Agenda item

The Panel considered a report which presented findings from council held census data on under-occupation in council and other social housing, set out the Council’s policies to support under-occupying council tenants to move to smaller homes and set out the Council’s ambition to develop a new rightsizing strategy. The report was presented by Robbie Erbmann, AD for Housing, as set out in the published agenda papers at pages 35-37. Denise Gandy, AD of Housing Demand was also present for this item, along with the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel noted 46% of four-bed council properties were under-occupied and 61% of five-bed council properties were under-occupied. Officers set out that the data showed that Haringey was slightly more under-occupied, that it was overcrowded. Better use of the Council’s housing stock could, therefore, improve the demand pressures that the Council faced in relation to housing needs.
2. The Panel commented that they recalled a previous update on this issue and the fact that the incentives offered weren’t enough to tempt people to leave their family homes. The Panel queries the extent to which the Council was able proactively engage with tenants on this issue, without pressuring them. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that in many ways this was the key question, and that having a robust offer of incentives was crucial to rightsizing the council’s housing stock. The Cabinet Member suggested that the authority was at the beginning of this process and that she did not have all of the answers at present. However, it was envisaged that directing additional staffing resources at this would help move it along. It was suggested that a key incentive for some people could be an offer to move into a new home that had much lower running costs.
3. The Panel sought clarification about whether there were any examples of good practice from other local authorities that had implemented a successful incentive scheme, that could be considered. In response, officers advised that, broadly speaking, it was about having a range of options in place. One example given was a transferable discount scheme, whereby those who were under occupying could be given a discount to buy a shared ownership property, in the same way that people got discounts under Right to Buy. There were also seaside and country home schemes that facilitated tenants swapping tenancies for a home in the country or by the sea.
4. The Panel commented that one solution could be around having different tiers of incentives, as some people would be incentivised by money but others may have different motivations. The Panel also commented that engaging with residents was key in order to find out where the under-occupations were and to gauge interest. In response, the Cabinet Member noted that offering different rates to different residents would probably result in the Council being taken to court.
5. The Panel sought clarification about whether adult children who still lived at home would be classed as a property being under-occupied. In response, adults advised that only properties with empty rooms would contribute to the figures for under-occupied properties, not those with adult children living in them.
6. In response to a suggestion about having split tenancies for those with adult children that wanted to get their own place or families that wanted to separate, officers advised that this was an avenue that they would be keen to explore.
7. In response to a question, officers advised that the existing home swap scheme was an alternative option available to people and that it was run as a national programme that allowed tenants to agree to swap homes on a national rather than intra-Haringey basis.
8. The Panel sought clarification about whether it was legal to for the Council to reserve a particular chunk of housing for those who were currently under-occupying. In response, officers advised that it was possible to do a targeted scheme on a one-off basis through a targeted lettings plan. Officers advised that the Neighbourhood Moves scheme had already been quite successful in facilitating people to move into new homes. Officers also highlighted the fact that the Ashley Road site was due to be 50% social housing and 50% homes for private sale, but that the Council had managed to secure all 272 properties for social housing. This meant that there would be a lot of one and two bedroom properties on the site, and the plan was to offer a bespoke product for older residents who may want to downsize into a more accessible property.
9. The Panel requested that a further update be brought to the Panel in due course around the Neighbourhood Moves scheme and its implementation to date.  (Action: Philip).

RESOLVED

Noted.