Agenda item

To consider and endorse the findings and recommendations of a scrutiny review into the impact of the current selective licencing scheme in Rotherham at its halfway point.

Consideration was given to a report summarising the findings and recommendations of a scrutiny review into the impact of the selective licencing scheme in Rotherham at its halfway point. The selective licencing scheme, which ran from 2020-2025, focussed on alleviating deprivation and poor housing conditions in specific residential areas of Parkgate, Thurcroft, Maltby, Dinnington, Eastwood/Town Centre and Masbrough. The review sought to assess the impact of the scheme so far and identify further steps and risk mitigations that will help to build positively upon the accomplishments of the scheme to date. Among the principal findings were that the widely held assumption must be dispelled that selective licensing supported beautification; rather, the inspections promote health and safety of residents. The shortage of key professionals was also a limiting factor on the reach of the scheme. Having previously declared an interest, Cllr Tinsley excused himself from participation in the discussion and vote.

In discussion, Members expressed concerns around the adequacy of the engagement with landlords and tenants, due to the low number of responses. The response from the Head of Community Safety provided assurances that the surveys were sent to a large number of recipients and publicised through multiple platforms and channels. Thirteen responses from landlords and seven from tenants had been received. The feedback received would be considered and taken on board but was not statistically significant. There were significant amounts of time spent by officers utilising social media platforms and local forums. Efforts were done to try to receive a wider and more populous response. Members suggested working with Acorn a Tenants’ Union who can act as a representative body, and with Rotherham Federation of Communities.

Members suggested that clarity around the yearly expectations and costs could be made clearer in communication to license holders.

Members questioned the apparent necessity of the Service to be fully self-funding, as this limits the reach of the scheme. The response of the Service was expected to include benchmarking around whether schemes elsewhere are also fully self-funding.

The Chair noted that any response would likely require a more labour-intensive approach. It was felt that there was a need for Selective Licencing in part of Maltby due to high turnover of tenancies. The Chair affirmed that the response will impact the future of the scheme. It was acknowledged that responsibility does not sit solely with landlords, as many are doing their job well. The response from officers confirmed that there was a discount for landlords who pass inspection. The Service was using the market to shape the discount and the offer to landlords. The Service looked for more ways to reward responsible landlords.

Members noted that, within Select Licencing areas, language barriers prevented some stakeholders from accessing the Facebook groups. It was acknowledged that some individuals could be harder to reach with digital methods of engagement.

Members affirmed the importance of reinspection, and that as long as a landlord continues to be out of compliance there should be action until the problems are resolved. This was felt to be necessary to improve the trust of residents that the scheme would be effectual.

The Chair acknowledged consultation fatigue may be present within the communities that the Service is trying to reach. There was a wider journey around consultation that needed to be undertaken.

Resolved:-

1)    That the response to mould and damp hazards in housing be considered for inclusion in the work programme for 2023/24.

2)    That the following recommendations be submitted to Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for consideration and endorsement.

a)    That reinspection be prioritised for landlords whose properties have required action previously.

b)    Due to the shortage of experienced inspectors, that consideration be given to how the Council may support recruitment and development of trainee inspectors and retention of experienced inspectors.

c)    That consideration be given to incentivising responsible landlords, and, where there is a proven track record, empowering landlords to self-assess, provided that the Service can still obtain assurances that decent standards are maintained.

d)    That consideration be given to managing expectations around selective licencing as a measure focused on the health of residents rather than beautification or regeneration.

e)    That consideration be given to how uptake of the cost-of-living support offer among families in selective licencing areas may be further promoted and monitored with a view to identifying gaps and promoting financial inclusion.

f)      Given the complexity of measuring impact on deprivation and difficulty in improving relative levels of deprivation, that consideration be given to how internal metrics may better reflect the real impact of the scheme.

g)    That a joined-up approach be sought with relevant Council strategies and services, with partner and voluntary sector organisations and with resident led initiatives prior to any future selective licencing declaration.

h)    That engagement with landlords and with tenants be considered alongside any response to the above recommendations, and that the response to the above recommendations be subject to the learning.