which was read out by the Vice-chairman.

“When will the report come back to Council to agree a course of action that will result in more affordable housing?” 

Councillor Brennan responded by stating that if the consultant recommended that an additional option or options for the delivery of affordable homes should be pursued, that would be reported to Cabinet for consideration, with a report expected in the new year.