Agenda item

Report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Note the report and progress to date.

2.    Approve the approach to the community liaison roles and stakeholder panels.

3.    Approve the approach to establishing the capital programme, with stakeholder groups identifying local priorities and delegate agreement for the final governance arrangement to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Service Director for Legal Services.

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford updated on the Selective Licensing Scheme, covering progress, investment, and governance.

Six licensing areas had gone live in February 2026 for five years, building on earlier schemes that improved housing standards and neighbourhood stability. Delivery was underway, with systems operational, applications processed, draft licences issued, and local improvement plans agreed. Communications had been launched to increase landlord uptake.

The 2026-27 budget approved £362,000 annual revenue funding for three enforcement officers, two community liaison officers, and a management role. Recruitment had begun, with five posts expected to be in place from 5 May. The focus extended beyond enforcement to visibility, early intervention, service coordination, and use of community intelligence.

A further £500,000 capital funding had been approved for small-scale local improvements (e.g. lighting, gating, waste and environmental works), with priorities set locally.

Local stakeholder panels were to be established to identify priorities and review performance, advising on proposals but not making decisions. Oversight would sit with a Selective Licensing Board, ensuring accountability and reporting to Cabinet and scrutiny. Overall, the scheme had shifted to a coordinated, place-based approach combining enforcement, engagement, and visible improvements.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries and began with Councillor Monk, who asked how stakeholder panels would be supported to enable full participation for those with communication needs, including individuals whose first language is not English, members of the deaf community, and those with disabilities, health conditions, or anxiety affecting communication.

Sam Barstow, the Service Director, Community Safety and Street Sceneresponded that the panels were intended to be inclusive, enabling all who wished to participate to have their voice heard. It was noted that individual communication needs would need to be understood to determine appropriate support, and officers were committed to considering requests and putting reasonable adjustments in place where required. It was further noted that an Equality Impact Assessment would help ensure the panels were transparent, accessible, and fair.

Councillor Monk asked whether a commitment could be made to communicate clearly about the stakeholder groups, including the support available, and to strongly encourage participation and the Service Director for Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that such a commitment would be made.

Councillor Blackham noted that the report stated neighbourhood improvement plans had already been formed and adopted, while stakeholder group recruitment had only commenced in March 2026. Concern was raised that this could indicate decisions had already been made, potentially limiting the influence of stakeholder groups, and clarification was sought on how confidence would be maintained and appropriate membership encouraged in those circumstances.

The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scenethanked members and reassured them that concerns about stakeholder panels were unfounded. It was explained that, as part of governance and approval processes, draft neighbourhood development improvement plans had been prepared. Stakeholder panels would review these plans, sense-check proposals, and suggest additions. Local officers would report to panels on progress.

Members were advised of governance limitations, particularly regarding capital allocation, which must follow the council’s constitutional decision-making processes. However, potential investments would still be considered by stakeholder panels, with many proposals expected to originate from them. These panels would therefore have a significant influence over priorities and support for their local areas. The draft plans were intended as a starting point, with stakeholder panels playing a key role in shaping them and contributing to decision-making.

Councillor Blackham referred to sections 2.11 and 2.22 of the report and raised concerns that the document implied decisions had already been made by management, limiting stakeholder group influence. They questioned how confidence in the stakeholder groups would be maintained under these circumstances.

The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scenereassured members that this was not the case, explaining that draft neighbourhood improvement plans had been developed to meet governance requirements. Stakeholder panels would review, sense-check, and suggest additions to these plans, with officers reporting progress to them. While capital decisions would remain subject to formal governance processes, stakeholder panels would have a meaningful role in shaping proposals and influencing local priorities.

Councillor Blackham maintained that the document lacked a clear definition of the stakeholder groups’ role and requested this be explicitly set out to avoid misunderstanding, including how stakeholder groups and management would work together. The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scene acknowledged the request, apologised for the misunderstanding, and agreed to provide further written clarification after the meeting. It was noted that a baseline role would be defined, alongside some flexibility for ward members to shape panel composition. The Chair referred to previous housing area panels, noting that similar arrangements had operated in the past. These panels made suggestions on local expenditure, while final decisions were taken by elected members.

Councillor Baggaley asked about levels of engagement across wards, highlighting the importance of stakeholder groups, and queried when these groups would be established and operational. In response it was reported that engagement levels varied across areas, with landlord licensing applications providing a key indicator. Dinnington had the lowest number of applications to date, while Brinsworth had the highest. It was noted that engagement officers had only recently commenced their roles, so detailed feedback on stakeholder panel engagement was not yet available. Further updates would be provided as engagement activity progressed, including information on the establishment and uptake of stakeholder panels.

Councillor Baggaley sought clarification on the expected timeframe for establishing stakeholder groups, expressing concern that the process appeared open-ended. The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Sceneconfirmed that stakeholder panels were expected to be established within three months of engagement officers commencing work. It was anticipated that meaningful engagement with ward members would take place within four to six weeks.

Councillor Yasseen raised concerns about a perceived cultural issue within the service, noting weak engagement and relationship-building with tenants, landlords, and stakeholders. They stressed the need for stronger, positive relationships to improve housing standards and queried whether steps would be taken to address these cultural challenges going forward. The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scene expressed a willingness to work with ward members on specific cases. They challenged the view that there had been poor engagement, highlighting evidence of officers building positive relationships with tenants and landlords, which had helped resolve issues. It was emphasised that the Council remained committed to fostering constructive relationships, including within enforcement work, as set out in its policies. Reference was also made to additional investment in engagement officers as evidence of this commitment, while maintaining openness to reviewing individual concerns raised by members.

Councillor Yasseen referred to previous evaluations, noting they demonstrated strong relationship?building, though only around six tenants had been reached, reflecting limited engagement from target groups. They highlighted that, despite the neighbourhood model, no neighbourhood plans had been presented to ward councillors locally. They also sought clarification on how HRA funding could be used in areas with high levels of private rented housing, particularly in relation to spending on the surrounding public realm of non?council properties, and how this complied with HRA rules.

The Chair clarified that the funding was not from the HRA, but additional funding provided to the council, which, as far as they were aware, could be spent across those areas.

The Service Director explained that selective licensing funding could only be used for the delivery, administration, and enforcement of the scheme. Wider resources referenced, such as engagement officers and capital investment, were funded separately through the council’s general fund, not from the selective licensing scheme. The Cabinet Member for Housing stated that there was little to add to the previous response, though clarification was sought on references to “cultural” aspects of engagement. It was noted that funding had been approved by full council, separate from HRA, for two community liaison roles to address gaps identified in the previous scheme. The earlier focus had largely been on issues within properties, with limited proactive engagement with private tenants and landlords. It was emphasised that the additional roles and a dedicated management function were intended to strengthen engagement, recognising that the approach should extend beyond enforcement to include active community involvement.

The Chair referred to a previous point regarding the neighbourhood model and asked how members would be able to influence spending within their areas. In response, it was stated that once resources were in place and staff had completed induction and training, engagement with members would begin within four to six weeks. Members would be invited to participate in stakeholder panels to help shape local priorities, recognising that local input was essential to determine what was appropriate for each area. It was noted by the Service Director that there was a clear expectation for ward members to be engaged in the development of neighbourhood improvement plans. Reference was made to an update email sent to affected ward members in late November, outlining progress on selective licensing and encouraging involvement in plan development. It was confirmed that this would be checked to ensure engagement was continuing as expected.

Councillor Tinsley BEM reflected on the previous selective licensing scheme, questioning whether it should still be regarded as a success, particularly in relation to Maltby. It was suggested that some elements, such as additional enforcement and community safety resources, could have been applied more widely across other wards rather than solely through the scheme. Concern was raised that, following the end of the scheme in Maltby, similar issues remained but resources had not been sustained to maintain progress. It was further noted that enforcement activity, including action on issues such as untidy properties, had reduced with the loss of selective licensing resources, and that there had been limited continuation of work to preserve earlier improvements.

The Chair reminded members that the selective licensing policy had previously been considered by scrutiny on multiple occasions, with opportunities for member input and recommendations. It was noted that, while past decisions could not be revisited, the focus was now on building on improvements and extending progress across the borough.

In response, the Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scene emphasised that the council retains powers under the Housing Act in areas without selective licensing, and that work should continue with ward members to ensure awareness and use of available services. It was noted that recent investment included a new private sector housing manager role, with responsibilities both for selective licensing and for broader regulation of the private rented sector. It was also highlighted that forthcoming changes, including the implementation of the Renters Reform Act, would further shape this work. Ongoing engagement with ward members was encouraged to address local concerns and improve service access.

Councillor McKiernan began by seeking clarification on what a draft licence was. In response, it was explained that a draft licence was a preliminary version of the licence setting out expected requirements for the landlord, which may be issued while final internal checks are still being completed.

The member went on to ask about how a draft licence progressed to a full licence, expressing concern about the terminology and process given the expected volume. In response, it was explained that a draft licence was effectively a provisional or conditional version outlining the proposed terms. Once all required checks were completed and the council was satisfied, a final licence was then issued.

In a follow?up question, Councillor McKiernan asked whether lower uptake had been due to previous licence holders not yet renewing, and how landlords were identified where properties were known to be tenanted. In response, it was explained that uptake had typically been higher in areas with prior schemes, though figures remained unreliable until the end of the 90?day grace period, when applications usually increased.

The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scene further outlined that landlord identification was informed by various sources, including council tax data, complaints, and cross?departmental intelligence, alongside efforts to encourage tenants and landlords to come forward.

The Service Director also highlighted that addressing compliance gaps and delivering the scheme required collaboration across council services, including neighbourhoods, enforcement, waste, and housing teams, as well as external partners such as the police, particularly in tackling issues such as anti?social behaviour and supporting homelessness prevention.

Councillor McKiernan asked which departments were expected to be most involved in delivery, noting the roles of housing officers and neighbourhood teams, and queried how coordination would be managed across multiple council services.

In response, it was stated that this approach was not unusual and reflected existing ways of working in local areas. Ward meetings and neighbourhood teams were identified as primary points of contact and key stakeholders in delivery. It was explained that these sat within wider area?based structures where teams already worked collaboratively to address issues, providing a foundation for joint working. Stakeholder panels were also highlighted as an important forum for coordination, alongside governance through the Selective Licensing Board, which ensured senior officer oversight and addressed any challenges in joint working.

Councillor Blackham emphasised the importance of effective engagement with stakeholder groups, noting that meaningful involvement and genuine influence were essential to sustain participation. It was highlighted that, without this, landlords and other participants may disengage due to time constraints. It was further stressed that maintaining strong relationships with stakeholder groups, actively considering their input, and ensuring it informed decision?making at a management level were critical to the success of the approach, as failure to do so could result in reduced participation. In response the Service Director agreed with the point, emphasising that stakeholder panels needed a clear role and the ability to meaningfully shape the approach at a local level.

Councillor Yasseen asked for further detail on the capital funding allocation, including how the figures had been determined and the criteria for distribution across the six areas. In response, it was explained that the figures had been based on estimated costs of small?scale interventions in each area, informed by previous activity, though these would be refined as proposals were developed. It was noted that funding was intended to be broadly distributed across the selective licensing areas, with some flexibility depending on the scale and impact of identified schemes. It was also highlighted that stakeholder groups would play a key role in shaping proposals, while overall allocation would be subject to a scheme?wide view and governed through the council’s formal capital governance processes.

With the final question, Councillor Yasseen raised concerns about the capital budget, querying how it had been determined and how it would be allocated. Concern was expressed that funding might be disproportionately directed towards crime prevention measures, particularly CCTV, which was not considered effective, and that this could duplicate work of the police. It was also suggested that the funding could have been better aligned with broader neighbourhood planning rather than linked to selective licensing, and that its use would be monitored closely.

The Service Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that CCTV systems were actively monitored and had been used successfully to support prosecutions, with further information available to members if required. It was clarified that significant investment had already been made in CCTV in recent years and that the current funding was not intended to be focused solely on this area. It was also emphasised that the council has statutory responsibilities for crime prevention, making such investment appropriate. Finally, it was noted that the additional funding had been introduced in response to consultation feedback, to deliver wider visible improvements alongside selective licensing schemes.

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

1. Note the report and progress to date.
2. Approve the approach to the community liaison roles and stakeholder panels.
3. Approve the approach to establishing the capital programme, with stakeholder groups identifying local priorities and delegate agreement for the final governance arrangement to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Service Director for Legal Services.

Additional recommendations to Cabinet from OSMB were that:

4. That officers set out a clear escalation plan where licence application rates fall below expectations and provide the relevant Scrutiny Commission with regular updates on licence uptake, enforcement activity, and any risks to the effectiveness of the scheme.
5. Ensure that communications requesting nominations for the Stakeholder Groups clearly indicate that applicants who require reasonable adjustments will be duly considered.

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       Provide an outline of the role of the stakeholder panels to members of OSMB.