Agenda item

To consider the presentation to provide a review of the Selective Licensing Scheme 2020-2025.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, introduced the presentation, which looked back on the former Selective Licensing Scheme that ran from 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2025. The Chair reminded members that this was a review, not a forward look, and that proposals for the new selective licensing scheme would come before OSMB on 8 October 2025, whereupon members of IPSC would be invited to comment. Questions for this forum should be on the former scheme.

Emma Ellis, Head of Service for Community Safety & Regulatory Services (Head of Service), explained that Selective Licensing enables the Council to work proactively rather than reactively – properties could be inspected without a complaint having first been raised. The proactive nature of the scheme had been key to driving improvements in living standards.

The Head of Service summarised for members the basis of the former selective licensing declaration criteria, which led to six areas within the borough becoming subject to Selective Licensing from 1 May 2020 – Maltby, Dinnington, Masbrough, Parkgate, Thurcroft and Eastwood.

The presentation provided information on the outcomes and achievements of the scheme and provided examples of the types of Category 1 hazards (serious and immediate risk to health and safety) and Category 2 hazards (less severe but still pose a potential risk) that were revealed from inspections. Many tenants would not have reported these issues to the Council so they would not have been uncovered and dealt with without Selective Licensing. The BRE Housing Health Cost Calculator had been used to calculate the level of potential savings to the NHS (£148,542) in identifying these issues before harm to health was done.

The Head of Service explained that the scheme had led to significant areas of criminality and anti-social behaviour being uncovered and dealt with. 311 cannabis cultivations were detected and £40m worth of cannabis seized (street value). A number of properties that were inspected had links to slavery, exploitation and organised crime.

The Head of Service explained that the service had been committed to carrying out 100% of inspections and most of the identified improvements did take place. The Head of Service reflected that it can be difficult from street level to see the real impact of Selective Licensing. However, in all cases, either the issues identified were dealt with and rectified or the landlords were held to account and this had made a real difference to people’s living conditions. Improvements had not been consistent across the areas though – Masbrough, for example, had a high hazard rate of 95.8% from the first round of inspections, and this area had been subject to Selective Licensing before. In contrast, Maltby had the lowest hazard rate (48%).

The Head of Service commented that the Covid pandemic had had an impact on the scheme, delaying the start of the inspections process and effectively reducing the operational lifespan of the scheme from 5 years down to 3.5 years. Other challenges experienced had been staffing shortages and data limitations, which affected performance tracking. In spite of these challenges, the service successfully delivered 100% of the inspections. 48 prosecutions were pursued against landlords and of these, 15 had been successful and the remainder were either still going through the process or had been withdrawn.

The Head of Service explained that funds raised from the scheme were ringfenced and could not be used for any other purpose. There had been an overspend of £93,804, largely due to year on year pay rises and the fixed prices of the licenses. This had been covered by service budgets.

The Chair invited members of IPSC to raise questions and queries on the presentation and in the ensuing question and answer session the following points were raised:

Councillor Carter commented that it had been useful to her about the benefits of the scheme but requested more information about the challenges in areas such as Masbrough, where high failure rates had remained. Councillor Carter also requested further information on staff shortages and data limitation.

In response, the Head of Service commented that the service had worked closely with performance colleagues throughout the scheme to look at opportunities for the collection of data. However, because the scheme had been declared on the indices of deprivation, only deprivation information could be used to track and monitor progress, and arguably, the condition of properties had little tangible impact on rates of employment.

With regard to staff shortages, the Head of Service explained that there had been a turnover of staff mid-way through the scheme and this had left a gap in staffing which had been addressed during the second half of the scheme. Existing staff had been upskilled and re-trained and were able to carry out inspections. The Head of Service shared Councillor Carter’s disappointment with the high failure rate in some areas and expressed frustration that certain landlords had not stepped up to their responsibilities.

Councillor Thorp commented on the impressive figures within the presentation but queried what had actually been achieved? Had properties been re-inspected once faults had been found to check that the required works had actually been carried out and properties maintained to the required standard?

In response, the Head of Service explained that where a Category 1 failure had been identified, a re-inspection had to be carried out to ensure that the property was safe. Whilst the ambition had been to reinspect all properties, it had not been possible to carry out re-inspections of all Category 2 failures due to time pressures and restrictions caused by the Covid pandemic. Where a property had been found to be good on initial inspection, it was only re-inspected if there had been a change of landlord or an issue reported by a tenant. The Head of Service offered to obtain specific re-inspection figures to share with Councillor Thorp.

The Chair asked if there had been a timeline for rectifying Category 1 hazards. The Head of Service explained that a Category 1 hazard would have led to an emergency prohibiton order, meaning that the property could not be let until the landlord had rectified the issue. The timescales for dealing with such issues depended on each landlord.

Councillor Jackson congratulated the Head of Service on the work done uncovering 311 cannabis cultivations, which had supported the work of South Yorkshire Police on “Operation Grow”. Councillor Jackson asked what would be done when a cannabis cultivation was found, a prohibition notice served and the property left long-term empty? Would the service work with the Empty Homes Team and what would the consequences be for the landlord?

The Head of Service confirmed that service would work with the Empty Homes team and would use whatever legislative powers they could – whether criminal or civil – to pursue the landlord, although there could be challenges in linking the landlord to the illegal operation if they had no knowledge of it. The Head of Service commented that a point of learning from this scheme had been that stricter licence conditions could be incorporated and legislation utilised to obtain closure orders and banning notices. The licence conditions had been set at the very start of the scheme and the service planned to review and develop the conditions before the start of any further scheme.

Councillor Tinsley commented on the compressed timescale of the scheme due to Covid and asked if agency workers and contractors had been used to catch up with the backlog of inspections? The Head of Service confirmed that towards the end of the scheme, it had become necessary to engage some agency workers to ensure that all inspections were completed on time.

In response to a further question from Councillor Tinsley as to whether the standard of inspections carried out by agency workers had been checked, the Head of Service confirmed that a quality assurance process had been carried out by a principal practitioner. The service had found that the agency inspectors were experienced and able to carry out their inspections relatively quickly as they had been organised in batches according to geographical proximity.

Councillor Tinsley asked whether, since the scheme ended in April 2025, information had been shared with tenants and communities to let them know who to contact with any issues with their properties? The Head of Service confirmed that work had been done with the Neighbourhood teams and communication distributed via briefings, newsletters and on social media setting out contacts for housing issues.

Councillor Allen asked the Head of Service if further information regarding the NHS costs savings calculator could be shared, which the Head of Service confirmed she would provide. Councillor Allen also asked what happened to residents when an emergency prohibition notice was issued? The Head of Service explained that when a property had been deemed unsafe to live in, the residents would be effectively rendered short-term homeless whilst repairs took place. If they had no alternative accommodation, the Council would take the usual steps via the Homeless team to assist with providing short-term accommodation.

Councillor Jones raised concerns regarding the enforcement failures within the Masbrough area. Councillor Jones felt that the service had underestimated the amount of properties in that area that were licensed and as a result had under resourced. Councillor Jones commented that the community in Masbrough was a very transient community with a large proportion of terraced housing stock which would struggle to meet the upcoming enhanced EPC requirements for rented properties. How could landlords be supported with this? Councillor Jones stated that he would like to see conditions requiring landlords to routinely visit and inspect their properties incorporated into licences. Councillor Jones had heard reports that certain landlords were under the impression that once their licence had been granted, they had five years’ grace, in which time Category 2 hazards could easily turn into Category 1 hazards.

The Head of Service emphasised that one area of learning from the previous scheme had been that changes cannot be made by inspections alone. Long-term behavioural change was required and could only be achieved via a joining up of services working together to make improvements. The Head of Service agreed that improving EPC ratings would be very challenging for landlords in certain areas. The Council would be keen to work with landlords to try and provide help and support with this.

The Chair asked whether, without the Covid interruptions, the plan had been to revisit all properties within the 5 year timescale? The Head of Service confirmed that it had been the ambition to revisit all properties, but not 100% of properties.

Councillor Thorp questioned how the service had determined that the scheme had been a success? The Head of Service explained that were the scheme to be measured on what the areas had been declared on – deprivation – the answer would be that it hadn’t been a success as these areas were still deprived. However, many hazards had been identified, properties had been made safer, failing landlords had been prosecuted – and these were all measures of success. The Head of Service commented that without the scheme, the Council would not have known about many of these issues and many families would be living in much worse conditions. The Head of Service acknowledged that the scheme had not been as successful as hoped, largely due to the restrictions imposed by Covid, but stated that many lessons had been learnt for the service to take forward.

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment commented that 292 properties had Category 1 hazards removed from them, which was a sign of success. The fact that some parts of the borough would no longer be proposed to be part of any future scheme, could also be considered a sign of success.

Councillor Thorp asked whether landlords with multiple properties had more issues, compared to landlords with only one or two properties. The Head of Service commented that landlords with multiple properties had often engaged managing agents and operated in more of a professional space so generally, had less issues.

Resolved:-

That the contents of the presentation providing a Review of Selective Licensing 2020-2025 be noted.