Issue - meetings

Briefing and answers to questions – Councillor John Bevan, Cabinet Member for Housing.

The Committee received the portfolio briefing and the responses to advance questions posed to Councillor John Bevan, Cabinet Member for Housing.  The Committee asked supplementary questions, the answers of which are noted below.

Re. Q2.  The Committee noted that private rental sector housing had been utilised in order to reduce the demand for poor quality temporary accommodation.  Officers stated that the Government’s housing benefit proposals would result in onward migration and a rise in the use of poor quality temporary accommodation and the Council was working with other boroughs to set minimum standards which landlords were expected to meet and had agreed that none of the boroughs involved would use poor quality temporary accommodation.

During the discussion about temporary accommodation it was agreed that the minimum standards criteria would be circulated to Committee members (action 59.1). Members were encouraged to notify the housing department about any cases of poor accommodation that were a concern.

In response to questions it was noted that the east of the Borough saw high use of temporary accommodation, however, much was outside of the Borough, mainly in LB Enfield, but all within London.  The Council was working towards bringing all temporary accommodation placements back inside the Borough.

The Committee asked how over-occupancy was being tackled and how residents were being persuaded to move into smaller properties. It was informed that the lettings policy had been amended to enable the best use of government grants to offer financial incentives to tenants and good support from officers was key.  It was noted that 16 under-occupancy moves had been arranged so far this year.  The aim was to encourage between 70 to 100 each year through home-swap and mutual exchange initiatives.

Re. Q13. The Assistant Director Strategic & Community Housing was asked to provide information about the future of Larkspur Close sheltered housing scheme in the report being presented to the Committee on 1^st November 2010 (action 59.2).

Re. Q20.  In response to the concerns officers acknowledged the challenge in the decision to invest by way of capital or revenue but recognised that much of the funds came from housing benefits (revenue) which could not be spent on capital projects.

Re. Q22.  It was noted that under its local procurement strategy Homes for Haringey could employ local businesses if they met the quality and cost criteria and offered local apprenticeships.

In response to the Committee’s question, it was noted that there were usually between 200-220 empty (due to people moving out) Council properties at any one time. 

RESOLVED that the briefing be noted.