Agenda item

To approve the Homeseeker Plus Sub-Regional Choice-Based Lettings Allocation Policy for consultation.

That, subject to consistency, typographical and grammatical corrections being delegated to the Head of Community Services, the draft policy be circulated for public consultation.   

43.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 69-114, explained that Homeseeker Plus was a Choice Based Lettings Scheme which was run by seven local authorities in partnership with social housing landlords operating within Gloucestershire and West Oxfordshire. The Homeseeker Plus Sub-Regional Choice Based Lettings Allocation Policy explained who was eligible and qualified to apply on Homeseeker Plus and set out how applications would be assessed based on housing need. Due to legislative and other changes, the policy was in need of a refresh and, in doing so, it was considered good practice for the partnership to consult the public and associated stakeholders on the new policy. The Committee was asked to consider the draft policy and approve it for public consultation.

43.2           The Head of Community Services explained that, other than a major change to the Homeseeker Policy in 2016 to include West Oxfordshire District Council in the partnership and a name change to “Homeseeker Plus”, there had only been minor tweaks to the policy. This had led to ‘policy drift’ with it being interpreted and applied differently across the partnership. Therefore, to remove ambiguity, add clarity and also include the provision for accredited private landlords to advertise their properties, a new policy was being proposed as attached at Appendix A to the report. The major changes to the policy were set out at Appendix B to the report for ease and there were a number of other minor changes to the policy which were predominantly ‘housekeeping’ changes. It was proposed that the public consultation would last for eight weeks commencing in early 2020 and the Forest of Dean District Council would coordinate the consultations on behalf of the partnership. It was anticipated that the consultation would be held with partners, registered providers, Town and Parish Councils and members of the community. It would also be available in the Public Services Centre reception and on the Borough Council’s website.

43.3           In response to a query regarding the number of people currently on the Homeseeker Register, the Homeless Plus Coordinator advised that this was approximately 2,000. The Member noted that, of the overall total of people looking for properties – around 18,000 – there were only 63 homes currently available which she felt was disastrous. She questioned whether some of the Section 106 funding which the Council had not yet used for affordable housing could be used to build social housing. In response, the Head of Community Services explained that the Council had £2million allocated to affordable properties and was about to launch a scheme for registered providers to bid to develop more affordable housing. The Council becoming a developer itself would be a fairly high risk strategy but it was currently identifying rural areas where there was a need for more affordable housing. A Member indicated that she had an issue with the term ‘affordable housing’ as most was not actually affordable; she was of the view that the Council needed to ensure social housing was the criteria for the bids from registered providers. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that he was unable to provide timescales in respect of the bids at this stage but the documentation was almost complete. He confirmed that social rent would be the way forward and registered providers would be steered towards that tenure. The Member referred to Page No. 77 of the report, the policy aims, and expressed the view that ‘enable informed choice of housing/housing options and improve levels of customer satisfaction’ was something the Council could not adhere to when people on the list had no choice. In addition, ‘operate a common selection system that offers realistic, informed choice for all applicants’, could not be met as the realistic situation was that the Council had no houses to offer. In response, the Head of Community Services advised there was a real housing crisis but it was important to note that the policy aims were aspirational and what the Council should be striving to achieve. He noted that there were some typographical errors in the policy which would be addressed outside of the meeting.

43.4           Referring to the global connections policy, the Head of Community Services explained that this sought to protect local properties for local people but if people chose to move to another area they could. In the old policy there was no global banding but it had always existed. The local connection criteria had been set by the homeless local connection but had been further clarified in the current draft as Officers in different areas had been interpreting it differently. Global branding allowed cross boundary housing. In respect of Page No. 80, ‘types of tenancies’, a Member asked that an explanation of what they were be included in the policy; the Head of Community Services undertook to add an explanation to the summary. He explained that it was difficult for the Housing Team as there were not enough properties in the Borough; there was a housing shortage and the policy was not going to correct that but it should help in the long term.

43.5           Accordingly, it was