Substitutes are not allowed.

Apologies were received from Councillor Liz Wade and Stephen Clarke (represented by Dave Scholes).

None.

The Housing Panel, when originally set by the Communities and Partnership Scrutiny Committee, was asked to recruit an Oxford City Council tenant to sit as a non-voting co-opted member.

In summer 2015 the Panel agreed to appoint a new co-opted member and sought expressions of interest via the Council’s Tenant Involvement Team and the Tenants in Touch newsletter.  Following an informal interview process the Panel appointed Geno Humphrey as a co-opted member for one year.  His term was later extended for a second year.

Recommendation: That the Panel AGREES to re-appoint Geno Humphrey as a co-opted member until the end of the 2017/18 Council year.

The Panel agreed to co-opt Geno Humphrey for the remainder of the 2017/18 Council year.

The Strategy and Service Development Manager introduced the report and highlighted the five key strategic aims and priorities.  She said there will be a six week consultation running from 21 September to 3 November 2017 and various stakeholders will be engaged in a variety of ways.  The Council would be actively targeting hard to reach groups and going out to engage with them at their own meetings.

The Board Member for Housing added that the Council could not solve the housing crisis in the city and needed to work with a range of partners.  The Council was making strong representations to government about national housing and homelessness policies and funding.

The Chair invited some external contributors to speak to inform the Panel’s deliberations on the strategy and the two subsequent items.

The Service Manager of the Oxford Street Population Outreach Team (SPOT) addressed the Panel.  She said that her team was fully funded by the City Council and included seven outreach workers who worked within the parameters set by the Council, its partners and government.  They worked on the basis that rough sleeping was harmful and dangerous and was not a safe option for people, so all other options would be explored.  Rough sleepers had very differing needs that had to be considered on an individual basis.  As such it was not helpful or accurate to describe rough sleepers as being a ‘community’.  There had been a significant increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough in Oxford, with about 25 new arrivals per month.  The Council was looking creatively at options which St. Mungo’s had some experience of from Bristol, Brighton and Reading.  She welcomed Council initiatives such as looking to utilise empty buildings as shelters.

A homeless person known as Neo addressed the Panel.  He said that in his view the numbers of rough sleepers had been under-stated but he agreed that the numbers of new rough sleepers were increasing, with a number of recent new arrivals coming from Banbury.  These people had complex issues and there was a need to break down barriers and build their trust but the approach taken by Outreach was too heavy-handed.  The local connection policy was a big issue because some rough sleepers had been in the city for a long time now and were clearly not going anywhere and needed more help.  It was now starting to get cold, which would lead to increased alcohol and drug use as rough sleepers struggled to cope.  There were not enough beds in the city and although the churches were coming together to provide ten extra beds, rough sleepers needed somewhere warm they could go 24 hours a day.  He said he was looking to open a shelter and had volunteers, some money and public support but needed a building. 

Sgt. Peter Neale addressed the Panel.  He said that there were massive vulnerabilities associated with rough sleeping and the feelings of hopelessness people felt, including addiction, debt and human exploitation.  As it got colder,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

The Housing Strategy and Needs Manager said that county council budget cuts were impacting the homelessness pathway.  The Council has assessed a need for 150 beds and the report was seeking to deliver the shortfall.  The Council was close to securing an agreement for 22 new units of accommodation with 24 hour support for people with complex needs and would be seeking planning consent before Christmas.  This scheme could also include 15 units of move on accommodation which would help to alleviate a blockage. In the meantime the Council was seeking to ensure that half the beds at Simon House remained available for a further year.  Approval was also being sought for a further 5 units of accommodation for rough sleepers with mental health and addition issues.

In discussion the Panel noted:

·         A future report would be presented to members on options for the future of Simon House, which may involve the Council looking to link it with other sites to make the delivery of affordable housing more viable.

·         The expansion of the ‘Housing First’ model (Acacia Housing) was very welcome.

·         Some concern about the choice of A2 Dominion as a development partner based on their responsiveness to existing tenants, although they were relocating their Oxford office to be close to more tenants.

·         The issue of homeless people moving on into private sector housing was very difficult and the Council was continuing to try a range of different and innovative strategies to address this.

·         The Council had little leverage with landlords to encourage them to make properties available for move on accommodation and any carrots the Council could offer became less effective as rents continued to rise.

The Panel endorsed the recommendations and agreed to request more information about the Age UK Oxford Homeshare project, which matches older people who have a spare room with a younger person who needs affordable accommodation.

The Housing Strategy and needs manager said that the report responded to a Council motion and did not propose any definite actions at this stage but provided an update on work that was continuing.  The report identified three types of scheme that might be viable.  There were some empty premises in the city but discussions with landlords to date had not produced results.  The Council had an active work plan and if opportunities did arise then the Council would act but this route may be a dead end.

In discussion the Panel expressed some disappointment that no buildings had been found for any schemes and noted that:

·         The greatest need in the city was for additional severe weather emergency provision because there was a lack of suitable available buildings.  Plan B was to utilise community and sports centres at night but the Council would prefer a dedicated space.

·         There were some 300 homes in the city that had been empty for over 2 years and about 70 that had been empty for over 10 years.  The Council had sought to bring these back in to use but it was not easy.

·         Commercial properties were likely to be more suitable than residential properties for homelessness provision but it was very challenging to bring these back into use.

·         The Council and its partners were relatively successful at engaging with new rough sleepers.

·         Organisations in the homelessness pathway could exercise some discretion where people had no local connect in certain circumstances.

·         The future of Lucy Faithful Housing would be subject to a report to members in the near future.

The Panel endorsed the recommendations and agreed to request a verbal update in 6 months’ time.

For the Panel to note and agree its work plan, which can be adjusted to reflect the wishes of the Panel.

Noted.

For the Panel to approve the record of the meeting held on 27 July 2017.

Agreed.

Meetings are scheduled as follows:

12 October 2017

13 November 2017

8 March 2018

9 April 2018

All meetings begin at 5.00pm.

Noted.