Agenda item

To consider the following housing related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 11 November 2020:

•   Housing Allocations Policy

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Bob Lawton, Portfolio Holder for Homes

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Housing Allocations Policy - The Portfolio Holder for Homes introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘C’ to the Cabinet minutes of 11 November in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Board member commented that merging three policies would always be a challenge. However, they raised concerns regarding the loose and vague wording used in several instances throughout the document. The Portfolio Holder advised that each case would be decided upon by its merits and that he didn’t want a document which would constrain officers too much, however he took on board the comments from the Councillor. An officer advised that this policy also applied to social landlords and the Council had no legal control as to whether they may undertake particular proceedings and therefore this was the reason for some of the wording.

·     A Councillor commented that he was pleased to see hospital discharges included in e emergency band for accommodation. The Councillor also asked how the legacy policies came together in terms of tenancy lengths and successions. It was noted that everybody was being reassessed but the plan for this was still being finalised. There was a concern that Bournemouth residents had been on the register longer but most people across the whole of BCP had been reassessed in the last five years.

·     In response to a question regarding Councillor engagement in the appeals process. It was noted that there was a need to be very careful how this process was handled but the Portfolio Holder advised that he would discuss this issue with officers. The process for reviews was set out in law and is always conducted by a senior officer.

·     A Councillor raised concerns about anti-social behaviour and felt that there should be stronger measures to deal with this. The Portfolio Holder advised that his was taken seriously and appropriate measures would be taken to deal with anti-social behaviour. It was explained by an officer that the behaviour on anti-social behaviour was covered in a completely separate policy.

·     In response to a question regarding sanctions for those in the emergency band who refuse a direct let, the Board was advised that there should be no reason for someone to turn down an offer but if someone unreasonably turned down a property which met their needs, they would be changed to a band which would next best reflect their needs.

·     A Councillor commented on a section on sanctions within the draft which had been removed. There was concern that the sanctions outlined in the bidding process were putting off some older residents from bidding. The officer advised in managing the restrictions previously they had only written three warning letters and had not had to restrict anybody.

·     Check on last section.

·     A Councillor raised concerns about paragraph 8.1, which allowed for a minor amendment by head of housing and portfolio holder. The five percent outlined could affect 350 people and didn’t consider this minor. The Portfolio Holder explained that each case would be decided individually on its own merits and he could consider it if an amendment was put forward.

·     Concerns were raised regarding item 33 in which a family was expected to downsize when a child reaches 18. The officer explained that no one was expected to downsize. Adult children would not be taken into consideration when applying if they could be accommodated elsewhere. This was because in the past adult children had moved out shortly after people had been offered a property. This wouldn’t affect adult children in full time education, with caring needs or in the armed forces living in barracks but the circumstances of each case would be looked at.

·     It was suggested that there should be protection for people who lose their residency in BCP for a short-term period due to circumstances outside of their control. The Portfolio Holder advised that he could understand the point raised in circumstances such as domestic violence and would consider this.

·     In response to a question regarding housing for homeless and rough sleepers having a connection to three towns the Portfolio Holder advised that a connection to BCP for rough sleepers was paramount, most homeless people would have that connection and would be picked up by the housing service.

·     A Board member asked about what was considered a local connection for the purposes of housing related to where your family live within BCP. The Portfolio Holder advised that this was an issue which would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

·     In response to a question regarding whether Housing Associations were bound by the same laws that BCP Council work to and a number of housing associations did have tenancy support officers.

·     A Member asked about recent legislation regarding people who have been rough sleeping but were not British citizens. The Portfolio Holder advised that he was not familiar with this particular piece of legislation and agreed to come back on this issue if he was provided with the details of this statement of change (see action sheet).

Following the discussion two motions were put to the Board and the Board

RECOMMENDED:

1.    That paragraph 8.1 of the Housing Allocations Policy document be amended to include the following wording:

“…will be able to approve minor technical amendments to the allocations policy. Where a change will negatively impact on any single tenant group or any group covered by the Equalities Act this should be referred back to cabinet for approval?”

2.    That section 18 of Appendix C to the Housing Allocations Policy be amended to include the following wording:

“You currently live in the BCP council area and have done so for at least two years continuously prior to the application. Where there is a break in occupancy during this time of up to 6 months due to enforced family move this can be considered on a case by case basis where the household has been a long term (10yrs plus) resident in the BCP Council area.”

Voting: Nem Con