Agenda item

To receive a presentation from the Lead Member for Health and Wellbeing, Councillor Julie Greening.  

68.1           The Mayor invited the Lead Member for Health and Wellbeing, Councillor Julie Greening, to make her presentation to the Council.

68.2           The Council covered the following main points:

·         Overview – Operational Housing and Homelessness; Future Developments in the Service; Warm and Well; and Community Development.

·         Rehoused Households through Choice Based Lettings (CBL) – There had been 361 social housing allocations through CBL over the past 12 months. The lettings were predominantly into one and two bedroom properties and 88% of lettings were to Tewkesbury residents in emergency, urgent or significant housing need. In terms of the bandings, emergency: family to non-family; this was awarded to those under-occupying to free up family homes. Emergency: immediate medical/welfare needs; this was awarded for a health condition which required immediate rehousing on medical grounds – most likely to be when an applicant had a major incident, was in hospital or other emergency provision and was unable to return home. Gold: downsize – family to smaller family; this was offered to enable the best use of social housing stock and to assist households affected by the ‘bedroom tax’. Gold: full statutory homeless duty accepted; this was for households who had applied for homeless assistance and the authority had investigated their circumstances and agreed a full homeless duty to rehouse permanently. Gold: Major overcrowding; this banding occurred when a household was lacking two bedrooms in their current accommodation - one bedroom was required for an adult couple, a person aged 16 years or over, two children up to 16 years old of the same sex and two children aged up to ten years old of different sexes – so, potentially, this could apply to either a couple with three small children in one bedroom or three adults (not including a couple) in one bedroom. Gold: move on/ multi-agency/ succession; this was awarded when a move-on from supported accommodation was agreed by the local authority - there were two conditions, the supported accommodation provider had confirmed the resident was ready for independent living and the local authority had been involved in the move-on planning. Gold: left in occupation and succession; occurred when a tenant died but members of the family were still living within the home - most social housing tenancies had one right to succession which meant that the remaining adult within the property had the right to be granted the tenancy; however, if the property was too big or too small for the remaining family member(s), irrespective of whether they had a right to succession, they could be required to move to a more suitable property (normally from a family home to a flat as it was generally a middle aged child left in the property) - in those circumstances the remaining resident was awarded gold banding to prioritise their move and free up the property for a suitable household. Gold: prohibition notice – disrepair/overcrowding; occurred where an Environmental Health Officer had inspected the property and served a Prohibition Order on it prohibiting its use as a residential home - this may be because of disrepair or because it was not considered safe for someone to remain there if, for example, a property had been let to a tenant above a fish and chip shop with no independent access and no fire escape. Gold: Urgent medical/welfare need; was awarded when there was an urgent medical need to move, for example, a person living in a top floor flat with uncontrolled epilepsy who may collapse on the stairs. Silver: homeless or threatened with homelessness; this was awarded to residents who were threatened with homelessness, for example a notice to quit, or to households who were homeless and were currently the subject of a homeless investigation or were homeless and the local authority did not have a statutory duty to them, for example if they were not vulnerable. Silver: overcrowded; this was awarded when a household lacked one bedroom in their current home. Silver: significant medical/welfare need; this was awarded when an applicant had a significant medical welfare/condition which would be alleviated by a move to more suitable accommodation - the most common reasons for this were severe depression and asthmatic conditions where the current property exacerbated the condition. Bronze: low housing need; this included adult children wanting to leave their parental home but had not being asked to leave as well as households who were struggling to meet their current rent but were on incomes which indicated they could afford the property.

·         Current Housing Register for Social Housing by Housing Need – As of 28 December there were 1,886 applications for social housing within Tewkesbury Borough. During the autumn, Housing Services had contacted all the applicants who had not been active on the register and cancelled them which had reduced the applications from 2,000 to 200. The current figures were all actively seeking accommodation and over 51% of those households had a one bedroom need for accommodation. 1,218 (64%) of those were banded as ‘Bronze’ – low housing need and 51% had a one bedroom need. 668 (36%) had an emergency, urgent or significant housing need.

·         Housing Options and Homelessness – This was the greatest area of change within the service. There continued to be a rise in the numbers of residents facing housing difficulty – possibly due to ongoing welfare reforms and the freeze on levels of benefit to private rented tenants. The focus on financial assistance and in-depth advice through housing options had continued to be successful in preventing homelessness. During 2016/17, the service had prevented homelessness in 187 households, which was twice the number than in 2014/15, and it was likely that this year it would assist approximately 200 households. Unfortunately, the number of households the service was unable to prevent becoming homeless was also likely to rise for a second year.

·         Highlights of the Year – The ‘Gold Standard’ peer review, undertaken in June 2017, had scored 72%. Tewkesbury Borough was the only authority within Gloucestershire which had passed the peer review and it had now submitted its first ‘challenge’ associated with the bronze award – it was hoped it would receive this early in the New Year. The entrenched rough sleeper project had now been launched and was known as ACTion Glos. The project was funded by a Gloucestershire bid for social impact bond funding and would assist the most difficult to house people in the county. The contract was additional to the Countywide Assertive Outreach Service funded by the District Councils, County Council and the Police Crime Commissioner which was also provided by P3. The Assertive Outreach Service made initial contact with the rough sleepers following streetlink identification and enabled them to access supported accommodation. In the event that the rough sleeper had multiple issues which were too high for the supported service to work with, they were referred to ACTion Glos. The project sought self-contained accommodation and properties that were suitable for pet owners, and then worked on the support issues. The Assertive Outreach Service also helped in administering the Countywide Severe Weather Protocol in periods of cold weather and linked those accessing short-term shelter to ongoing support. The Places of Safety Dispersed Refuge continued to house victims of violence in safe houses across the County and now had 12 properties supported by Gloucestershire Domestic Advisory Service (GDAS) available for victims of violence.

·         Future Housing Options and Homelessness – The most significant challenges for the service were likely to be the Homelessness Reduction Act and the launch of Universal Credit in the Borough. Tewkesbury Borough had hosted the training for the County on the new legislation and had undertaken extensive research on the potential impact of welfare reform at an individual level in association with its partners in the Financial Inclusion Partnership through policy in practice. It was working with its partners in the Homeseeker Plus partnership to tailor the joint database to meet new legislative responsibilities and would continue to adapt its processes in preparation for the additional duties associated with the Act. The refreshed action plan associated with the overall Housing Strategy encompassed those developments as well as being a focus on resolving the need for local homeless temporary accommodation. This would become increasingly important as it was likely that the new legislation would involve longer placements during applications. 

·         Warm and Well Scheme – The Scheme was delivered across Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire and was managed on behalf of the authorities by Severn Wye Energy. Each authority contributed £20,000 a year for the next three years to the delivery of the scheme. The aims were achieved through raising public awareness of energy efficiency and availability of technical and financial support; provision of detailed energy advice by telephone and engagement at events; carrying out home visits to vulnerable customers; carrying out energy surveys and bespoke advice reports; confirming eligibility for grant and discount schemes; facilitating access to Grant and Access Schemes; and providing signposting and fuel poverty identification training to frontline staff. Tewkesbury Borough had the second highest spend and the third highest in the number of properties improved so the scheme had been very beneficial to its residents.

·         Community Development – Health Improvement Context – Life expectancy was 7.5 years lower for men and 5.4 years lower for women in most deprived areas; 17% of children in Year Six were classified as obese (better than the England average); estimated levels of adult excess weight and diabetes were significantly worse than the England average; early death for all causes (men and women) was lower than the national average; hospital stays for alcohol related harm, tuberculosis, Sexually Transmitted Infections, life expectancy and cancer mortality rate – all significantly better than the England average. Increased evidence of rising rates of loneliness and social isolation. Tewkesbury Borough was the most active district within Gloucestershire, with 72.6% of adults taking part in 150+ minutes of activity per week.

·         Our Aims – Supporting the community to be healthier and more active; encourage healthy active lifestyles; and health framework (as agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2016).

·         What We Do – Sports development e.g. setting up new sports clubs, the Park Run on the Vineyards, walking groups; initiatives e.g. the Aston Project in Brockworth and the summer sports camp which targeted young people at risk of Anti-Social Behaviour; facility improvements e.g. supporting local sports clubs in plans to improve their facilities; funding advice and assistance – the Community Grants Officer had sourced just over £1 million for community groups etc.; event support e.g. the Tour of Britain, Tewkesbury half marathon; Section 106 – ensuring new developments had appropriate sports, play and open space facilities; and the workplace charter which supported Borough Council staff.

·         Some Recent Achievements – Tewkesbury Leisure Centre; the introduction of social prescribing (now the community wellbeing service); draft sports, social and open spaces study which provided detail of infrastructure requirements and standards for the future – this was being done in partnership with Cheltenham Borough Council and was managed by Sport England supported by the large scale infrastructure fund; support to community groups in the funding process e.g. Apperley Play Area, Deerhurst Archers and Crickley Flyers; secured new facilities in new developments e.g. Cold Pool Lane; and organisation of events such as the Tour of Britain and Tewkesbury half marathon.

·         Future Initiatives – ‘Strengthening Local Communities’ in Prior’s Park – this was a community approach to improving health and was funded by the County Council. It was being run as a pilot project because the area had been identified as having a high number of GP appointments and it was felt residents needed support in understanding how to improve their lifestyles. Gloucestershire Moves – this was a County initiative to raise physical activity levels across the County and get Gloucestershire moving; it addressed all aspects of daily life including travel, education, work, home and leisure and was designed to get the inactive active. Working with the Strategic Needs Analysis team to understand which communities needed the most help in the Borough and for what purpose. Working with the new Community Wellbeing Service supporting those with short or long term health situations or who were facing challenges. Opening new sport and health provision, e.g. playing pitches, play areas and sports facilities, in new developments like Perrybrook, Longford, Hucclecote, Invista, Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington.

68.3           The Mayor thanked the Lead Member for her informative presentation and invited questions. A Member felt one thing to consider, in terms of facilities for new communities, was that when a Section 106 Agreement was signed a sum of money was agreed but often, when the time came to implement the facilities, the funding agreed was not enough and there did not seem to be a way to hold the developer to account. The developer argued they could not provide the facility at the specification agreed for the amount of money agreed and there seemed to be nothing the Council could do; the Member suggested this was something for everyone to think about. Referring to the Council’s website, a Member suggested that there should be a weblink to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Board on the wellbeing pages so that people could download walks etc. He felt this would be very useful and undertook to speak to the ICT Manager to ensure it was actioned.

68.4           Referring to the banding for housing, a Member noted that, if there were one or two people who lived in a house which they owned, and then they sold that house and went onto the housing waiting list, they would go down the list as they were intentionally homeless; however, he questioned what would happen if those people had sold the house because they needed something larger for their family but they could not afford to buy a larger house. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that they would fit within the banding structure somewhere – this was one of the reasons that delivery of affordable housing was key to the Borough; they would not be in priority need but the Council would provide as much support to them as possible. By way of an update, the Head of Community Services confirmed that the Council had hit its affordable housing target to deliver 150 properties.

68.5           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the Lead Member Presentation be NOTED.