Agenda item

To carry out a pre-scrutiny assessment of the revised Housing Allocations Policy ahead of the policy being considered at a meeting of the Executive. The Executive Portfolio Holder for Housing & Housing Development and Housing Officers will attend to answer Members questions.

Presentation slides to follow.

The Chair introduced Councillor Jeanette Thomas, Executive Portfolio Holder for Housing & Housing Development, Charlotte Carter, Housing Business Support, Lori Smith, Housing Supply Manager, Tracy Jackson, Operations Manager Providing Homes, and Rob Gregory, Operations Director.

Cllr Jeanette Thomas informed Members that they had been working with the community and the Committee to look at the housing allocations policy and reminded Members they had to be aware that more people wanted homes than they had homes available. Stevenage had a housing development team who also built homes to sell to build more social housing. They were also retrofitting and maintaining the existing homes as well as building more.

The Operations Manager gave a presentation on the housing allocations policy which the Council was required to have by law. The policy outlined the process for how the Council let social housing and made the best use of the stock as well as maximising access and choice for applicants. The team were looking at producing an easy-to-read guide so everyone can use it and understand the policy. The aim of the review was to respond to the increasing demand for not enough homes, ensuring the policy was clear and helping those in the greatest need.

The first proposed change was to only accept applicants onto the housing register if they had a specific housing need. This was applied to the new policy as a qualification rule. Some Members raised concerns on how this would be means tested and it was advised that this would be difficult. Another Member asked whether this would change who can access the housing register. The Committee were advised that 16-year-olds, or anyone with a suitable housing situation, would not be able to access the housing register. The Committee were aware that this would be an unpopular move for many local residents but was realistic given the reality of national policy on social housing and therefore reluctantly supported this policy change.

The second proposed change was to disqualify those with sufficient savings or incomes from applying for social housing. This was not applied to the new policy as it was resource heavy given that each application would have to be means tested if it had been applied and the question of what was ‘affordable’ has changed due to the cost-of-living crisis. A Member asked whether there would be a financial test once they had applied and it was advised that an affordability test was only done with affordable housing, not social. The Committee supported not applying this to the new policy as it would be unworkable without means testing each case.

The third proposed change was to introduce a New Generation scheme which would give priority to 1 bed need adults to enable the downsizing of tenants. This was not applied to the new policy as the stock levels were not sufficient to support the New Generation scheme. The team would continue to review the impact of the new allocation policy. The Committee agreed that this policy option should not be included in the new policy.

The fourth proposed change was to reduce the number of bands that applicants can be placed into. This was applied to the new policy with the introduction of Band 1, 2, and 3. A Member asked whether specific bands were related to specific housing needs. The Committee were advised that the bands would vary in housing needs, and they were creating an easy-to-read guide on the bands and the eligibility for each. Members were also advised that people had the right to review if they did not agree with what band they were put into. The Committee agreed that this policy option should not be included in the new policy.

The fifth proposed change was to remove people who had not bid within 12 months. This was applied to the new policy and Officers would communicate with people on the register about their bidding. The Committee agreed with this policy option with the caveat that there would be some exceptions to the policy if no suitable sized property was available to bid on.

The sixth proposed change was to let homes based on housing need only, removing the sharing between bands and the quota. This was applied to the new policy, but some direct allocation was needed for aids and adaptions, temporary accommodation, or leaving home for an emergency. The Committee agreed with this policy option.

The seventh and final proposed change was to change the bedroom standard to allow more household members to share. Initially it was proposed to increase the age from 16 to 21. The bedroom standard was changed to 18 for same sex in the new policy, as well as not allowing those with a 2 bed need to bid on 3 bed properties. The Committee agreed with this policy option.

There were also other proposed changes which included:

·         Care leavers were able to bid on 1-bed properties and had a high priority to increase their chances of securing a property.

·         Homelessness Prevention Duty – priority was given to families who could stay with friends/family for additional time. 

·         Adults without children with no other housing need were unable to join the register.

·         Statutory Homelessness Duty – discretion was applied, and they must qualify otherwise, such as residential local connection.

·         Owed Relief Duty – they had the same priority as Main Duty which would reduce the strain on temporary accommodation.

It was RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed the Officers suggested housing allocations policy changes as detailed in the summaries above.