Agenda item

To follow.

The Panel received a report which set out the background to the development of a new housing allocations policy, set out the requirements for, and process for, consultation and covered the main principles of Haringey’s new draft housing allocations policy. It also included the draft housing allocations policy and the EQIA as appendices. The report was introduced by Hannah Adler, Head or Housing Policy and Strategy and Darren Fairclough, Head of Lettings & Rehousing - Housing Demand, as set out in the second agenda pack at pages 1-82. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was also present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel sought assurances around how the focus group was representative of the makeup of Haringey’s housing register. In response, officers advised that the focus group proportionally represented the reasons that people were on the housing register, such as severe overcrowding, medical need, living in TA etcetera. It was also commented that the group was in itself also a diverse group that represented Haringey’s residents.
2. The Panel queried the process for how people were selected to sit on the focus group. In response, officers advised that the Council took a data driven approach and developed a shortlist that was representative of the categories of reasons why people required housing as listed on the housing register. From that shortlist, the Council then wrote to those people in order to make sure they would be willing to take part.
3. The Chair questioned the new approach that was being taken to prioritise families with dependent children over those with a mixture of dependant and non-dependent children (i.e. those over the age of 22).  In response, officers advised that a number of different options were considered and that the reason that those with solely dependent children were proposed as having priority was that, whilst the wider housing challenges across London were recognised, it was considered that a child of 23 and above did not need to live at home and could live independently. The Council was seeking to prioritise those with the most need, and so it was felt that dependent children should be prioritised. Officers acknowledged that every model would result in some groups being prioritised at the expense of others. The Cabinet Member added that the aim was to give children the best chances to not have their life blighted by their housing situation. Officers advised that the age at which a child was considered non-dependant i.e. 22 was part of the consultation process.
4. The Chair asked for figures on what the impact would be on the housing register if we gave equal priority to those families with dependent and non-dependent children. Officers agreed to provide a response in writing. (Action: Hannah Adler).
5. The Panel sought further clarification about how the cut-off point for dependent children being 22 and under was reached. It was commented that in some cultures there was an expectation that adult children would live with the family until they were married. Concerns were also raised with the general feasibility of a 23 year old being able to afford to live in the private rented sector. The Panel asked whether a 23 year old child would then go on the housing register in their own right and potentially add to the length of the waiting list. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that there were no perfect answers to the issue, given the scale of the housing crisis. However, it was commented that what the policy was trying to do was prioritise those most in need. It was also stated that the policy specifically referred to when a person of family was allocated a new home. The Council was not seeking to move people out of their existing homes. The Cabinet Member also commented that the service was also looking at the rightsizing policy in conjunction with allocations. Officers reiterated that the cut-off point of 22 was being consulted upon and was not final. Officers also acknowledged that a 23 year old child could join the housing register as they were no longer classed as a dependant, and that their status and banding would depend on their individual circumstances.
6. The Panel questioned how many homes were classed as being overcrowded and how many people were allowed to share a room. In response, officers advised that severe overcrowding was classed as being overcrowded by two bedrooms and this was something like 400 homes. Severe overcrowding would place that family on Band B of the housing register. Overcrowding was  classed as being overcrowded by one room and this would put the family at Band C of the register. Officers set out that the draft housing allocations policy did not prioritise two adult children sharing a room. The Panel was advised that under the proposed model, demand for significantly larger homes of 5 bedrooms and above would be halved. This would ensure those with the most need were able to get the larger homes.
7. The Chair acknowledged that setting a cut-off age for dependent children was difficult but commented that she thought it may need to be higher than 22.
8. The Panel commented that they key activity needed to alleviate housing crisis was to build more houses, and that the allocations policy had a role in this. The Panel queried whether the policy was, in effect, giving priority to those in TA over those with severe overcrowding. An example was given of a property that had 8 people sharing a two bed flat and that the average waiting time for the family would be something like 12 years. In response, officers acknowledged that there was a significant amount of severe overcrowding in Haringey’s social housing stock, and the negative outcomes that this had on families. In relation to severe overcrowding an those in TA, both of these families were in Band B in the current policy and there were no plans to change this in the revised policy.
9. In relation to increasing supply, officers acknowledged that this was one of the key things required to tackle the housing crisis. It was commented that under the Housing Delivery Programme, Haringey was building more that 3k new homes, of which around 700 had been delivered to date. Officers set out that there was a number of other activities that could be undertaken in order to increase the availability of larger family homes, such as having more people sharing bedrooms in certain circumstances and also through looking at our under-occupation offer. It was commented that one of the small levers within the housing allocation policy was to potentially increasing the priority for under-occupiers within their band, so that they had more choice.
10. The Panel was advised that the Council had managed to secure 4 times as many under occupation moves in the current year, compared to 2023/24. They key support area that was needed in relation to rightsizing was to be able to offer the right level of flexible support to individuals. Officers provided assurances that there were other routes out of TA that were not just being put into social housing, it was commented that the Council needed to promote these routes.
11. The Cabinet Member commented that there was a pilot programme underway to build extensions on existing homes and that there were four of these currently underway. The Cabinet Member also set out that Haringey had one of the highest allocations for its allocations programme, the properties from which would go into the HCBS and could be used for TA.
12. In response to a question, officers advised that under the current policy there was scope to allow a family to move from an overcrowded property to a less overcrowded one, such as moving into a four bed when they needed a five bedroom home.
13. The Panel queried whether there was any way the Council could restrict Right to Buy. In response, officers advised that Right to Buy applied to all council tenants and that unless the new government revised the existing policy position, such as giving local authorities more flexibility, then there was not much that could be done. It was commented that the building costs of  the new homes would make tenants’ ability to purchase them prohibitive, in many cases.
14. The Panel commented that they would be interested in seeing whether anything could be done through the allocations policy to support split families or even families that have separated.
15. The Panel sought clarification about the change in numbers for each priority band that would arise from the proposed changes. In response, officers advised that the main change was de-prioritising those with non-dependent children into a lower Band B. It was suggested that there wasn’t much change to the other bands. The Panel was advised that there were around 500 households who would be impacted by this change.
16. Officers advised that if the Panel wanted to comment on the draft allocations policy, they would invite them to respond as part of the wider consultation process.
17. The Chair queried whether moving under-occupiers to the highest band and retaining the start date of their tenancy was enough of an incentive to get people to move. In response, officers advised that the policy used the main lever that was available to it, which was to prioritise under-occupiers and move them to Band A. It was suggested that there was not much more that could be done through an allocations policy. Officers acknowledged that Council needed to be able to offer a broad suite of incentivise to those who were under-occupying, including cash incentives and tailoring support. It was suggested that the Neighbourhood Moves scheme was also available to them. Officers advised that the Council was able to make direct offers to individuals where there was an overriding interest in regaining a particular property and that the exiting policy did not prohibit this.
18. The Panel noted that there were a few instances where the Council would allow someone to under-occupy, usually if it meant they were under-occupying by less than their current home, and questioned whether they should just be given greater cash incentives instead. In response, officers advised that the incentives worked in such a way that you got a payment for downsizing and then an additional payment for each room you downsized to, so technically they were also getting additional cash incentives. It was noted that the level of incentives and the need for wrap-around care were something that needed to be developed as part of the incentives work.
19. The Chair expressed concern about the proposed use of auto-bidding, suggesting that there may be a number of legitimate reasons why someone might be entitled to a second choice, before they were deemed to be intentionally homeless. In response, officers emphasised that it was an offer of a suitable home and that there was also an option to appeal. Officers commented that this was in-line with what was offered by other local authorities and that the properties went through an assessment process to determine their suitability. The Panel was advised that the auto-bidding was in addition to the ability to express a choice on a particular property. It was commented that, in reality the auto-bidding would only affect those who were not bidding themselves. The Panel was advised that in some respects, those who received an offer of social housing were in a fortunate position, as many more of those on the housing register would never receive an offer. The Chair commented that she was mindful of the above but questioned what real impact it would have to give people two choices, given that property would be allocated to someone else.
20. The Chair questioned what steps would be taken to make sure that people were aware that auto-bidding was in place and the rules around only getting one offer of a suitable placement. In response, the Cabinet Member set out that the changes to the policy were aimed at making people engage with the process and to make that process easier and more transparent. The Cabinet Member also emphasised that housing people in Temporary Accommodation was a comparatively very costly, and there was an financial need to people into alternative sources of housing.
21. The Panel commented that the Neighbourhood Moves scheme seemed to have had a knock-on effect on the performance around voids and the that perhaps the scheme should be limited to just under-occupiers and those with housing need. In response, officers advised that as part of the consultation they were proposing to limit the scheme to those living in overcrowded accommodation and under occupiers, and would no longer be offered to those without housing need.
22. The Chair raised concerns about the possible impact of the new supported housing regulations leading to some providers failing to get a licence and having to leave the sector. The Chair queried what support would be in place for supported housing residents who lost their accommodation because the provider left the sector. In response, officers acknowledged that this was a concern and set out that there had been some bad actors in the sector, who had disguised profits and used housing benefit to pay for care and support. It was acknowledged that it had created challenges to the market but that it was hoped it would result in improving standards across the sector. Officers advised that they were aware of the issue and that there was a project board in place that was coordinating a response to the consultation. Officers emphasised the need for regional and sub-regional provision across London to prevent bad actors from simply moving from one borough to another.
23. Officers advised that the exact date of the consultation was not finalised, bit that that it was likely to begin a couple of months.

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the report and the draft Housing Allocations Policy.