WAVERLEY Council has begun the difficult task of preparing a housing budget for 2006/07, after the tenants' ballot which left plans to transfer the stock to a housing association in tatters. The dire warnings of the consequences of a "no" vote, in terms of the council's inability to meet the government's Decent Homes standard, seem set to become a reality. Waverley will be unable to carry out its programme of kitchen upgrades, the window and door-replacement programme, estate improvements and work on fencing and boundary walls that had been guaranteed if tenants had opted for transfer to Weyfold Community Homes. Instead, there will be a very limited programme of bathroom replacement (spending £150,000 a year, against £1.3 million required). The council currently carries out no external redecoration and, with savings of £669,000 to make, is unlikely to have the revenue to do so in future. Yet windows will be replaced only when they deteriorate to the state of being unsafe. "As the council does not have the capital resources available to implement a major programme of works and improvements, there is likely to be increased need for unplanned day-to-day repairs," the executive was told in a report from officers on Tuesday. "We are starting to see the sort of sacrifices we are going to have to make to look after the tenants in this regime," said council leader Gillian Ferguson. Housing director David January warned that councillors could expect to have tenants banging on their doors, putting the case for their homes to have repairs and improvements. The report predicted that individuals and communities would have their quality of life affected by the reduction in services. Among cuts under consideration is the entire £100,000 community safety budget covering a list of works such as graffiti removal, security lighting, handrails on steps and minor works to parking areas. Based on the final subsidy determinations for 2006/07, received from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, tenants can expect an average rent increase of five per cent. "The rents are going to be the same whether we transfer our housing or not, but what tenants are going to get for their money is not the same at all," said the housing portfolio holder Ken Reed. Finance director Paul Wenham pointed out that as rents increased, the government took more and more housing subsidy from Waverley, transferring it to London boroughs and metropolitan authorities, mostly in the North. This year it is taking £6 million. Next year, around £8.7 million will be going into government coffers - money that would not have had to be transferred if Waverley's 5,100 council homes had been sold to Weyfold. "Looking at this, it makes you weep," said Chris Mansell. "I find it very hard to look at that figure and maintain my equanimity," agreed Celia Savage, referring to "tenants' money just vanishing like that". She said that although councillors had got used to the outcome of the ballot, "the sense of incredulity and sadness remains". Mrs Savage added that the 350 new affordable homes that Waverley would have been able to provide if the housing stock had been sold to Weyfold would not now go ahead. "I hope that those who put round a certain amount of misleading information during the campaign will reflect on that," she added. Latest estimates are that Waverley will have £27 million to spend over the next five years towards the Decent Homes standard, though it is estimated that £44 million worth of work needs to be done. Mr Wenham said that health and safety works, such as heating upgrades, rewiring and asbestos removal, should be the focus of the council's initial attention. Disabled adaptations and homeless hostels will be the next priority, with anything left being spent on Decent Homes. Attempts to increase the capital available could include "trickle transfer" - the sell-off by the council to another social landlord of homes that become vacant but require significant spending on them. Mr Wenham and Mr January have met with civil servants from the Community Housing Task Force and the Government Office of the South East and reported that "unfortunately there is no magic wand". "We are going to have to reappraise our options and let them know what our action plan is," said Mr January. He was asked about the possibility of making a bid for management of the housing stock by an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) - one of the previously discarded options. Mr January indicated the council did not have the half a million pound set-up costs involved or the time to make a bid with the deadline expected to be the end of March. One councillor suggested the government should pay the expenses of the ballot it had forced the council to hold. "This has cost £380,000 plus staff time and I think we should reclaim this from the government. We should send them the bill," said Byron Grainger-Jones.
