Cllr P. Snow to substitute for Cllr J. Furey

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 January 2025 (Appendix ‘A’).

        The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 January 2025 were held to be correct.

None.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable and non-registrable interests in items on the agenda.

None.

To include a presentation by Acuity on the night.

The findings and methodology of the Tenant Satisfaction Survey were outlined to members by Acuity. Tenants in rented and shared ownership properties were asked 12 questions through written, online and telephone questionnaires. 69% of residents were satisfied or very satisfied with the services of the Council, with those in sheltered accommodation more satisfied than younger tenants. Overall, satisfaction had improved from 67% in 2024 to 69% in 2025. Whilst this was not as high as pre-2024, this reflected the national context which had seen satisfaction decrease over the years.

[Cllr T. Gracey arrived at 19:36]

It was found that a well-maintained home was one of the key drivers of satisfaction alongside being treated fairly and with respect. Repairs had become more important over the last 12 months, and building safety satisfaction had improved over the last year. Whilst 23% of respondents stated that they had made a complaint, it could not be distinguished if this was a service request, or an official complaint.

Therefore, suggested areas for improvement included:

-       The repairs and maintenance service

-       How complaints were handled

-       How ASB was dealt with.

It was also suggested that the Council may wish to include questions around damp and mould in the survey to reflect the national conversation on this issue. Members asked what the Council was already doing about damp and mould. It was explained there were very few issues with damp within Council housing, although condensation was an issue which residents could be supported to deal with through actions such as opening trickle vents. Members were keen to support the Council’s education of residents in this area and offered to work with the Housing service to publicise ways to deal with condensation in their councillor newsletters. It was acknowledged that improved energy efficiency may lessen condensation, damp and mould, and it was confirmed that an energy efficiency satisfaction measure could be included in the survey.

It was also noted that only seven low-cost homeowners (LCHO) answered the questionnaire, and were disproportionately dissatisfied with their homes, which may have skewed the overall satisfaction figures. In response to member questions on LCHO dissatisfaction, it was explained that the Council was not responsible for managing or repairing these houses, and that several of these homes were out of the borough.

The report was outlined to members. Following changes to the socio-economic context within the last couple of years, it had been decided to review the current allocations scheme. A two-month consultation opened in November 2024 and the responses were shared with the committee.

Homeowners were the primary respondents. The Council had also consulted those on the housing register, and other partners the Council worked with regularly such as Registered Providers and landlords. 79% or above of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with each of the six proposed changes. Following committee approval, the scheme would be implemented in summer 2025.

[Cllr Davies left the room briefly during presentation of the item and did not vote]

It was clarified that members of the armed forces and their families were exempt from local connection qualification criteria, and that the income threshold for singles, couples and families had been raised by £5,000 from the previous threshold.

It was also confirmed that those who had exhibited serious anti-social behaviour that had impacted upon other tenants will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis and was not part of the proposals being consulted upon in respect of housing register applications from those who had exhibited negative behaviour,

It was resolved that:

The proposed amendments to the Council’s Allocation Scheme be approved.

Authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Housing in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Housing Committee to make minor amendments to the Allocation Scheme.

The Service Area Plan was outlined to members. Whilst high staff turnover, due to maternity leave and long-term sickness, had impacted several areas and projects, multiple appointments had been made recently which would increase capacity for the proposed projects. 

It was asked if more environmentally sustainable purchases could be made to reflect changes in legislation, with such purchases going via the Climate Change Member Working Party before approval. It was explained that Housing Revenue Account regulations restricted what purchases could be made.

A named vote was requested.

For

Smith, Davies, Berardi, Cressey, Gracey, Howorth, Mehta, Moudgil, Parry, Snow

Against

None

Abstain

None

It was resolved that:

The 2025/6 Service Area Plan for Housing be approved.

The report was outlined to members. Whilst it was noted that issues around the current repairs service were still impacting performance, members were gratified to hear that solutions were being sought. Successes for the quarter included the decline in homes not meeting the decent homes standard from the previous quarter. Whilst the percentage of those in rent arrears was currently above target, it was hoped that this would be resolved with the filling of vacancies within the team. Whilst the service had received 150 stage one complaints, only nine had been escalated to stage two which suggested that most matters were resolved within the expected timescales. 

The planned remedial works were outlined to members. In response to a member question regarding the remaining lifespan of Surrey Towers, It was clarified that, although past discussions had occurred around its lifespan, no specific number had ever been determined. The building would remain subject to ongoing survey work, which would provide insight to the building’s condition. It was confirmed that, for the time being, the Council would only proceed with planned works to comply with regulations and ensure residents’ safety.

Whilst rehoming tenants during this process was suggested, it was explained that rehousing 90 households would take up a significant amount of time and funding along with 50% of the available housing stock for next year, which would impact the Council’s ability to provide for future housing needs. However, any new works would continue to be reviewed in line with a cost-benefit analysis, and at this stage, the income from the next five years would cover the cost of the works identified.

It was resolved that:

The content of the report be noted.

The procurement of the contract within current budgets for the works outlined in Appendix A be approved.

The report was outlined to members. It was explained that the financial and reputational risk to the Council had become too great to continue. 

This item has been added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The requirement for the item was not confirmed until after the publication of the agenda.

Reasons for urgency: This item has been added at the request of the Chair of the Housing Committee to ensure that Members are advised about the impact on the Council’s grant funding for homelessness activity should the proposals be implemented by MHCLG. The consultation closes on 11 March 2025.

The proposed changes to the Government Homelessness Prevention Grant formula were outlined to members. The Council planned to oppose potential changes to how the grant was calculated as it was believed that the proposed formula did not accurately reflect the costs incurred in supporting households facing potential and actual homelessness. For example, the fund had been used for deposits for sustainable and affordable private rentals, and for staff salaries, both of which would not be reflected in the new formula.

The report was praised for reflecting the financial implications of any changes to the grant, and it was confirmed that if members wished to bring a motion opposing the changes to April’s Full Council, they were welcome to do so, although the consultation would already have closed on 11^th March 2025.