Agenda item

To provide an update on the performance and effectiveness of the Housing Allocations Policy following its last formal review (report of the Assistant Director - Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which provided an update on the performance and effectiveness of the Housing Allocations Policy following its last formal review.

The Assistant Director – Housing introduced the report and stated that:

• The report provided a twelve-month update on changes approved to the policy in 2024.
• As part of the update, no further changes were recommended but minor administrative changes that had been made were outlined within the report.
• The policy was working well and was operationally effective.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members commented that the fact that no changes were recommended suggested that the policy was fit for purpose.

• Members queried whether there was a degree of discretion where transferees would be placed within a higher band if they had extenuating circumstances.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing confirmed that this was the case. The previous policy had automatically placed transferees into band 2, placing them above existing South Holland tenants.

• Members asked if transferees were overcrowded in their current property would they be place in a lower band.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing commented that tenants had the option to complete a mutual exchange. As part of the policy, there was a strict local connection criteria which made the policy fair to all applicants.

• Members commented that they would expect band 1 to only contain the most urgent and severe cases. They queried whether the number currently in that band was what would be expected.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing confirmed that the number in that band would be as he would expect. He clarified that band 1 concerned a narrow set of circumstances and did include those who had very specific property needs to ensure that they had priority when a suitable property became available, potentially sitting in the band for some time.

• Members asked whether band 1 could include people who were currently under occupying a property and were waiting for a smaller property.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing stated that a priority level would not be given solely based on over or under occupation.
  • He explained that band 1 was specific for those the Council had a statutory duty to assist, such as with statutory overcrowding.
  • In cases of medical welfare, only exceptional circumstances where a specific adaptation was required would be placed in band 1.
  • Those placed in band 1 were usually rehoused quicker but the policy ensured the best use of housing stock.

• Members queried whether rough sleepers would automatically be placed into band 1.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing commented that provisions for rough sleepers were separate to those on the housing register. If those people were working with the Council and were on the register, they would usually be placed in band 3, only going into band 1 is there was exceptional circumstances.
  • The Assistant Director – Wellbeing and Community Leadership stated that there was a distinction to be made between those that were homeless and those who were rough sleepers.
    • There was a number of rough sleepers within the district who had no recourse to public funding and therefore would never be eligible to join the housing register.
    • South Holland was part of a contract for Change4Lincs which provided repeat engagement with rough sleepers to build a rapport in order to get them to a stage where they could be accepted on to the housing register.
  • It was confirmed that single persons with no exceptional circumstances would be placed in band 4 and that there was a low number of one bedroom properties within the district.

• Members asked how a resident wanting a smaller property could join the register and whether the department regularly reviewed occupation levels within properties.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing commented that a review of the underoccupancy offer was a project that had been identified as part of the HRA transformation programme.
  • He confirmed that lifetime tenancies were offered to tenants and therefore when circumstances changed there was no automatic requirement for tenants to move. 

• Members queried whether any work was being done to proactively encourage tenants to move to smaller properties.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing stated that a piece of work relating to underoccupancy was being looked as part of the HRA transformation programme but other pieces of work had taken priority.

• Members asked why members of the Armed Forces were automatically placed in band 4, given that many of these people could have additional needs.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing commented that although members of the Armed Forces were automatically placed in band 4, they would be assessed against other criteria within the policy to be placed in the correct band. It was important to note that individual circumstances always informed the banding decision.

• Members asked whether the needs of those already on the housing register were ever reassessed after a period of time.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing confirmed that an assessment was made at the time of registering and again when a property offer was made to them.
  • He also confirmed that the team would send a letter to those on the register after a year to confirm if they still wanted to remain on the register.

• Members queried whether there was anything within the new Tenant Engagement and Influence Strategy, discussed at the previous agenda item, to ask whether tenants were happy with the property they were currently in.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing stated that the purpose of the Strategy was to put tenants at the heart of Landlord Services decisions.
  • He commented that there could potentially be a focus group for underoccupancy as part of this work and recommendations could be sought from that focus group.

AGREED:

1. That the Panel noted the update on the performance and effectiveness of the policy changes.

2.    That the Panel continue to support a delegation to the Assistant Director – Housing in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing for minor operational amendments to the policy.