Agenda item

*Clerk’s note – 20:24: Cllr Adamou let the meeting at this point*

The Panel received a report that set out the overarching picture of Housing Demand and Homelessness in Haringey, as well as providing on overview of the key issues affecting children and families in temporary accommodation and social housing. The report was introduced by Sara Sutton, AD Partnerships and Communities and Darren Fairclough, Head of Lettings and Rehousing as set out in the agenda pack at pages 33-66. Cllr Brabazon was also present for this agenda item. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around bespoken adaptions for families with SEND and commented that they had seen a recent example and were very impressed. It was commented that there needed to be more of these. In response, officers acknowledged that the adaptations were transformational and assurances were provided that there was a pipeline in place.

b.    In response to a questions about how to rehouse families in an emergency, such as a fire, officers advised that there were emerging planning processes in place along with an out-of-hours rota of staff who would be responsible for responding in an emergency situation.

c.    In relation to specialist adaptations in private rented sector accommodation, officers advised that funding was available through the Disability Support Grant in the first instance, however landlords may not wish to have adaptations carried out in their property. Depending on the unsuitability of the accommodation, it may be necessary to find alternative accommodation and the Council may have a homelessness duty to that person and need to prioritise them on the housing register.

d.    In response to a question, officers advised that there was no statutory limit to the amount of time that somebody could be placed in Temporary Accommodation. The only limits were around being place in bed and breakfast type accommodation, which was six weeks.

e.    The Panel sought assurances around the prioritisation process for families with children with SEND and keeping them in the borough. In response, officers advised that under Priority four there was specific criteria for SEND children and a placement being detrimental to their wellbeing, however the paucity of large family homes meant that some families were sent out of borough. There was a transfer list which identified families living in unsuitable accommodation, however this had around 300 families on it.

f.     The Chair queried how the process of finding families with a disability suitable housing could be made quicker. In response, officers advised that ultimately there was no easy answer due to the fact that demand far outstripped supply. In relation to new-build accommodation, it was noted that things like the Neighbourhood Moves scheme offered a degree of flexibility for priority need.

g.    In response to a number of questions around nightly paid and bed & breakfast accommodation, officers clarified that the two were slightly different. The nightly paid accommodation was self-contained units, whilst B&Bs were more emergency provision and done for shorter periods. Officers advised that they did block book accommodation in advance and that Travelodges were used as a last resort. An example was given where someone may require short term accommodation as a stop gap whilst they wait for an AST in the private sector. Officers advised that food payments were provided to those staying in a Travelodge.

h.    Officers advised that a range of mitigations were in place to try and reduce the amount of short-term accommodation but that it was hard to say what the future direction of travel might be given there was an 8% increase in demand expected this year and up to 15% next year. It was commented that future legislative changes such as a ban on no-fault evictions would conceivably have a positive impact on this.

i.      The Panel queried the membership of the Housing sub-group and the extent to which parents and families were represented on there, particularly in terms of families with children who had SEND. In response, officers advised that this was an officer group with representation from key external partners when required. It was emphasised that it was not a policy development group, and that it reported into the Safeguarding Children’s Board and Safeguarding Adults Board. The co-opted member of the Panel agreed to pick up this point with officers outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED

That the report was noted.