The Portfolio Holder for Housing & Community Safety presented a report on the recent successes and challenges ahead within her portfolio. She was proud of the DIYSO shared-ownership housing scheme which was moving to the second round and had become a model for some London Boroughs. The HERO scheme was helping to reduce the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. However the most significant challenge was probably the change in national affordable housing policy, which limited the Council’s scope to require financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing and would cost the Council £2.5million. In community safety, the Council had success with the Police and Crime Commissioner in providing cameras to help identify those who entered the District to commit crime, and the Council was also responding to new anti-social behaviour powers and duties over safeguarding and modern slavery.

The Portfolio Holder had recently joined the celebrations for the fifth anniversary of the Licensing Partnership. The Partnership had already provided savings and she hoped it would expand to provide even more. The shared Environmental Health Service was now in its third year and she was also looking to share other services including the CCTV control room and HERO.

A Member asked about progress on the Shop Safe, Stay Safe scheme. The Portfolio Holder advised that the Community Safety Manager would be meeting with Dartford Borough Council. It was hoped that Shop Safe, Stay Safe would form part of the policy to become dementia friendly and the Council was looking for a Swanley dementia hub.

The Committee asked the Portfolio Holder about the implications to the change in national policy for affordable housing. The Portfolio Holder responded that the Council was unable to assist housing  many residents in the medium annual income range between £30,000 to £60,000 as house prices were 17 times the national average wage. The DIYSO scheme would help people in that bracket during phase 1 and 2 but funding would not continue from Section 106 monies after that. The Council would have to consider financial alternatives such as bidding for capital from the Homes and Communities Agency. The Council was in discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government about whether the exemption for Rural Exception Sites could be expanded. Other initiatives would be considered such as the Starter Home Scheme and empty homes initiatives. She added that the Council had only 700 on its Housing Register, whereas many authorities had over 2,000 and so the Council was able to assist many of those in the worst circumstances.

The Chairman asked what the Council was doing to address the empty homes in the District. The Portfolio Holder responded that the target to get properties returned to use (currently 18 per year) had been met each year, which also contributed to the Government’s New Homes Bonus for the Council. There were approximately 350 empty residential properties in the District.

Members asked how much of the current income from affordable housing contributions came from developments which would now be exempt. The Portfolio Holder advised that it would affect the vast majority of sums collected as the majority of developments in the District were for three or fewer dwellings and many contributions had been received from small in-fill developments. It was likely that future developments in the District would be tailored to fall just below the relevant thresholds at which contributions would be paid. There would be some windfall sites, though in such cases contributions would usually be provided on-site rather than financially.