Agenda item

The Panel received an update on the Bed & Breakfast (B&B) Elimination Plan. The plan is a requirement of the Homelessness Prevention Grant funding from DLUUHC and details plans to reduce and then end our use of B&B accommodation for residents who are homeless. The report was introduced by Denise Gandy, Assistant Director of Housing Demand, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 11-36. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Planning and Private Renters was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

1. The Panel sought assurances around the accountability mechanism with DLUHC. In response, Members were advised that there was a specialist advisor who worked with the team on developing their B&B Elimination plan and that they met monthly. Officers compiled a detailed return to the government around the numbers of B&B placements. Officers advised that the funding for 2024/25 had already been allocated so that was secure, funding for 2025 onwards was unsure.
2. The Panel sought assurances around domestic violence victims and how the Council protected them from having to be moved out of their accommodation. In response, officers advised that the main pressure related to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which broadened the Council’s responsibility around homelessness and domestic abuse, so that the Council had to treat all people as an emergency case where they were made homeless through domestic abuse. Officers advised that there were blockages in the market in terms of moving people out of refuges and into the private sector. The Council did not place domestic abuse victims in accommodation with shared facilities.
3. The Panel sought clarification about whether the voids figures in the report reflected HCBS properties. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the report set out that there were 272 general void properties, 77 HCBS voids and 74 sheltered accommodation void properties.
4. In response to a question, officers advised that 1% inspection figure in the report referred to the estimated number of illegally occupied properties, rather than the percentage of properties that received an inspection.
5. A panel member raised concerns about the demolition of Love Lane and the impact this would have on available housing units. In response, it was acknowledged that there could be pinch points in the system but that there were new properties coming into the system to replace those being demolished and that the goal was to get flow into the system to free up units. 
6. In relation to a question around whether the new build properties should be put into the HCBS in order to achieve higher rental income, the Cabinet Member advised that this wasn’t possible as the grant funding for the new build properties was allocated on the basis that they would be secure lets.
7. In response to a question, the officers advised that the Homelessness Reduction Act placed three duties on local authorities. The authority had 56 days to prevent homelessness, then 56 days to relieve homelessness and after that threshold was passed, then the main housing duty kicked in.
8. The Panel sought clarification about what the other barriers were to being moved on. In response, officers set out that typically it was ordinary practical issues such as moving costs, the logistics of moving home and things like rent arrears.
9. In reference to the reasons people have exited B&B accommodation in paragraph 6.4.6 of the report, officers agreed to provide a more detailed breakdown in writing about the 21 cases where the housing duty was ended for another reason. (Action: Denise).
10. Officers provide assurances that at each stage of the process an applicant would have an opportunity to make a representation on a proposed course of action, including where a negative decision was being proposed.
11. The Panel sought assurances that the government targets were not having a negative effect on vulnerable people. In response, the members were advised that the key driver for getting people out of B&Bs is that it was the least suitable type of accommodation for families, rather than the government putting pressure on councils to do so. Officers were working to increase supply in order to reduce the need for B&B placements.
12. The Panel sought clarification around the Multi Agency Reduction Board. In response the Cabinet Member advised that it had its first meeting last week and that it would meet every three weeks. The membership was made up from key internal and external partners and reflected the fact that it was much broader than just a council wide issue.
13. Officers agreed to come back with a response on what was meant in the action plan by reducing prohibition notices. (Action: Denise).
14. A Panel Member queried whether, in light of the reduction in the capital programme, that the framework procurement agreement should be reduced from four companies to three. In response, officers advised that they were still receiving a positive response from the market to this and were hopeful of getting this in place. Officers also set out that part of the reason for having the four companies was that they would be based in a particular geographic area.
15. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that the industrial action being taken by repairs staff was having a negative impact on voids work. 

RESOLVED

Noted