Agenda item

 

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

 

Recommendations

 

That Cabinet

 

1.    Review all options proposed in section 3 of this report and approve Option 3, which is to proceed to approve Selective Licensing declarations, including the establishment of a stakeholder steering group (based on the criteria set out within this report and appendices);

 

2.    Approve the revised Licence Fee and the Licence Conditions, in all of the proposed areas which are:

a)  Town centre / Eastwood / East Dene / Clifton / Boston Castle

b)  Masbrough / Kimberworth

c)  Thurcroft

d)  Dinnington

e)  Brinsworth

f)    Parkgate

 

 

 

Councillor Tinsley declared that he had previously held a licence in Maltby. It was not a financial interest, and he would abstain from voting on this item.

 

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Housing introduced the report and made the following points:

·       The cross-party consensus on the importance of safe and secure housing for families in Rotherham was emphasised.

·       Highlighted achievements of previous selective licensing schemes:

·       The new proposals aimed to build on past success and target six areas with persistent issues: poor housing, deprivation, and antisocial behaviour.

·       The Housing Act provided the Council with the authority to require landlords in designated areas to license properties and comply with conditions.

·       The Council had engaged with 16,000 properties and acknowledged that while many respondents to the consultation did not support selective licensing in principle, there was strong agreement on the issues it aims to tackle.

·       The scheme was self-funding, with fees solely being used for administration and enforcement.

·       The previous scheme overspent by £90,000, which was covered by general funds.

·       The scheme was evidence-led, community-informed, and aligned with the Council’s housing strategy and plan.

·       The scheme was a tool to drive up standards, protect our tenants, support responsible landlords.

 

At the Chair’s invitation the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene acknowledged the extensive nature of the report, indicating that the most critical elements would be highlighted that demonstrated the evidential basis for the proposed selective licensing declarations and the effectiveness of the consultation process.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained that the report built upon the outcomes of two previous five-year schemes, which had run from 2015 to 2025. Those schemes had led to significant improvements in housing safety across Rotherham, in terms of the significant number of hazards identified. The Council had issued a number of notices and had prepared 48 prosecutions against non-compliant landlords which were in various stages of completion. Those interventions had made a substantial number of properties safer for families.

 

The report provided significant information regarding the evidence base and how it related to particular areas. The evidence base was set out within the Housing Act. Also required through the provision of the Housing Act was a formal and statutory consultation period. This included mailshots to over 16,000 properties and outreach to over 60,000 landlords via national bodies such as the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA). Additionally, face-to-face engagement events were held in the affected communities. It was acknowledged that while many respondents did not support selective licensing in principle, there was widespread agreement that the issues the scheme aimed to address - poor housing, environmental crime, and antisocial behaviour - were real and persistent.

 

In response to the consultation feedback the Council had refined some of the boundaries after reviewing the evidence at a much closer street level. In addition to that feedback some changes to the level of fees had been made, with reduced fees for compliant, or good landlords whilst further penalising those landlords that did not comply through the fee structure. This reflects a fairer and more targeted approach.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene then introduced the concept of stakeholder steering groups, which would be established in each designated area. This would ensure that everybody who had engaged in the consultation and anybody who was impacted and wanted to take part in the processes from those local areas was able to work with the council and its partners to influence the plans and the strategies moving forward to really ensure that this scheme in terms of selective licencing delivers on the objectives that are laid out. It was noted that this was a direct response to consultation feedback, which called for more robust local involvement.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene concluded by reiterating the legal requirements under the Housing Act, which mandated that decisions be evidence-based, objective and required a statutory consultation process. Members were encouraged to focus on the data and outcomes presented in the report, and to consider the broader strategic alignment of the scheme with the Council’s housing strategy and corporate plan. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene expressed confidence that the proposed declarations would deliver meaningful improvements in housing standards and community wellbeing.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised.

 

Councillor Blackham sought clarification on who would be invited to join the stakeholder steering groups. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained the steering groups would consist of elected members, landlords, letting agents, tenants, homeowners, social tenants and community and partnership groups. Councillor Blackham emphasised the need to encourage good quality private landlords in association with everyone else. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene agreed, noting the fee structure changes aimed to support good landlords. The stakeholder groups would be a vehicle to promote positive behaviours with landlords and working in co-operation with them. The Council would also seek to engage with landlords across the borough and with national bodies.

 

Councillor Yasseen queried why the Council’s Policy, Performance and Intelligence team had not been involved in the consultation and engagement process for this item. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained the Council had guidance in terms of how it operated consultation and engagement. The Assistant Director was confident in the work undertaken by officers, in that the consultation followed statutory guidance and officers went beyond the legal requirements to ensure engagement.

 

In another question Councillor Yasseen asked why 68.1% of private tenants appose the selective licensing scheme. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained he was unable to speak on behalf of those individuals who had responded in that manner however conversations with officers had indicated that fear of rent increases might have been a factor, however national evidence showed no direct correlation. The Council, through its reflection on the scrutiny review into selective licensing, aimed to address broader social issues through the scheme.

 

Councillor McKiernan asked why were some roads removed due to town centre plans, and what alternative strategies were proposed? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene noted that statutory guidance required that where the council could see an alternative option to address the issues in a particular area, such as a town centre plan that may receive external funding, that it sought to use those options as opposed to selective licencing.

In a supplement question, Councillor McKiernan asked if areas could be added to the scheme at a later date, if those alternative options failed? It was clarified that areas could be added as since December 2024, councils no longer needed Secretary of State approval to exceed 20% private rented sector (PRS) coverage.

 

Councillor Allen enquired if areas could be removed from the designation mid-scheme if conditions improved? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that early withdrawal was allowed if were met.

 

Following on, Councillor Tinsley asked if areas like Little London could be excluded if landlords voluntarily improved standards? It was clarified that schemes could be reviewed and adjusted. The Council prioritised areas with worst conditions but remained open to future declarations. In a follow-up question it was asked if criteria were still based on deprivation or tailored per area. In response it was clarified that it was tailored per area.

 

Councillor Brent sought clarification on what the “possibility of displacement” meant in practical terms? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene noted this referred to landlords moving to properties outside designated areas to avoid compliance. The Council monitored this and could declare new areas if needed.

 

Councillor Yasseen queried if the evidence base was relying on proxies (e.g., cannabis farms, migration) rather than statutory criteria? The answer was no it was not, the Housing Act allowed flexibility in the evidence used. Previous hazard data supported the declarations in those areas because the evidential threshold had been met.

 

In a supplementary question it was asked how would the council address disproportionate impacts on ethnic minorities? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene reiterated the Council's commitment to thoroughly assessing the quality and diversity implications in relation to the decisions. National evidence did not support the rent increase concerns. The scheme aimed to improve housing conditions, benefiting any affected communities.

 

Councillor Baggaley asked if the Assistant Director could explain what had happened previously in the scheme about the annual review and what the annual review looked like going forward? The previous schemes had focused on property conditions and inspections to drive up those conditions. Data had focused on how many hazards had been identified and resolved. Future reviews would be shaped by stakeholder input and the broader objectives.

 

In response to a follow-up question it was noted that the annual reviews could be brought back for consideration by scrutiny if requested.

 

When considering the inspections, Councillor Tinsley queried if the relevant staff were in place to ensure these would be delivered? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained that staffing levels had been maintained post-COVID, and the budget and resources had been carefully planned to meet the needs of the scheme.

 

Councillor Tinsley followed up by noting that the funds raised from fees could not be used to fund other services, however it was queried if they could be used to fund services such as fly-tipping removal which would help to address some of the hazards in areas. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene clarified that fees were restricted to administration and enforcement only. However, area plans reflected broader issues and interdepartmental collaboration to address issues.

 

Councillor Allen asked how the local PRS database was maintained? In terms of administration the Council had a fit for purpose IT system in place that recorded and contained all the information about the various different properties and licences that were attached to those. This included proactive identification of unregistered landlords, with non-compliant landlords facing higher fees.

 

The effectiveness of the stakeholder groups was considered by Councillor Allen, querying if there would be a mechanism for co-ordinating the groups to capture the learning from them to enable the existing designations to be amended, along with the creation of new designations, if needed. The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene noted there would be borough-wide engagement undertaken and regular officer meetings would ensure there was shared learning and improvements.

 

Councillor Harper sought clarification on what happened if one scheme ended before another was put in place? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained that the Housing Act specified each scheme could only last for a maximum of five years and should be judged on its own merit. It should be objective and evidence -based. The timeframe enabled authorities to review the data and what the challenges were across the borough. The staff involved in the scheme were permanent members of staff. Nationally there was a skills shortage in this area of work so the Council would want to retain those skills and knowledge.

 

Councillor Yasseen asked what the council would do differently to build trust with landlords and tenants? The Assistant Director acknowledged past challenges. The new stakeholder groups and broader engagement aimed to rebuild trust. It was noted that the previous schemes had improved safety in thousands of homes.

 

Councillor Yasseen indicated that the report referred to the housing condition survey, had the Cabinet Member commissioned that report. The Cabinet Member for Housing explained that when it referred to stock condition surveys, it was primarily talking about council-owned properties. The aim was to ensure safe and decent living conditions for everyone in Rotherham. This was not about singling out private sector landlords, the same standards across the board would be applied.

 

The Council had completed surveys on over 2,000 council homes, following the same guidelines it would have used for private rented properties. As a landlord, the Council took its responsibilities just as seriously as the many good landlords out there. This was about setting a consistent standard for housing quality, regardless of ownership. Councillor McKiernan, as Chair of the Improving Places Select Commission explained that the Commission would be looking into the stock survey once available.

 

The Cabinet Member for Housing explained that the stock conditions referred to were for the properties the council rented out. Housing associations had their own rules regarding stock condition surveys, and the council did not typically have access to those as they were responsible for conducting their own surveys. However, although the council were not required to see them, they were often shared.

 

The focus was on aligning the two types of stock condition surveys: those the council conducted on its own properties and those it aimed to carry out with private rented landlords. The goal was to ensure that everyone was working to the same standard of providing safe homes for our residents.

 

On this matter, Councillor Thorp asked if all properties would be inspected or re-inspected? The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene clarified that all properties would be inspected, and re-inspections would occur where hazards were found. Councillor Thorp went on to ask what percentage of inspected properties had led to prosecutions? The data presented in the paper showed that just over 65% of the properties inspected had a hazard identified during the first inspection. In some cases, further hazards were found during follow-up inspections of the same property. As reflected in the outturn report, 48 cases were progressed for prosecution.

Each time a hazard was identified, a formal legal notice was served, requiring the landlord to take action. Failure to comply created an offence that the council was able to prosecute. Over 1,300 of those were housing notices, more than 1,200 were environmental notices, and 311 were emergency prohibition notices, which meant the council immediately deemed the property unfit for human habitation, with the prohibition taking effect straight away.

 

As mentioned, 48 prosecution cases were prepared. Of those, 15 went through the court system and resulted in successful prosecutions for the council. Another 23 remained ongoing, while 10 were withdrawn because the landlords complied before the court hearings took place. Hopefully, this reinforced and demonstrated the council’s strong commitment to tackling poor practice in this area.

 

In summary the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene felt that it had been a really robust conversation, and as always, they welcomed the engagement of members on this topic. The intention was to build on that engagement as the council moved forward with setting up the stakeholder groups, should the recommendation to Cabinet be approved in due course.

 

The Assistant Director revisited points made at the outset: Cabinet was asked to make an objective decision based on the evidence presented to them. The reason the recommendation in the report was supported was because he believed there was compelling evidence that these areas were experiencing a range of issues linked to high concentrations of private rented sector properties.

 

The previous schemes had demonstrated the real impact this could have on families living in substandard housing. The council had remained fully committed to taking appropriate and robust enforcement action to address any non-compliance, should a future scheme have been declared.

 

The Assistant Director was confident that the authority would continue to work collectively across its departments, with its partners, and with local members and other stakeholders to ensure the success of any future scheme, should it have been designated.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1. Review all options proposed in section 3 of the report and approve Option 3, which is to proceed to approve Selective Licensing declarations, including the establishment of a stakeholder steering group (based on the criteria set out within the report and appendices).

 

2. Approve the revised Licence Fee and the Licence Conditions, in all of the proposed areas which are:
   1. Town centre / Eastwood / East Dene / Clifton / Boston Castle 
   2. Masbrough / Kimberworth
   3. Thurcroft
   4. Dinnington
   5. Brinsworth
   6. Parkgate

 

An additional recommendation to Cabinet was put forward as follows:

3. That the annual review of the selective licensing planned designations is brought back to the relevant scrutiny committee to review the progress being made on the overall selective licensing scheme and to review any amendments to the scheme in twelve months’ time.