Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report and appendices presented by the Director for Housing and Neighbourhoods (Neighbourhood and Adult Services Directorate) that outlined proposed changes to the Council’s Aids and Adaptations Extension policy.  This had been prompted by customer complaints regarding the maximum mandatory amount of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), a grant limit that was set by Central Government. 

The report noted that the Adaptions Service had eradicated their backlog and had reduced the time taken from receiving a request to approving it to less than four weeks.  The team were seeking to further improve by reducing contractor turn-around times and re-assessing the way extensions were recommended and approved. 

In addition, the Aids and Adaptations Policy (2011) had been revised to comply with Occupational Therapy guidelines.

A number of customer, Councillor and MP enquiries in recent months had related to the amount of funding available under the DFG, at a time of increasing costs of labours and materials but a static £30,000 DFG.  This often left a short-fall for customers to pay.  Whilst every effort was made to minimise costs, it was still common for the grant limit to be exceeded.

Data for the last five years was considered that showed the average costs of extensions.  Eight bedroom and bathroom extensions took place over this period, and seven cost above the £30,000 threshold. 

The Local Authority had the option to apply Additional Discretionary Funding if they wished to under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (1996).  There was no upper limit to the increase above the statutory £30,000.  However, there was no legal obligation to provide additional funding. 

It was suggested that Rotherham apply an Additional Discretionary Funding amount of £5,000 that would be agreed under the delegated powers of the Director for Housing and Neighbourhoods Services.  There was no additional funding to cover this, and costs would be met from the same budget that the Disabled Facilities Grant came from. 

It was also proposed that the Additional Discretionary Funding be offered as a last resort following a number of criteria being met.  These criteria would be: -

·         The extension was absolutely necessary and no alternative adaptions could adequately meet the customer’s needs;

·         There were no alternative ways the extension could be built to cut the cost of works;

·         A minimum of three quotations must be received to ensure the best possible price;

·         The implications within the policy for people who under-occupied their homes;

·         Rehousing could not be offered within a six-month period from the date of applications. 

Cost saving strategies were outlined in the submitted report: -

·         Reduce fees on all extensions – not recommended;

·         Only approve extensions on properties that do not have a second ground floor room (i.e. dining room) that can be utilised;

·         Promoting re-housing as an alternative to an extension;

·         Possibility of adapting a void to adequately meet customer’s needs instead of extending their current property (required more research);

·         Utilising the Specialist Equipment Budget to fund specialist baths required as well as extensions;

·         Applying a legal charge on privately owned properties. 

Discussion ensued and the following issues were raised: -

·         Ensuring that a balance of reasonableness and fairness was met for families in the current context of reducing resources and increasing demand;

·         Demographically there was an ageing population but resources were not keeping pace with needs;

·         The importance of utilising existing adapted properties that were void before making new adaptions. 

 Resolved: -  (1)  That the grant limit of £30,000 remain the same for the next six-months.

(2)  That approved extensions that cost above the grant limit of £30,000 only receive Additional Discretionary Funding if no alternative solution could be offered.  Additional Discretionary Funding would be an additional £5,000 to make a maximum contribution of £35,000. 

(3)  That the Aids and Adaptations Policy be amended as detailed in the submitted report and appendices to reduce the number of extensions recommended, and a review of the effectiveness of the change be undertaken in twelve months’ time.

(4)  That the recommended cost savings as outlined in the submitted report be accepted. 

(5)  That the proposed amendments outlined in the submitted report to the Adaptations Policy be adopted into the new Adaptations Policy.