Affordable Housing - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Below is the text of a presentation given to an affordable housing seminar organised by the Essex Association of Local Councils on 29th. April 2004. The audience consisted of parish councillors and clerks and housing providers.
The presentation ends on a positive note, but further setbacks were encountered before the project got underway in September 2005. Perhaps, one day the sequel will be recorded for posterity, and be intitled "What else could possibly go wrong?"
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOCAL PEOPLE IN
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Karen Plumridge
(A Presentation given at the Parish Council Housing Seminar, Great Dunmow, 29/4/04)
For those of you unfamiliar with central Essex, I think I should give you a brief introduction to
The present electoral role stands at 884 and there are 434 dwellings, so we are averaging slightly more than two adults per household.
When I tell you that it was at the Parish Council Meeting in April 1995 that the need for affordable housing for local people was first identified, and that as yet not one brick has been laid, you are probably going to wonder what I can possibly tell you that could be of any use. I hope I can give you an idea of the pitfalls that you might encounter if you embark on an affordable housing scheme and warn you of the perils ahead. Forewarned is forearmed!
The Parish Council obtained and digested the literature on the subject, and invited Chris Moore, who was then with the Rural Housing Trust, to speak to its Meeting in September of that year. Following her advice a Housing Needs Survey was undertaken during the month of December. The survey forms were hand delivered by the councillors to every household in the parish. The form itself was provided by the Trust, contained a covering explanatory letter, asked questions about local housing need and specific questions about the needs of the household.
171 forms came back, which is about a 39% return. 56 of them included written comments:
· 17 were in favour of an affordable housing scheme for local people and identified groups which they thought would or should benefit, although the survey identified 24 families or individuals in need of accommodation.
· 9 drew attention to the lack of infrastructure, for example doctor, shops and public transport.
· 7 disliked the architecture of the council estate.
· 7 commented that the council estate did not sufficiently house local people.
· 4 said that the council estate is where criminals emanate &
· 2 that more housing would mean more crime and problems.
· 4 liked the village the size it was.
· 2 thought the school was too small for further housing development. (Actually the school has since lost a teacher due to the falling role).
· 3 didn’t believe that the housing would be for local people.
· 3 didn’t want green belt or agricultural land built on.
· 3 wanted existing housing stock used.
· 2 said the housing would increase traffic.
· 2 that property values would decrease.
· 1 that it would alter the ‘balance’ of the village and
· 1 that it would increase the need in the long term.
· 1 didn’t want a housing estate.
· 3 thought that the development should be small and
· 2 that it should be integrated through the village.
· 1 claimed that the Parish Council opposed planning applications for housing so it was the Parish Council’s fault that there was a need and
· 1 suspected councillors of having an interest and land to sell. (This became a recurring theme).
It was apparent that there was some misunderstanding of what a scheme of affordable housing for local people meant, and so the Parish Council asked me to explain it in the next parish newsletter which was delivered to every home.
As the survey had established that there was a local need the Council set up a working party to liaise with the Trust and the Housing and Planning Departments at Chelmsford Borough Council. Councillors also visited successful schemes in other villages.
So what problems did we encounter? The Trust took some time to find a plot of land that an owner was prepared to sell at a price that would make the scheme affordable, but they did find a brown field plot that was a farm yard with several dilapidated buildings some containing asbestos. The removal of the buildings would be at the cost of the Trust and had to be recovered in some way, so a scheme was drawn up which was for five houses for local need and three for open market sale. The Planning Department wanted six affordable houses if there were to be three open market houses, making nine. By May 1999 the scheme had expanded to involve the construction of four homes for private sale, two for shared ownership and five for rent, making eleven. Finally in May 2000 the scheme had changed yet again to consist of 5 houses for key workers, five for rent by local people and two for shared ownership by local people, total twelve.
You have probably guessed that local people had something to say about the choice of site, in particular those living nearest. The site was approached through an estate of private houses and then through a narrow track between two of those houses. The neighbours of the site had a lot to say about increased traffic, and other losses of amenity. Some were taken by surprise that some of the housing would be for rent, even though this had always been stipulated in the Trust’s literature. Also there were allegations of backhanders to or from councillors. I was accused of suppressing offers of land in other areas of the village, (I had passed them all to the Trust but only one was abutting the village envelope and the owner of that wasn’t prepared to sell at below development value). I was also accused of suppressing a letter of objection to the proposal (I later found out that although it was pushed through my door, it had been addressed to the Chairman by name so I had passed it on unopened). The point that they all agreed on was that the access track was too narrow, and they were not swayed by a letter of assurance from a Borough Highways engineer that the track was sufficient for a development of up to twelve houses. Latterly the inclusion of key worker housing caused further criticism and reinforced a view held by some that the scheme wouldn’t be for local people anyway.
Meanwhile, things were not proceeding too happily within the Parish Council. From the beginning one member had never accepted that houses should be built for people who wanted to continue to live locally, but there were six others who were in favour of the scheme in principle. One dual hatted member became very active in communicating with the various bodies involved, in his capacity as borough councillor. In retrospect it appears that he might not have adequately informed those bodies that he was not representing the parish council at those meetings. As the changes to the scheme happened, from the outside, it probably looked as though the parish council was fully supportive whereas in fact the councillors were becoming concerned that the scheme wasn’t quite what they had expected and some were withdrawing their support. Two had come to agree with the residents that the access was too narrow.
When the planning application was considered by the council on 1st. February 2001 there were six councillors present. One declared an interest and left the meeting. Support for the application was carried three to two. The absent councillor had made it clear that he would have voted against so had he been present the Chairman would have had to use his casting vote.
What was the outcome?
The landowner died. There followed many months of waiting for probate to be settled and then the heir was unable to come to terms with the Trust on the sale, so the scheme at that site collapsed. The residents of the estate next to the site were left with a deep-seated distrust of the Parish Council, of me and of the dual hatted member. Some of the Parish Councillors were left suspicious that I had been somehow underhand in the project, and I was pretty sure who I thought was at fault.
What could have been done to have prevented the development of so much distrust and antipathy? Could the debate have been restricted to the real issues rather than accusations of dishonesty and secrecy?
While the project was in hand I was bewildered by the variety and range of criticisms that came the Council’s way. Many of them showed that the complainants had not read or understood, or had just plain ignored the information that was made available to residents at public meetings and published in the village newsletter or in house-to-house leaflet drops.
This problem isn’t just restricted to the Housing project, and is a problem the Council is trying to deal with. It was illustrated recently by a member of the public admitting during a Public Question Time that the parish newsletter goes straight in the bin.
A clear description of the project and the council’s part in it needs to be given to residents from the start and then to continue to be accessible for those who didn’t read it, chucked it or misunderstood it first time round. Perhaps this could be easily done by councils with a website, but those of us relying on noticeboards already find it hard enough to fit in all the statutory paperwork.
As the scheme develops additional information such as how many homes are needed and how the site was identified needs to be treated in the same way so that statements such as ‘there is no local need’ and questions like ‘how did the council choose this site?’ will be pre-empted.
I think the final point to make before moving on to the next scheme, is that protesters expect the people who want local accommodation to turn up at public meetings and argue their case. A few brave souls are prepared to do that, but it shouldn’t be necessary, because the housing survey proves the need, and the need should not be open to debate. Parish Councillors should not expect the applicants to make themselves known in what can be a very intimidating atmosphere.
Anyway, that was last time. Are we getting it right this time?
We have now embarked on a scheme of affordable housing for local people in
How are we doing?
Obviously, someone does read the parish newsletter, because on the strength of the published need for affordable housing for local people a local landowner made contact through his agent with two housing associations. After some delay waiting to find out which would be able to take on the scheme, I received a letter last June from Colne Housing asking to come to a Parish Council Meeting with an officer from the Borough Council, and in the meantime I put a request in the parish newsletter for anyone with a local housing need to let me have their names as the previous list of names was no longer available. I put a similar request in the next edition but am still coming into contact with people who think that because they were on the previous list they are automatically on the new one.
Colne Housing, or rather Sandra Howard came along to the Parish Council Meeting held at the end of August, and she brought Nichola Plumb, Rural Housing Enabler, and Ann and Robert Jones of Essex Heritage Properties with her. Essex Heritage Properties would build the housing if it went ahead. A development of eight properties was being proposed with the potential to build a further four at a later date should the need arise.
It became clear that the previous housing survey was too old to be of any significance where an exception site was concerned, so there needed to be another one and fairly quickly because Colne Housing needed the results to accompany their bid for Government funding that Autumn. If they missed this window there wouldn’t be another chance to apply for funding for another twelve months.
Colne would engage Nichola to process the survey, and all the Parish Council had to do was get the questionnaires out to every house at top speed. Most of the forms were delivered by hand, but a few of the outlying houses received them by post with a stamped addressed envelope supplied to send them back to Mackmurdo House. The form was in two parts, the first asked general questions about the provision of housing and the second asked to be completed by those in housing need. Each form was accompanied by an envelope so that it could be sealed and would remain confidential until Nichola opened it. There was also an explanatory sheet saying that the purpose of the survey was to find out whether there was a still a requirement for affordable housing for local people, and that if a need was identified a small number of affordable homes could be provided by Colne Housing.
I was relieved that I would have nothing to do with the analysis of the survey, that it would be carried out by an independent person, and that everyone who completed the survey would know that. It didn’t quite have that effect, because one resident included a letter to me in the envelope, but I think on the whole it has kept me at a distance from the survey.
As the Village Fete was taking place on 13th. September, a small exhibition was displayed in the Village Hall for that afternoon which gave those attending the opportunity to take an extra copy of the second part of the form, and to take an application form for the Chelmsford Borough Housing Register. It was thought that family members who had moved away might come back to the village for the fete, so it would be a good opportunity to reach them. Again some people managed to miss the exhibition, as I found out later.
This time 80 survey forms came back, which was less than half of the number returned in the previous survey. I think this was due to having to undertake the survey at such speed. Possibly, a better response would have been achieved had we been able to publicise it before hand in the parish newsletter (even if some people do throw it away without reading it). Anyway, although there were fewer returns a greater need was identified, as it amounted to 29. I have since received more registrations of interest, so we are now up to the mid thirties.
The Parish Council agreed that they would support the scheme as the need had been demonstrated.
There then began the long wait for the decision about Government funding.
Nichola presented the figures to the Council informally at its meeting at the end of October, and provided them as a report in January. The figures were included in the Minutes of the Meeting held at the end of January, but because the Minutes are not posted on the noticeboards until they have been signed, they hadn’t been seen by the members of the public who came along to the following meeting when Sandra Howard came along to present the updated plans.
Here’s a lesson to you. Put the results of the survey up in public as soon as you have them, it might prevent a great deal of time being wasted during your public question time on listening to statements from members of the public who do not know anyone who needs a house in the village, so there can’t be anyone. You will probably still have to hear statements about buying their house because of the view, how undesirable council tenants are, and why aren’t the applicants here to argue their case? but you aren’t going to get away with a completely quiet life. It might even strike you as ironic that the most vociferous objectors to a proposed development are living in some of the most recently built houses.
Sandra didn’t say much at the meeting, but she did explain that the changes to the plans were due to requirements of the Borough Planners. Also it had been decided that the local need was so great that all twelve houses would be built at once rather than eight at first followed by four later.
We were still awaiting news of the Government funding.
By the end of March I was able to announce to the Parish Council that the Housing Corporation had published its total grant allocation, but had not specified where the money was going.
And last week I informed the Council that the grant was allocated to the
If all goes to schedule construction might begin in August and people move in next May.
