Town Council deeply divided over rents policy for homes it owns

Town Councillors have voted by 7-6 to continue their property committee’s plans to bring rents on properties owned on behalf of the town’s residents closer to market levels.

The plans had been ‘called in’ for debate at full council by Councillor Loosmore following a rent review of all the council’s residential properties – two houses and four flats.

Press and public are usually excluded from meetings of full council and its committees for so-called ‘Part Two’ agenda items.  These exclusions (common in most public bodies) are generally justified by either commercial sensitivities or because wider knowledge of an issue is ‘not in the public interest’.

At Monday’s (July 27) full council meeting, Councillor Richard Allen challenged the exclusion on Councillor Loosmore’s ‘call in’ debate – arguing that all the rents were in the public domain (in the Council’s budget papers.)  Councillors voted to allow public and press to hear their debate.

 

 

<iframe width=”784″ height=”441″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/3-vjT6CiUkc” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

The main problem concerns the two council-owned houses near the recreation ground.  These three-bedroom houses with gardens are let at a monthly rent little above that for the council’s two-bedroom flats.  

After an audit by the local estate agents Carter Jonas, it was found that these houses were being let at about two-thirds of their market value.  A town council working party is to decide what the percentage rise should be to get the rents closer to their market value.

Councillor Loosmore thought that in agreeing a rent rise for these two homes of 50 per cent, councillors were making a decision without further information about the leases and legislative changes.

Councillor Barrett-Morton (who chairs the property committee) stood by the decision to raise the rents – with 12 months notice: “We are not a charitable housing trust.”

Councillor Dow found ‘great difficulty’ in imposing such a steep increase.  She thought the Council should raise the rents slowly over three to four years: “It’s not the tenants’ fault. We are not out to get money – we should be fair.”

And Councillor Mervyn Hall agreed with her: “There is a moral issue – we have failed to get our rents right…a 50 per cent rise will cause unnecessary hardship.  I call on the rest of you not to so that.”

Councillor Allen: “We have demonstrated how abysmal we are at managing property.”  The Carter Jonas review showed that the Council was losing about £7,200 a year by charging rents below market value: “Where is our duty to rate payers?”

And he emphasised that the tenants will have the right to appeal if the rises are considered to be too steep: “We must realise they have had several years of underpaying due to our gross oversight.”

Councillor Allen was supported by Councillor Stewart Dobson: “Our duty is to the residents of Marlborough.  We have a duty to get the best value for them.”  

It was agreed by a one vote majority that the property committee’s policy should stand.  The working party (made up of councillors from the property committee, the Town Clerk and the Grounds and Estates Manager) will recommend the same percentage rent increase for all six properties.

The percentage will have more impact on the properties with higher rents which will get 12 months notice of the increase.  A very tricky job for the working party.