Decision details

Key Worker Policy Review

Find out more about this issue

Decision Maker: Community Wellbeing and Housing Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Decision:

The Committee resolved to approve the revised Key Worker Policy.

Report author: Marta Imig

Publication date: 30/03/2022

Date of decision: 29/03/2022

Decided at meeting: 29/03/2022 - Community Wellbeing and Housing Committee

Effective from: 05/04/2022

This decision has been called in by:

Councillor Olivia Rybinski who writes We wish to call in the decisions of the Community Wellbeing committee of the Tenancy Strategy (11) and the Key Worker Policy Review (13), specifically regarding the policy and the wording ‘Affordable rents across the borough to be at a maximum of 80% of a market rent, or LHA rate, whichever is the lowest.’ This is a significant specific change in council policy which has not been proposed or directed to the officers by the housing committee and appears to have been slipped in. I believe this needs to be called into Full Council because:- 1. It was held in Part 2 and shouldn’t have been, the public should have heard this debate. For some unexplained reason the Chair choose to bring forwards the last item which resulted in the meeting going into part 2. But failed for some reason to bring the meeting back into part 1. 2 In my questioning used the example that Thameside House penthouse apartments should not be “given” away at the LHA but if affordable at 80% of locally assessed market rent. Furthermore I was told that this would not happen as it would be a mixed scheme . Which apparently is not the case. 3. This is a major policy change and should have been Cllr led, instead it appears that has been slipped in to a policy document by officers 4. This will have major implications on the income of our prime location of our future council schemes, where we are already concerned about the cost of our assets. 5. KGE have not been questioned and we have not heard from them in regards to whether we can afford to do this (as we did when we questioned the 70%) 6. This policy is at odds with the expressed wishes of the policy and resources committee that our council developments will be 80% market rent. 7. There has not been provided financial implications of this policy decision – implications on the council, private developers of interfering in the market. "
Councillor Helen Harvey who writes We wish to call in the decisions of the Community Wellbeing committee of the Tenancy Strategy (11) and the Key Worker Policy Review (13), specifically regarding the policy and the wording ‘Affordable rents across the borough to be at a maximum of 80% of a market rent, or LHA rate, whichever is the lowest.’ This is a significant specific change in council policy which has not been proposed or directed to the officers by the housing committee and appears to have been slipped in. I believe this needs to be called into Full Council because:- 1. It was held in Part 2 and shouldn’t have been, the public should have heard this debate. For some unexplained reason the Chair choose to bring forwards the last item which resulted in the meeting going into part 2. But failed for some reason to bring the meeting back into part 1. 2 In my questioning used the example that Thameside House penthouse apartments should not be “given” away at the LHA but if affordable at 80% of locally assessed market rent. Furthermore I was told that this would not happen as it would be a mixed scheme . Which apparently is not the case. 3. This is a major policy change and should have been Cllr led, instead it appears that has been slipped in to a policy document by officers 4. This will have major implications on the income of our prime location of our future council schemes, where we are already concerned about the cost of our assets. 5. KGE have not been questioned and we have not heard from them in regards to whether we can afford to do this (as we did when we questioned the 70%) 6. This policy is at odds with the expressed wishes of the policy and resources committee that our council developments will be 80% market rent. 7. There has not been provided financial implications of this policy decision – implications on the council, private developers of interfering in the market. "
Colin Barnard who writes We wish to call in the decisions of the Community Wellbeing committee of the Tenancy Strategy (11) and the Key Worker Policy Review (13), specifically regarding the policy and the wording ‘Affordable rents across the borough to be at a maximum of 80% of a market rent, or LHA rate, whichever is the lowest.’ This is a significant specific change in council policy which has not been proposed or directed to the officers by the housing committee and appears to have been slipped in. I believe this needs to be called into Full Council because:- 1. It was held in Part 2 and shouldn’t have been, the public should have heard this debate. For some unexplained reason the Chair choose to bring forwards the last item which resulted in the meeting going into part 2. But failed for some reason to bring the meeting back into part 1. 2 In my questioning used the example that Thameside House penthouse apartments should not be “given” away at the LHA but if affordable at 80% of locally assessed market rent. Furthermore I was told that this would not happen as it would be a mixed scheme . Which apparently is not the case. 3. This is a major policy change and should have been Cllr led, instead it appears that has been slipped in to a policy document by officers 4. This will have major implications on the income of our prime location of our future council schemes, where we are already concerned about the cost of our assets. 5. KGE have not been questioned and we have not heard from them in regards to whether we can afford to do this (as we did when we questioned the 70%) 6. This policy is at odds with the expressed wishes of the policy and resources committee that our council developments will be 80% market rent. 7. There has not been provided financial implications of this policy decision – implications on the council, private developers of interfering in the market. "

Accompanying Documents: