Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P Carpenter, Freeman, Galer & Wainwright.

Councillors Grant & Martin declared a personal interest in item number 6, but in accordance with the Council's Constitution, were allowed to speak and vote on the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 October were confirmed.

There were no matters arising from the above minutes which were not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Head of Customer Services.

The Head of Customer Services reported that the Great Yarmouth Borough Council Scheme for 2024 was introduced following a consultation with the public. The scheme was decided by Council on 14 December 2023. For the 2024/25 Scheme, the Council Tax Support was reduced from a maximum award of 91.5% of the Council Tax Liability to 80% of the Council Tax Liability in relation to working age customers. Customers of pension age were unaffected by this change. The 24/25 Scheme was introduced together with a commitment to provide a Council Tax Hardship Scheme which, by agreement, would be funded by Norfolk County Council. The Hardship Fund would be for the sum of £200,000.

The Head of Service reported that from 1st April 2024, the 2024/25 Council Tax Support Scheme was introduced, and the Council Tax Support Hardship Fund released. The Council Tax Hardship Fund has been publicised with the annual council tax bills, recovery notices and via our website and eligible customers can requested assistance without the need to complete an application form. This fund will continue to be administered through this financial year via customer contact, referrals and pro-active take-up initiatives.

The Head of Service reported that there is a legal requirement to conduct a further consultation where the Council is considering changing the Council Tax Support Scheme for future years. Even where only minor changes or no changes are made, it is considered best practice to consult on the following year’s scheme each year. For 2025/26, it is not proposed to make any significant changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme. By agreement with Norfolk County Council, funding for the provision of a Council Tax Support Hardship Fund will continue to be provided for a period of 3 years based on the current arrangements.

The Head of Service reported that due to households receiving multiple, recalculated Council Tax bills throughout the year detailing revised instalment plans the impact on our residents means it makes financial budgeting for payment of Council Tax for low-income households difficult. It is then more likely they could fall into arrears. From the Council’s perspective, multiple changes have a significant negative impact on administration and billing and each change will need to be administered by Council officers for a new bill to be produced. There are additional costs of printing and postage for the revised Council Tax bills to be sent to households. This is approximately £1 per bill issued.

The Head of Service reported that from 2024, we will see the next tranche of the DWP ‘managed migration’ program which will convert a further 584 of working age customers onto UC. Also, from 2024/25 the Council will see a staggered reduction in the Benefit Administration Subsidy of 28% over the next three years, which means that we must find efficiencies and more automated ways of working to reduce costs. It is recognised nationally that the problem with monthly UC changes means adaptation to the way Council Tax Support is administered is required to meet the changing needs of residents and support them to be able to pay their Council Tax charge.

The Head of Service reported that utilising newly available software we would be able to absorb the ongoing fluctuations in monthly income received from UC that makes it easier for low-income households to be able to budget for payment of Council Tax. The software allows the setting of thresholds, that will prevent smaller changes in income triggering a recalculation of Council Tax Support and a Council Tax bill being produced. The threshold of the income change can be set by us and would be profiled to find the optimum amount before an agreed threshold was set. It means that Universal Credit Awards can be largely automated and prevent the production of unnecessary bills and benefit notifications.

The Head of Service reported that this will provide greater stability for our residents as will provide a regular amount that they are expected to pay for Council Tax, which is not subject to constant change. It will also largely reduce the need to produce revised Council Tax bills. Consequently, lower income households can budget with greater confidence, and avoid falling behind with payments due, which can result in recovery action and potential costs being added to the charge. It will also remove much of the need for manual intervention that is part of the current work round solution we have at present.

The Head of Customer Services reported that in conclusion, by making this change it would be more cost effective and sustainable to administer, to absorb the increasing number of monthly changes in UC awards. Reduced financial costs for printing and postage, eliminating the need to issue frequently revised Council Tax Support award notification letters and multiple revised Council Tax bills throughout the year would also be realised. It will also help to increase direct debit take up, reduce customer contact and help to protect the collection rates of Council Tax. This would be a minor change to the Council Tax Support Scheme but would have greater benefits for our residents and enable us to streamline the administration of the scheme.

The Chair asked how the "hard to reach residents" would be identified and contacted to make them aware of the hardship fund. The Head of Customer Services reported that communications had been sent to all households and the Council worked closely with several partnership organisations to try and get the hardship fund message out.

Councillor Jeal asked for clarification as to what age was the working age referred to in the report. The Head of Customer Services reported that this was not a simple question to answer as it generally referred to pensionable age but this could differ depending on the ages of those in the household. For example, a householder aged 68 whose partner was 58 years old and still working, the amount of council tax support would take into consideration the younger female householder's income and the amount of support based on this amount.

Councillor Jeal asked if an update report could come back to the Scrutiny Committee in 12 months time. The Head of Customer Services reported that the scheme needed a Council decision each year so this would enable Councillors to review it even though there is a three year agreement in place with NCC to provide a hardship fund if the scheme continues as it currently is.

Councillor Jeal asked how many customers who were in receipt of Universal Credit had fallen into arrears since the introduction of the new system. The Head of Customer Services reported that out of 5859 working age households, 1318 households were in arrears as at October 2024. This compares to 1066 households of working age that were in arrears as at the end of March 2024 from the prior council tax year.

Councillor Capewell asked for the data as to how many households were taken to court this year and the last financial year. The Head of Customer Services reported that we are only part way through this year, however, 529 households are on summons or liability order stage. This position is likely to reduce through the remaining months of this year.  

Councillor Capewell asked if comparison data was available for October 2023 to October 2024. The Head of Customer Services reported that there was not a comparison from October 2023, however, at the end of March 2024, out of the 1066 in arrears at that point, 496 cases were on attachment of benefits or earnings, 313 were with Enforcement Agents and 257 were at Summons or Liability Order Stage.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether, if there was an underspend of the £200k hardship fund, the underspend would need to be returned to NCC. The Head of Customer Services confirmed that this would be the case, however, she assured members that the hardship fund would be fully utilised each year.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked how much it cost to administer the hardship fund scheme and whether the Council had to fund any of the costs. The Head of Customer Services reported that revenue support grant funding was available to support LA's to administer the Council Tax Support scheme but not a quantifiable amount. This was in addition to council tax support administration funding.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked if there was data available for the last 12 months to quantify the administrative costs.

Councillor Newcombe asked if changing tax credits affected the number of council tax bills which needed to be generated and that she supported the proposed changes to the system to save on admin costs.

Councillor Jeal asked for clarification as to how much the reduction from 91.5% to 80% affected the charges on a band A property. The Head of Customer Services reported that a band A property at £1,449.94 per annum, the reduction would generate a bill of £289.98 resulting in a charge of £5.57 a week now up from £3.50.

The Chair thanked the Head of Customer Services and her team for all of their hard work and asked that the Committee be given an update report in regard to the administrative costs of running the hardship fund for 12 months in May/June 2025.

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee commented on the options outlined within the report for the 2025/26 Local Council Tax Scheme and noted the report. The Committee to receive an update report in May/June 2025 detailing data to quantify the administrative costs of operating the Local Council Tax Scheme for a full year 2024-2025.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Head of Strategic Housing & Enabling and Strategy Manager. 

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that a Local Housing Authority’s ‘strategic housing’ role is made up of the strategic decisions and activities associated with effective planning and delivery to meet the housing needs of all residents across all tenures of homes. Whilst Local Housing Authorities in England do not need to produce a Housing Strategy to comply with legislation, it remains good practice for a Local Housing Authority to prepare a Housing Strategy. Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s draft Housing Strategy is currently subject to public consultation with a view to a final version being approved by Cabinet.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the Council's strategic housing function includes enabling and development of homes in the borough, including housing regeneration.

The Housing Act 1985 states:-

“Every local housing authority shall consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation.”

This statutory requirement forms an important element of a Local Housing Authority’s Housing Strategy, identifying and meeting housing need and is the fundamental rationale for the Housing Authority’s enabling and direct delivery roles.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the Council’s Local Plan sets out the overall housing need for the Borough for both private and affordable housing. This figure is based on household projections and the housing needs assessment methodology set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Local Housing Needs Assessment 2022 identifies an overall affordable housing need (households unable to meet their housing needs through the open market) of 2,547 dwellings over the 20-year period 2021-41 (127 per annum). The Local Plan also sets out the indicative need by property size of market housing and affordable housing. However, applications are considered in terms of housing mix on a site basis.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that housing needs surveys can be undertaken at borough and at parish / local community level. The former are usually undertaken by the Local Housing Authority to determine more qualitative cross-tenure housing needs information. Whereas the latter are usually undertaken to evidence the local need for affordable (social) housing for people who are unable to meet their needs through the market to be provided outside of the development limit on an “exception site”.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that local housing needs assessments are also carried out by communities creating their neighbourhood plans which, once adopted, are a material consideration in planning decisions. The Council’s housing register is used to determine housing need for households who are unable to meet their housing needs through the market: the number of applications by dwelling size and type is analysed against existing provision of social housing and turnover. The need for specialist and supported accommodation for specific cohorts of individuals: older persons, persons mental health, persons at risk of rough sleeping, vulnerable young people, people with learning disabilities, people with physical disabilities, travellers etc. is evidenced using specialist housing needs assessments (for example, the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment) and specific research. This can involve the borough working with Norfolk County Council to provide this broader housing needs information.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that social housing is defined as housing to rent below the market rent or a form of Affordable Home Ownership, which is made available to people whose needs are not able to meet their housing need through the open market. Whereas affordable housing is a generic term for housing which is at below market costs. Rented housing is required to comply with the Rent Standard. The majority of social housing for rent is charged at Social Rents. Social Rents are set using a government formula which is calculated in a way that takes account of the relative value of the property, the size of the property and relative local income levels. Affordable Rent, this being up to 80% of the gross open market rent, was first introduced in 2011-2015 Affordable Homes Programme. Affordable Rents are usually higher than Social Rents, allowing for increased levels of borrowing to fund development.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the most common form of Affordable Home Ownership is Shared Ownership, this is when someone buys a percentage of a property and pays rent on the remainder. Shared Ownership allows for someone to “staircase” up, in the usual way this is to 100% of the property’s value, but it may be restricted to 80% in certain rural areas. Older Persons Shared Ownership (OPSO) is a specific form of shared owner for people aged 55 years or over. However, people can only buy up to 75% of a home and once this threshold is met, there is no rent payable on the remaining share. he other main form of Affordable Home Ownership is Discount for Sale, this is where a property is sold at a discounted percentage of the market value and any subsequent resale must be at the same permanent percentage discount. First Homes are a specific kind of discounted market sale housing.

The Head of Strategic housing reported that the Council seeks to deliver social housing through enabling, that is, facilitating the delivery of additional affordable housing by housing associations and other housing providers, and direct development activity which increases the level of social housing stock held by the Council. 

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that a key element of enabling activity relates to delivery of social housing as a developer contribution. Sites over ten dwellings are required to provide between 10% and 20% affordable housing. This is then split between Affordable Home Ownership (10%) and Affordable or Social Rent (90%). The tenure split can be negotiated dependant on viability of the scheme. In addition, developers are able to submit viability appraisals which could result in an altered or reduced contribution. It should be noted that the draft Local Plan increases this contribution to 25% and introduces First Homes into the affordable housing tenure mix. The resulting social housing contribution is then sold to an affordable housing provider at an amount which negates the use of subsidy.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the enabling role is to firstly establish a dwelling mix which reflects the social housing needs of the local area, which forms the basis of negotiations and, secondly, ensure that there are housing associations and providers who are able to acquire the housing. The other main form of enabling is working with housing associations and other affordable housing providers to develop social housing or mixed tenure schemes. This form of enabling housing not only involves establishing housing need, but working with Homes England, and other funders, to support grant applications. Enabling activity can include the Borough Council working with housing associations to deliver rural exception sites, housing regeneration activity and specialist housing which has been commissioned by Norfolk County Council to meet specific needs.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that Section 106 agreements set out the affordable housing tenure and mix and also refer to nomination rights. In certain circumstances, for example, in the case of rural exception sites, the Section 106 will include local lettings policies. All affordable housing is required to be affordable in perpetuity, with the exception of Shared Ownership where the person is able to staircase up to 100% (although if Social Housing Grant is attached to a property where the owner has staircased to 100% the housing provider will usually be required to recycled the grant in new social housing).

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that there are currently over 170 affordable homes being built on open market and housing association developments, with a healthy pipeline of affordable housing, including exception sites, which is not something that has been seen in the borough of Great Yarmouth for a number of years. In addition, the proposed redevelopment of The Conge seeks to provide a mixed tenure site.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that Members will be aware that the borough has three existing Community Land Trusts (CLTs) operated by groups of volunteers whose remit is to deliver housing for local people by local people. The CLTs are seeking to provide housing either on below open market rents or at a discounted market sale, all to be kept affordable in perpetuity.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the Council is a Homes England Investment Partner and therefore is able to bid for Social Housing Grant. It also utilises other forms of grant funding, which includes retained Right to Buy receipts (often called 141 Right to Buy receipts) and capital grant provided via Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the Council’s current direct development programme comprises acquisition of open market housing, remodelling of existing buildings and new build on Council owned land. All delivery is based on evidenced housing need and often seeks to provide social housing which is difficult to receive through developer contributions, for example, a fully adapted wheelchair dwelling or a dwelling with a larger number of bedrooms. In addition, the Council’s development programme reflects the need to prevent homelessness and to provide cost-effective temporary accommodation.

The Head of Strategic Housing reported that the use of Retained Right to Buy Receipts Policy sets out how a potential acquisition will be assessed prior to purchase, including evidenced need, property layout and room sizes. The Housing Strategy team maintains a list of all Council owned land, including infill sites, which are suitable for the delivery of social housing, alongside scrutinising extant permissions and live planning applications for development (and also enabling) opportunities. Subject to funding, the Council’s current social housing delivery programme over the next five years is anticipated to comprise over 180 general needs and specialist dwellings.

The Head of  Strategic Housing concluded that assessing housing need and delivering social housing to meet need is a fundamental role of the Borough Council as the Local Housing Authority.

The Chair informed the Committee of two recent planning applications in Martham to provide affordable homes to residents with local connections which was very exciting and much needed in the northern parishes. The Head of Service reported that the Council could apply for Homes England funding to build on a rural exception site if there was a local policy demonstrating a proven local need.

Councillor Grant highlighted the need for affordable homes providers to work in partnership with CLT's to address the huge, urgent local housing need for local people in rural areas which will in turn take the pressure off the need for homes in the urban areas of the borough. Planning must be asked to stop putting brick walls up in terms of s106 obligations for rural exemption sites. Councillor Grant proposed that common sense should trump the plans outlined in the Local Plan which outlines a much higher need than the Council envisioned. The Head of Service reported that she would be willing to work with the CLT's to develop a housing strategy for our rural communities which would result in mixed sustainable communities.

The Chair reported that Housing Associations had been underfunded for years and many local residents had been priced out of their local communities. A plan for good quality rented accommodation was urgently required to meet the needs of the borough.

Councillor Jeal reported that the demise of social housing could be pinpointed on the introduction of the right to buy initiative.

The Head of Service reported that modular builds, such as those at the Beach Coach Station, had been successful in providing housing units for single people but the build costs were very high. Infill sites were also being looked at and a project at The Conge would provide much needed urban mixed tenure housing.

The Chair thanked the Head of Service and her team for all their continued hard work.

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee note the contents of the report, including the different forms of social housing, and commented on the Council’s enabling activity and direct delivery programme. The Committee to see sight of the quarterly data report which is presented to Cabinet for information.

The Committee received a high level presentation from the Head of Housing Assets and the Housing Assets Manager in regard to Wave 1, Wave 2.1 and Wave 2.2.

A copy of the presentation slides was included in the agenda pack for information and reference purposes.

The Chair reported that officers were facing a tight timetable until 2030. The head of service reported that Wave 3 was a longer programme and officers had already been out and checked 250 -300 properties and without this grant funding the Council would struggle to meet the 2030 deadline which required match funding of £18m.

Councillor Grant congratulated officers and highlighted the vast improvements to properties in Ormesby, Hemsby & Martham which included infill properties. Councillor Grant was pleased to see the possibility of communal heating units which was an exciting, bold approach. The Housing Assets Manager explained that the installation of a communal boiler was being scoped up to provide heating for a block of flats and a communal ground source heat pump was being explored for a sheltered housing scheme

Councillor Grant informed the Committee of a national schemes, HBOS 4, which was available to chalet owners to replace their roofs with better insulated ones via energy efficiency grants which were not means tested and available to those living in rural areas, in properties rated Council Tax A to D and EPC C and above. Would the Council consider giving permission to its tenants to apply for these type of grants and to get the works undertaken at no cost to the Council.

The Head of Service reported that there were several funding programmes but these were bound by restrictions, for example, Eco Funding which had to be delivered directly and funding provided by Eon was hard to coordinate. In regard to retrofits, the Council could not pick and choose the funding schemes and was bound by the terms of the grant.

Councillor Grant asked whether the Council could sell off all of its flat roofs to a provider who would then pay the Council per kw generated and this money could be ringfenced to assist our poorest residents with their winter fuel bills. The Head of Service agreed that this was something the Council could look into. We already had a solar PV scheme which benefitted our tenants only, however, the Council did collect the feed-in tariff which supported the HRA.

Councillor Grant asked how much revenue the feed-in tariffs generated and where this money was spent. The Head of Service reported that she would go away and find the data and report back to the Committee.

The Chair thanked the Head of Service and her team for all their hard work and acknowledged that they were working hard to secure all the possible resources available to the Council to improve the warmth of its housing stock.

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee note the report and note that Officers are working hard to secure funding resources for the projects.

The Committee received and considered the updated Work Programme for 2024/2025.

The Committee noted that the representative from Anglian Water did not work on a Tuesday so it was agreed that the date of the Scrutiny Committee be changed to Monday,, 9 December 2024 to accommodate them.