The Chair advised that the discussion on this item would form the response to the Government’s consultation.

The Head of Housing and Communities advised that a consultation of 40 questions was launched on the 30 January 2024 to consider amendments to the national criteria on housing allocations for social housing. She reminded Members that there were already national criteria, and the Housing and Health Committee could add local criteria and this formed the Council’s housing allocation policy.  The Head of Housing and Communities drew attention to the new proposals as set out in the report on pages 53 to 55.  She advised that since drafting the report, further work had been carried out by Housing Options Policy and Performance Officer on the impact of the proposed changes and she highlighted that one of the biggest proposed changes was around the local connection test which currently was a two year residency criteria for the applicant but under the proposed changes this would apply to family members and could increase the housing register by 30% 

The Head of Housing and Communities drew attention to the tables at pages 54 to 55 that set out the criteria within the policy that was currently covered.  She said the antisocial behaviour test and the terrorism test were not currently linked to the Council’s policy, but the receiving Housing Association might have their own policies in place to manage their stock appropriately.

The Head of Housing and Communication said that the main concern was that the current proposals did not align with homelessness legislation. A number of people currently on the register might be excluded because they did not meet the proposed criteria and she stressed importance of having an exit route for people from temporary accommodation. She said there was no clear guidance around some elements of the proposed changes and some aspects were better managed more effectively using other legislation.

Finally, the Head of Housing and Communities said that a response had been drafted based upon the analysis of the register and she welcomed the views of the Committee so that their views were appropriately reflected in the consultation.

Members were invited to make comments which included:

·         Figures and costs quoted should include the rates of inflation;

·         referred to the anti-social behaviour element of the proposed policy and asked if this applied to the household or just the tenant?:

·         referred to the proposal to demonstrate a connection to UK for ten years, pointing out that this was excessive as the test to benefit from Universal Credit was only three months;

·         in response to any exemptions to a ten year connection suggested that those who had served in the UK armed forces, such as Gurkhas should be exempt;

·         supported the two year family connection proposal as residents might move to areas of their support networks;

·         referred to the current six month rule in key worker employment roles and said a two year employment criteria might make it difficult to recruit if the ability to apply to join the register was removed;

·         a national policy that included an income check would push workers out of the southeast and lead to skills shortages so did not support;

·         income data should be assessed on the whole household as a benefits assessment was;

·         the household income assessment should be in line with the number of bedrooms and not a blanket level;

·         households with Universal Credit could be exempt as higher amounts of Universal Credit were awarded to those with more care needs and therefore the cap reached more quickly;

·         care leavers under the age of 25 could be exempt as they might still require additional support offered by tenancies in social housing;

·         housing providers already managed tenants with anti-social behaviour records unofficially by not renting to them in the future;

·         tenants were responsible for the behaviour of all household members and visitors;

·         suggested victims of cuckooing in exclusions in other extenuating circumstances;

·         in respect of excluding those convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006 Category C, highlighted that an academic could fall in this category by having research information and the Council did not have the expertise to judge whether an individual was a risk;

·         said the policy on anti-social behaviour needed to be consistent across all areas and Registered Providers should have the ability to use their discretion;

·         there should not be a minimum income level to qualify for social housing;

·         the criteria should be decided locally; and

·         questioned whether the consultation had been circulated quickly before a General Election and could then lead to poor decisions being made.

The Head of Housing and Communities said that as well as responding to the questions, separate comments and responses could be sent and suggested comments around supporting local criteria to reflect the community’s need could come from the Chair of the Housing and Health Committee.

The Head of Housing and Communities agreed that the consultation around responsibility of individuals or a household was not clear and this comment could be included as part of the response.  She said that anti-social behaviour legislation already existed that could deal with those issues more effectively.

In response to a question from a Member around whether information from the housing provider on anti-social behaviour was shared with the Housing Options team so that a future housing provider was aware of the history, the Housing Options Policy and Performance Officer said that registered landlords did referencing checks and rent or anti-social issues would be disclosed.

A Member sought clarification on the process of setting eligibility criteria and the Head of Housing and Communities advised that national criterial were set first, followed by local policy.

Several Members raised issues around reference to prioritising ‘acceptable refugees’ and were critical of the use of the language used in the Government document.

The Head of Housing and Communities advised that the consultation was a quick launch and there was limited information.  She said the consultation was focused around social housing being valuable for local people

The recommendation was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Karen Watson and on being put to the vote agreed by Members.

Resolved:

(1)  That the comments made by the Housing and Health Committee be fed into the Council’s response to Government’s consultation on Reforms to Social Housing Allocations.