Agenda item

The Panel received a report on the Neighbourhood Moves Scheme. The report set out the background to the Neighbourhood Moves Scheme (NMS) including its introduction and the results of the scheme on the Council’s allocation and letting of homes. The report also set out the existing proposed changes as part of the Allocations Policy consultation that was authorised by Cabinet. The Consultation questions were appended to the report (Appendix 1). The report was introduced by Rachel Sharpe, Interim Director of Housing , as set out in the agenda pack at pages 43-51. Appendix 1 was included in the addendum report pack at pages 27-28. Maddie Watkins, AD for Housing Demand and Cherie Lee-Hemley, Neighbourhood Moves Scheme Manager were present for this agenda item. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was also present. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel sought clarification about whether the Council had any leverage over housing associations to make them deal with under-occupancy. Officers replied that, in general the Council did not have any powers with housing associations in this regard. Housing associations have a general duty to meet housing need and to cooperate with local councils. Housing associations have their own allocations policies and the authority does not have any control over that. Officers referred Members to paragraph 5.3 of the report which set out that one possible inclusion for a future Neighbourhood Moves scheme was to include housing association tenants that we nominated, as being eligible for the Neighbourhood Moves scheme.

b.    The Chair queried why the percentage of eligible residents who applied for NMS was quite low at 18% and what reason people gave for wanting to move. In response, officers advised that the most common reason was overcrowding, with under-occupiers next. Officers noted that there were other people who were adequately housed in terms of the number of bedrooms, but they had other problems such as disrepair or level access requirements. The Neighbourhood Moves Scheme Manager set out that she had been in the organisation since 2023 and that it was only now that the scheme was getting going, with the scheme being spread by word of mouth from residents who had used it.  Officers set out that under-occupiers tended to be difficult to relocate due to modern developments having smaller gardens and lack of available parking.

c.    The Cabinet Member advised the Panel that there was a report going to Cabinet on 10^th March on the Council’s downsizing policy. The Cabinet Member commented that there was more that the organisation could do to incentivise under-occupiers to downsize. The Chair noted that this was something that should be looked at in a future scrutiny meeting.

d.    The Panel queried whether there was any information available around the cost of overcrowding to the Council. In response, officers advised that it was not possible to accurately determine the cost due to the multiple variables involved, including the number of non-dependant adults living at home and the extent to which this could be mitigated through things like employment support. Information was available from the housing register that set out the extent and scale of overcrowding, as well the reasons that people gave for applying to the NMS. Officers agreed to supply this information to the Panel. (Action: Maddie Watkins).

e.    The Chair clarified whether the report identified that around one-third of moves under the NMS were in situations that there was no net-gain to housing needs on the housing register. Officers confirmed that the figure was 36%, which meant that in 64% of cases there was a net-gain.

f.      The Panel queried what was being done to look at families who in four or five years’ time might have a change in circumstance and may want to downsize. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the organisation was making a start through various policies and procedures, such as the downsizing strategy, but that the organisation hadn’t done this for a long time. The Cabinet Member commented that she thought that it would come down to being able to provide enough capacity to properly support people through the process, rather than money. The Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health set out that the Older Person’s Housing Strategy was also being considered at the next Cabinet meeting. The report was due to go out to consultation on a 15 year strategy. It was stated that the Council needed to have a strategic package of appropriate housing for people as they go older.

g.    The Panel raised concerns about the levels of severe overcrowding in the borough and suggested that tackling this issue should be a priority for the authority. In response, officers advised that in the proposed changes to the scheme, as set out in the report, there was an option to utilise the NMS to respond to overcrowding and under-occupying in a more specific way. It was noted that the NMS was part of the allocations policy, which is out to consultation in the summer. One of the options put forward in the report was to continue with the NMS, but limit it to instances of severe overcrowding and under-occupiers. Officers emphasised that there was a spectrum of ways that the NMS could be used to meet housing needs in the borough.

h.    The Chair queried the presence of a catchment area of 250m, suggesting that there was an imbalance in the west to the east of the borough in terms of the number of Council homes. The Chair suggested that he would like to see a degree of flexibility in the catchment area to reflect the fact that most schemes are in the east of the borough. Similarly, the Chair suggested that only applying it to schemes of ten or more properties disproportionately impacted the west of the borough. In response, officers advised that they were happy to take this feedback on board as part of the consultation process.

i.      The Panel commented that allowing another move under the NMS within five years seemed very generous. In response, officers clarified that there wasn’t any limit in the scheme at the minute and that the proposal sought to introduce a time limit. Officers clarified that in general, a move under the scheme would not be considered at present if you had been living in your property for less than one year.

RESOLVED

      I.         That the report was noted.

     II.         That Cabinet should consider revising the future Neighbourhood Moves Scheme so that a portion of the properties available through the scheme are reserved for households outside of the designated area experiencing severe overcrowding. Priority for these homes would be given to families living in severe overcrowding, based on the length of time they have been affected.

   III.         That Cabinet consider how the current Neighbourhood Moves Scheme may inadvertently deprioritise families in areas of the Borough where fewer properties are being built. Consideration should be given to an amendment to the area of households within scope for a NMS property could be flexible to reflect the number of new builds or prospective builds in an area so that all residents can see the benefit of the Council's housebuilding programme.

  IV.         That Cabinet should also consider introducing a minimum period since a household’s last move before they are eligible to move again under the scheme, and that this period should exceed five years. The Panel recognises, however, that an exception should apply where a family is willing to downsize, given that the needs of families with teenage children can change significantly over time. The Panel further believes that priority within the scheme should be given to families who have experienced a change in circumstances, such as the onset of significant health issues, a disability, or children with SEND.