Agenda and minutes

The Chairman advised that although Councillor D Stallan was not a member of the Panel, he could not attend the Panel as Housing Portfolio Holder, and therefore his apologies were acknowledged.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitutes present.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

(a)        Terms of Reference

The Panel’s Terms of Reference were noted.

(b)        Work Programme

Item 20 Results of the Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2012 was being moved from the Panel meeting in August, to October.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director of Housing (Operations) and the Housing Options Manager, regarding the Review of the Homelessness Strategy.

Under the Homelessness Act 2002, Local Authorities had a duty to review and publish their Homelessness Strategy on, at least, a 5 yearly basis. As this area of work changed regularly, it was agreed that the Council’s Strategy would be reviewed every 3 years. The strategy linked with other Council strategies and schemes, it set out achievements since 2009 and incorporated the needs and demands on the service and an Action Plan for the coming three years.

Members requested that mention should be made of Epping Forest Furniture Scheme under Section 4 and that Credit Unions should be mentioned under the Foreword, Section 4 Welfare Reforms, 5^th bullet point.

RECOMMENDED:

That subject to a consultation exercise with partner agencies with an interest in homelessness the Homelessness Strategy be recommended to the Housing Portfolio Holder for approval.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a progress report from the Assistant Director of Housing (Operations) regarding the HomeOption Choice based Lettings Scheme.

As part of its Work Programme, the Panel considered an annual report on the HomeOption Choice based Lettings Scheme.

The Choice Based Lettings Scheme was introduced in November 2007, which was necessary for meeting the requirements of Government. The scheme was administered by the external Choice Based Lettings agency Locata Housing Services (LHS). Under the scheme, all vacant social rented properties were advertised to applicants on the website, a two-weekly publication, and other media, giving details of location, type, rent service charge, council tax band and landlord. Applicants applied for a property by expressing an interest in up to a maximum of three properties for which they had an assessed need.

At the end of the two weekly cycle, the expressions of interest were analysed, and each property allocated following a prioritisation and selection process in accordance with its own Allocations Scheme. Generally the property was offered to the applicant in the highest band, who was registered the longest. The results of the expressions of interest were published on the website, and the next periodic Property List, this assisted applicants in seeing how long the successful applicant had been waiting and gave greater transparency in the allocation of accommodation.

The HomeOption Choice Based Lettings Information Bulletin for the period 1 June 2011 to 1 June 2012 was circulated with the report, it was advised 380 properties had been allocated during the period. There were 35,777 expressions of interest being made, which was an average of around 86 expressions of interest each time a property was advertised. Most properties attracted in excess of 200 expressions of interest. Almost 96% of applicants expressed an interest in properties, did so over the Internet. Around 58% of all applicants registered on the Housing Register had participated in the scheme during the last year.

As at 1 June 2012, there were 6,219 applicants on the Housing Register, with 2,637 applicants who had never bid.

The Allocations Team within the Housing Options Section offered a great deal of support to vulnerable applicants including:

• A list of all vulnerable applicants was maintained;
• Scheme Managers were given lists of older tenants they visited, they ensured the residents fully understood how to participate in the Choice Based Lettings Scheme;
• New applicants joining the Housing Register were given an Information Pack, giving details of the scheme and the assistance provided;
• Articles had been included in the tenant’s magazine Housing News, including information on the scheme and how applicants could receive assistance from staff;
• A letter was sent to all those who were not participating in the scheme for more than 6 months asking if they wished to remain on the Housing Register and also if they required any assistance in participating in the scheme;
• Access to the scheme was provided electronically by way of a kiosk currently provided in receptions at The Broadway, Loughton and at the Limes centre, Chigwell  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director of Housing (Operations) regarding Ethnic Monitoring.

The District Council had a Policy Statement for Equal Opportunities in the Provision of Housing Services, the policy statement included a requirement for an annual review of the ethnicity of applicants on the Housing Register, compared with the ethnicity of those allocated accommodation. When undertaking a Customer Impact Assessment of Older People’s Housing Services it was identified that the ethnicity of applicants on the Housing Register awaiting sheltered accommodation compared to those allocated sheltered accommodation should be monitored separately. The review identified whether or not there were any indications to suggest the Council may be discriminating against any one ethnic group. The breakdown of the ethnic origin of applicants on the Housing Register for both 2010/11 and 2011/12 was circulated to the members. When comparing the ethnic breakdown, there appeared to be no significant disparity between the ethnicity of applicants awaiting  accommodation in the District and compared to those allocated accommodation.

The Panel noted that, following the 2011 National Census, an updated breakdown of the ethnicity of the population of the District would be available and reported next year.

RECOMMENDED:

That no recommendations be made concerning amendments to the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme due to ethnicity, as current figures did not show a significant disparity between the ethnicity of applicants on the Housing Register and those allocated both general needs and sheltered accommodation through the Housing Register.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report on the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Consultation Paper “High Income Social Tenants Pay to Stay” from the Assistant Director of Housing (Operations).

In June of this year, the DCLG issued a consultation paper entitled “High Income Social Tenants Pay to Stay.” The closing date for responses was 12 September 2012. The Panel was invited to consider the proposed Council response and whether any different, or additional comments should be included.

Consultation Questions

1.         Do you agree with the principle that very high earners living in social housing should pay higher rents than social housing tenants?

Response:     Yes in principle, provided that income thresholds were set to ensure that residents had a reasonable expendable income and bureaucracy was kept to a minimum. However, there were concerns that in order to make it fair and reasonable it would become bureaucratic. Furthermore, the costs of administering the scheme could be higher than the additional income received. The Council had concerns about the effect on mixed communities. There could be an effect on social housing and the potential for the creation of low income ghettos.

2.         Do you agree that this approach would be the best way of delivering additional flexibility for local authorities and private registered providers?

Response:     No. However, this could be a driver to bring Local Authority and Housing Association rent setting under one regime.

3.         What are your views on the guidance at Annex A (attached to the agenda)? Along with the consultation questions, the Government set out its intentions in Annex A to the document which was summarised as follows:

• That new rents should apply to tenants with higher incomes (figures to be determined);
• The policy would apply to an individual tenant or the two higher earners in the household;
• Tenants on low incomes should continue to be protected from unreasnoble rent increases; and
• For now, the rent increase should be a maximum of 80% of local marker rates, but with full market rents for high earning social tenants.

Response:

(a)        There should be a mechanism to take account of other earners living in larger households.

(b)        Income thresholds should be based upon property size, the impact on those in 3 bedroom properties with children would be far different to those in 1 bedroom properties without children.

(c)        Income thresholds should be increased annually as rents increased, otherwise this could affect the expendable income of residents.

4.         Do you think that landlords should be required to charge high income households higher rent?

Response:    

Yes. This was in order to ensure consistency but provided it was fair, workable and, as stated, bureaucracy was kept to a minimum. There should be different thresholds for different areas of the country. There were concerns that absolute income thresholds, which could mean that residents would have reduced incentive or ambition to increase their earnings by either accepting workplace promotions or seeking higher paid jobs. With absolute thresholds, a person’s expendable income could reduce dramatically following a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from the Director of Housing regarding Housing Performance Indicators (Tenant-Selected and KPIs) Outturn 2011-12.

The Council had adopted a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which included 9 KPIs relating to the Housing Directorate. Performance against all of the Council’s KPIs were monitored on a quarterly basis by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel. Additionally, the Tenant and Leaseholder’s Federation had selected 21 Tenant Selected Indicators, as being areas of performance considered particularly important to tenants, which they monitored on a quarterly basis.

The out-turn report for these Housing Performance Indicators in 2011/12 included:

• The target for 2011/12;
• The out-turn performance for 2011/12; and
• Whether or not the target had been achieved.

RECOMMENDED:

That the Council’s performance in 2011/12 in relation to the Housing Performance Indicators, comprising Tenant Selected Indicators and Key Performance Indicators be noted.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from the Director of Housing regarding the West Essex Tenancy Strategy – Consultation Draft.

Under the Localism Act 2011, all local authorities must produce a Tenancy Strategy which set out the District’s expectations of the types of tenancies that all Registered Providers (RPs) of Housing in their district would provide. All RPs must have regard to the District’s Tenancy Strategy when setting their own Tenancy Policy. Since the Council had its own housing stock, it must have regard to the Tenancy Strategy itself when formulating the Council’s own Tenancy Policy too.

The Tenancy Strategy set out the issues that RPs in the area should consider when formulating their own Tenancy Polices, including:

• The types of tenancies granted;
• The circumstances when different types of a tenancy would be granted;
• The length of any fixed term tenancies; and
• When fixed term tenancies would be extended or terminated and what would be taken into account.

In January 2012, the former Housing Portfolio Holder agreed that the Council should work with Harlow District Council and Uttlesford District Council to produce a Joint West Essex Tenancy Strategy.

Following the production of a Consultant’s Brief by EFDC’s Director of Housing, and a subsequent tender exercise, the three local authorities had appointed a small consultancy, Jenkinsduval, to produce a draft West Essex Tenancy Strategy on their behalf.

One of the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 was that local authorities must consult with all RPs in their area. Jenkinsduval held a successful Consultation Event with all social landlords across West Essex on 19 June 2012, and also held a separate successful event with key stakeholders on the same day. Following these events, Jenkinsduval produced a Consultation Draft which:

• Was not too prescriptive, providing a broad, overarching approach;
• Enabled local flexibility in the three local areas, and amongst different RPs;
• Enabled social landlords to provide fixed term tenancies or lifetime tenancies, as appropriate;

·         Expected minimum 5 year terms, if fixed term tenancies were provided;

• Set out the expectations of the criteria used for reviews and renewals of tenancies; and
• Emphasised the importance of good timely advice at the review period.

It was advised that Jenkinsduval was currently undertaking a formal Consultation Exercise on the Consultation Draft and the Housing Scrutiny Standing Panel was asked to consider the Consultation Draft and provide any comments it may have on behalf of the Council.

RECOMMENDED:

That the Consultation Draft for the West Essex Tenancy Strategy be welcomed, but that no other comments be made.

To consider which reports are ready to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its next meeting.

The Chairman advised that he would update the Overview and Scrutiny Committee verbally at its next meeting.

There will be an extra-ordinary Panel meeting on Tuesday 7 August 2012 at 5.30p.m. in the Committee Rooms, and then on the following dates:

(1)        Tuesday 23 October 2012 at 5.30p.m.;

(2)        Tuesday 29 January 2013 at 5.30p.m.; and

(3)        Tuesday 19 March at 5.30p.m.

The next meeting of the Panel would be an extra-ordinary meeting on Tuesday 7 August at 5.30p.m. in Committee Rooms 1 and 2, and then on:

Tuesday 23 October at 5.30p.m.;

Tuesday 29 January 2013 at 5.30p.m.; and

Tuesday 19 March at 5.30p.m.