Statement in States Housing Property Plan regarding public sector social housing stock

1240/5(3179)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY, 30th JANUARY 2007

Question 1

1. W  hatevidence does the Minister haveto support the statementon page 5 of the Social Housing Property Plan 2007-2016 (P.6/2007) that "the present public sector social housing stock is larger than necessary"? Does the Minister havecomparison data onthe proportion of social housing stock in the handsoflocal authority and housing trusts against owneroccupier and private rental stock in the UnitedKingdomand Jersey and, if so, would he make the comparisons available tomembers?
2. W  hat criteria did the Minister use to decidewhichhomes were tobe selected forsaleand, in particular, was  the  age  of tenants  or  duration  of tenancy taken into  consideration? Will the  Minister give  an assurance that tenants of60 and 70 years ofage will notbe evicted from their family homes?
3. W  ould the Minister informmembers whether heis satisfied that the notification to tenants of the possible sale ofthe properties they occupywas handled with adequate sensitivity?

Answer

1. I s hould preface my replies by saying that, in my statement to the Assembly at our last sitting, I made it clear that I would behappy to discuss the Property Plan in detail with the relevant Scrutiny Panel. It seemstome that a Scrutiny Panelreviewof the Plan would be a more appropriate and effective forum for this sort ofdiscussion, than a constant stream of questions intheAssemblyr.However –

The statement quoted by Deputy Southern is expanded in Sections 1.12 and 1.13 of the report (pages 18- 20). These sections contain the explanation he seeks. When a large proportion of social housing tenants have no need to claim rental subsidy; when these wealthier tenants far outnumber people on the Housing Waiting List; when people with incomes much higher than the average can access social housing and claim subsidy; and when it becomes necessary to take a very liberal view of income bars in order to find a tenant for brand new property – then, I believe there are good grounds for reasoning that the number of social housing units of accommodation exceeds the number of households in genuine social housing need.

Social housing  figures from  the UK would  contribute  nothing to the  argument:  There  is no  single correct' level of social housing which could be applied to all communities, and no suggestion that the UK is a model of best practice which Jersey is obliged to imitate. Also, after 25 years of Right to Buy' in the  UK,  and  the  introduction of key  worker' schemes  of  affordable  housing,  a  direct  like-for-like comparison of Jersey and UK social housing is simply not possible. What is clear, however, is that the Island rate of owner-occupation is low – which is a principal reason why the States last year requested the Housing Department to bring forward proposals to use social housing stock to progress a shared equity scheme, in order to encourage an increase in levels of home ownership in the Island.

2. T h e process of selecting individual properties for sale cannot be completed until tenants have been consulted on the proposalsin the report. The outline proposalshave been madeon the basis that the properties concerned are not essential in termsofpredictablefuturesocialhousingneed,and would find a ready marketamongourTenantsaspiringtobecomefirst-timebuyers.

There is no question of anyone being summarily evicted. For the avoidance of doubt, no tenant of 60 or 70 will be required to leave their home simply because they cannot afford to buy it.  The Plan, as its title suggests, is designed to be implemented over a ten-year period, and all tenants affected by it will have alternatives explained to them. Having said that, Members should be aware that, in the interests of ensuring effective use of resources, the Housing Department, here as elsewhere, has always transferred under-occupying tenants to a smaller property. My Department always seeks to act with compassion. Tenants therefore have nothing to fear but everything to gain from our proposals.

3. M y Departmentwasconsciousof the need to inform States Members,ourtenants, and our staff, ofour proposals, all at the same time.Given the difficulty ofco-ordinating a simultaneousannouncementto such a large group of people, I am satisfied that it was handled with due sensitivity. Immediately following the announcement, a number of well-attended presentations have been made to tenants' representatives, and more are planned. TheseResidentsGroups represented tenants from LeSquez, Clos Gosset, GrandsVaux, Clos de Roncier, Jardin du Soleil, Le Marais, La Collette, The Cedars, Convent Court, Caesarea Court, de Quetteveille Court. In addition presentations were made to Area Panels representing, LeGeyt, Pre de Talbot, LesCinqChenes, Grasett Park,JaneSandemanCourt,Westley Court, Grouville Arsenal,St Andrews Court, Jardins des Carreaux, Clos StAndre,WestmountPark,Le Verger and HalcyonHouse.

I should tell the Assembly that a number of tenants have contacted me to express their appreciation for the way the announcement was handled, and the way their subsequent questions have been answered by Department officers.

Question 2

Following his written answers at the last meeting concerning the impact of "buy to let" sales on the property market in Jersey what steps, if any, will the Minister take to curb the growth in such sales in Jersey?

Answer

I believe my written answer of 16th January made it clear that buy to let' is relatively unusual in Jersey, and I have seen no evidence to date that it puts any upward pressure on prices. I would reiterate that such properties can in any case only be occupied by residentially qualified people. I can therefore see no reason to consider restricting the ability of people to buy share transfer property in the Island.

The relevant written question and answer 16th January 2007 was as follows -

"(c) Would the Minister inform members whether the purchase of property by non-residents on a "buy to

let" basis further restricts the supply of properties for purchase by locals and whether such purchases put additional upward pressure on prices?

Answer

(c ) I t must be remembered that only developments that are in multiple units and are sold by way of share

transfer rather than by flying freehold are capable of being purchased by non locally qualified persons. Save for a few historical exceptions individual houses are not allowed to be sold in this manner. It follows that within the context of the overall controlled housing market the number available to non qualified persons is relatively small, and I have no evidence that locals are being restricted in their choice of new homes, or that such purchases are putting any additional upward pressure on prices in that section of the market. I would remind members that all such units can only be occupied by persons with residential qualifications."