Agenda item

To consider the overview of the portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Housing.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Sarah Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Housing provided an overview of the portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Housing and highlighted that housing wasn’t just about houses or homes of any description. She emphasised it was very much about people first and foremost, and then it was about looking after the Council's assets and residents of private properties. She believed the reason she was at the meeting was that both of these aspects contribute to our sense of place and the development of places within the Borough, as listed in the document provided.

Further, the Cabinet Member for Housing focused on Housing – People, Property, and Place by dividing it into seven sections.

Estate Management: It was informed that this section was led by Paul Walsh, Head of Housing and Estate Management which included the North, South, and Central locality-based housing teams. These teams consisted of housing officers who regularly interacted with residents within their wards. They conducted tenancy health checks and provided some estate caretaking services, while other services were managed by corporate asset management.

The borough had nearly 20,000 Council properties and was among the top 20 Council social landlords in the country. The ambition was to become the best among these 20. That morning, discussions were held with the other 19 councils as part of the "C20" initiative. This group aimed to lobby for necessary support from the new government for housing across the country.

Property services: It was informed that this section was led by Lyndsey Stevenson, Head of Housing Property Services who looked after the repairs and maintenance contracts. These contracts, which had been delivered by the Council, were recently renewed for two years. The Cabinet Member for Housing informed that in the coming year, everybody would have an opportunity to be involved in reviewing that contract.

She also informed that Mears and Equans, our partners in delivering housing services, handled over 90,000 repairs per annum. They were also responsible for compliance testing for lifts, and fire, gas, electric, and water asbestos, as well as managing the damp and mould service.

She highlighted that Awaab's Law brought about a review of how authorities deal with damp and mould, resulting in 29 points of action that we were now obliged to follow. The most significant point was the speed at which we handle damp and mould referrals. Given that referrals increased from tens to hundreds per year, this added considerable pressure in meeting the set timescales. Despite this, the service had significantly improved and would continue to do so.

Housing allocation: The Cabinet Member for Housing emphasised that a housing register wasn’t a waiting list, and that terminology was not applicable. There were just over 7,200 people on the register in Rotherham. She mentioned that the Allocations Policy, in place since 2014, had undergone various changes over the decade, including legislative updates, resulting in a somewhat piecemeal policy. The ongoing review aimed to make the policy more coherent and up to date, ensuring compliance with current requirements.

The Allocations Policy was used to assess individual housing needs. When someone approached the authority to be accepted onto the housing register, they underwent a series of interviews to determine their housing needs. This assessment determined their level of priority. There were four bands of priority, and individuals were placed into one of these bands based on their needs. Everyone on the register had an allocated place according to their priority. The review of the allocations policy focused on prioritising housing for those in greatest need.

Tenant engagement: The Cabinet Member for Housing informed that TPAS, known as tenant engagement experts, was an organisation we should all be proud of, reflecting positively on the entire authority. Much of our tenant engagement work was done in partnership with RotherFed, which had just successfully bid for a contract to continue working with us for the next three years. The Housing Involvement Panel, which Councillor Terry Adair participated in, brought together representatives and volunteers to discuss housing services. This panel was facilitated by RotherFed.

Efforts were made to make the panel more representative of the borough's residents through targeted work with various groups, especially those with protected characteristics. Urgently collected information about residents and their perceptions of our services led to new engagement methods. One such method was the "screen team," a group of nine people who met online to discuss various topics.

To engage younger residents, who made up 50% of our population under 40, they were invited to participate in an online forum. The response was phenomenal, resulting in a core group of younger people working with us. This group provided feedback on their experiences as council tenants, particularly those who had recently become tenants.

All these initiatives fell under the tenant satisfaction measures we were obliged to report on. The information collected was becoming increasingly significant due to the upcoming inspection by the social housing regulator.

Homelessness: The Cabinet Member for Housing highlighted the legal responsibility to house anyone who presented themselves as homeless. The increase in local homelessness cases was usually due to no-fault evictions, where landlords wanted to sell their properties or move into them, and family breakdowns where individuals could no longer stay with friends or family. It was informed that at the moment the meeting took place, the council had just over 500 open cases of homeless individuals and families we were working with on an individual basis.

She informed that homeless individuals could come to Riverside House and request immediate shelter, which we were obliged to provide. Our preference was to place them in council properties, but we also used hotels and B&Bs when necessary, although this was not the preferred option. Early engagement with those served notice helped us plan better and match their needs with available accommodation. All individuals and families underwent support assessments to determine their needs.

We currently had 113 units for homeless people and had recently secured funding to provide an additional 60 units. However, this was still insufficient, and we were taking measures to provide more, including acquiring properties from the open market where available.

Social housing regulation inspection: The Cabinet Member for Housing informed that a new proactive inspection regime started in April this year. The Social Housing Regulator would inspect every authority in the country to assess the efficacy and efficiency of their housing services. Although they provided some guidance, the details were sparse, similar to an Ofsted inspection. They had only completed one inspection since April, which involved a 12-week assessment with only two days spent face-to-face. The rest was desk-based, involving the review of numerous documents.

The Council was systematically reviewing our current policies to ensure they were up to date. Compliance testing was a significant focus, with the regulator ensuring we met requirements for fire, asbestos, water, and more. Additionally, tenant satisfaction was crucial, with 12 perception measures created to gauge residents' views on our services.

We identified areas needing improvement and established a Housing Assurance Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, to address these gaps. An honest dialogue with the regulator led to a clear guide on what they would inspect, akin to a peer review. This process was expected to conclude within four years, though the exact timing was uncertain.

Finally, the Cabinet Member for Housing mentioned the professionalisation of housing employees, with an emphasis on obtaining professional housing qualifications through apprenticeships at various levels. This was in line with the regulator's expectations for authority employees.

In response to Councillor Beresford's question, it was explained that the current owner of a property acquired through the Right to Buy scheme must inform us if they wish to sell it. The Right to Buy scheme includes a clause giving the Council the first right of refusal on any Right to Buy property. This has recently caused issues for some individuals who, during the conveyancing process, did not realise that this clause existed. If a flat owner decides to sell their property, they must offer it to the Council first. If this occurs, we will consider buying the property back. Despite having a robust house-building programme, we currently receive more requests to buy properties than we can build, so we are indeed interested in purchasing these properties.

The Chair asked about reducing homelessness and rough sleeping, he enquired whether the council works with letting agencies to inform residents facing eviction. It was explained that this was indeed what council did. We had officers within the Homelessness Team who worked with the private letting sector. When a resident informed us that they would be evicted in six weeks, we engaged in a conversation to explore all available options. We aimed to avoid making a council house the first and only option. Our approach involved understanding the resident's needs, preferences, and affordability. We then collaborated with letting agents to see what properties are available, essentially trying to match residents with suitable housing options.

Councillor Havard sought clarification in relation to tenancy health checks and the training of housing officers to understand residents' needs. It was explained that traditionally, our focus during tenancy health checks had been on the condition of the property and compliance with tenancy agreements. However, there had been a realisation that these checks provide a perfect opportunity to discuss residents' health, financial concerns, and other issues. We aimed to offer advice and support where needed, but this approach hadn't been systematic enough yet.

Regarding apprenticeship schemes, the Cabinet Member for Housing informed that she did not possess all the information but highlighted that apprentices were required to complete a project addressing current issues within the authority that matter most to tenants. These apprenticeships were designed to focus on practical application, aiming to produce qualified housing professionals who prioritised both property management and resident welfare.

Councillor Williams asked about the possibility of bringing services back in-house during the re-tendering process evaluation and it was responded affirmatively, stating that currently, 100% of services are delivered by external contractors or specialist providers. She emphasised openness to consider bringing some services back in-house as part of the evaluation process.

The Chair queried whether the two different companies involved in service delivery were performing similar or different tasks and it was responded that Mears and Equans performed similar tasks but with a focus on different localities within the borough. While each had its specialisation, they operated across the entire area as required.

The Chair asked if there was support for housing targets and specific locations for building houses. It was explained that a national target of constructing 1.5 million houses over the next five years had been set, which was considered ambitious. Locally, there are aspirations to build 1,000 houses by 2026. Historically, the maximum number of houses built annually has been around 500. Given the scale of the national target, additional funding would be necessary to achieve it effectively.

Discussions at a recent meeting with over 19 social landlords aimed to ensure the new government understands the challenges faced by social landlords and local authorities in meeting these targets and to seek necessary support. This concluded the discussion on housing targets and locations for new construction.

Councillor Tinsley sought clarification on whether green spaces or green fields could be used for building, considering the local plan nearing review. It was explained that areas designated as greenbelt are typically restricted from development, including old industrial sites or redundant car parks within these zones. Despite not being traditional green spaces, they fell under greenbelt regulations, preventing construction. There had been ongoing debate in planning circles over the past five to six years about potentially amending greenbelt definitions to allow development on such sites, although opinions on this varied.

Councillor Jones asked about working with developers on land identified in the Local Plan, highlighting large-scale schemes like Bassingthorpe that have seen no progress for years. It was explained that the Council regularly met with developers to gauge their interest in developing plots of land. This proactive approach aimed to encourage collaboration with developers. Regarding Bassingthorpe, it was clarified that no developer was currently involved. The delay was due to ongoing negotiations between RMBC and the Fitzwilliam Estate, not a lack of developer interest. The Council had been persistent in pushing for progress and hoped for funding from the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority to facilitate development. However, progress was stalled until these negotiations concluded.

Resolved: That the Improving Places Select Commission:

1.    Noted the overview from the Cabinet Member for Housing.

2.    Agreed that consideration of the review into the Repairs and Maintenance contract would be added to the work programme at the appropriate time.