Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

To improve accessibility individual documents published after 1 May 2020 are available as HTML pages where their original format supports this

Speaking at a Council or Committee meeting

Venue: St Aldate's Room - Oxford Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Andrew Brown 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

The Quorum for this Panel is three and substitutes are not allowed.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from:

 

Councillor Scott Seamons, Board Member for Housing

Dave Scholes, Housing Strategy and Needs Manager

2.

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

None

3.

Performance Monitoring (Housing measures) - Quarter 1 pdf icon PDF 148 KB

Background Information

 

This report contains outcomes at the end of June 2015 (2015/16 quarter 1) for a set of housing performance indicators grouped according to three themes previously chosen by the Panel:

 

Estate regeneration,

Housing supply,

Welfare reform and the housing crisis.

 

Why is it on the agenda?

 

The Housing Panel is responsible for monitoring Council performance against housing targets. 

 

The Panel is asked to note this report and may wish to ask questions or request further information.

 

Who has been invited to comment?

 

No officers have been invited specifically for this item but the Scrutiny Officer will follow up on any requests after the meeting, if required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Head of Housing and Property provided updates on the following performance measures:

 

HC016: Number of affordable homes for rent delivered – the target would be met by the end of this month.

HP003: The number of people estimated to be sleeping rough – a street count was conducted in May and 18 people were found to be sleeping rough. It was estimated that there were 146 unique rough sleepers seen bedded down in Oxford over a 3 month period (April 2015 to June 2015).  A detailed report was available for quarter 1 which could be shared with members.

 

In response to a question, the Panel heard that the number of families living in temporary accommodation was within target (NI156).  The Council had recently been using more of its own stock to accommodate homeless families compared to previous years when the majority were housed in private rented stock. 

 

The Panel heard that two sheltered schemes had been converted to temporary accommodation a few years ago.  The Panel questioned when these sites would be developed as planning approval had been granted some years ago.  The Head of Housing and Property advised that he could not see this happening in the foreseeable future because these sites provided about 30 temporary accommodation units and the pressure on homelessness was only likely to increase.  The homelessness budget had been overspent by £200k last year and pressures around Homechoice and the nightly spend had not gone away.  There was a need to communicate this message to local residents.

 

The Panel questioned the Council’s performance on rent collection (CS010 & CS013) and whether all was being done to improve this.  The Panel heard that the Council has the right resources in place and had recently invested in software which could improve the Council’s efficiency in this area.  Welfare reforms had made it more difficult for the Council to achieve its targets and disposable incomes were challenged.  The government had also announced housing association and Council tenants with household incomes of over £30k would be made to pay market rents to remain in social housing.  The additional income generated would have to be paid to government.

 

Resolved:

The homelessness report for quarter 1 would be circulated to the Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.

Mid-point Review of the Homelessness Strategy 2013-18 pdf icon PDF 100 KB

Background Information

 

This report has been provided for scrutiny.  It is not going to the City Executive Board for decision.

 

Why is it on the agenda?

 

For the Panel to consider the findings of an internal review of the Council’s homelessness strategy and action plan for 2013-18. 

 

The Panel may wish to propose one or more recommendations to be put to City Executive Board, with the agreement of the Scrutiny Committee.

 

Who has been invited to comment?

 

Frances Evans, Housing Strategy and Performance Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Housing Strategy and Performance Manager introduced the report and advised that the Council’s Homelessness Strategy and Action Plan had been found to be fit for current purpose.  Of the 61 key milestones, 45 actions had been completed and were now embedded into day to day service delivery.  A further 11 would be completed within the lifetime of the strategy and 5 had been delayed.  No changes were recommended to the strategy or action plan at this stage but a further review would take place in June 2016 once the implications of new national policies and the Autumn Spending Review were better understood. 

 

The Panel were also advised that the City Council was in the process of completing the Gold Standard 10 local challenges.  Many other authorities had not yet started this process.  The first challenge had been awarded for corporate commitment to tackling homelessness and a second challenge would be submitted by officers the following day.  In response to a question, the Panel heard that this involved responding to questions and providing evidence to demonstrate that the Council delivered on its policies and strategies.

 

The Panel questioned what data the Council keeps on people who are not eligible for services, such as those who had refused an offer of housing.  The Housing Strategy and Performance Manager advised that the Council provides advice, information and signposting to assist customers and offered to provide to the Panel some details on the types of services being provided.

 

The Panel questioned how the Making Every Adult Matter (MEAM) pilot had gone and the Housing Strategy and Performance Manager offered to speak with colleagues and provide more information to the Panel.

 

In response to a question about the recommissioning of homelessness services with reduced funding, the Panel heard that this process was led by the County Council and was now in its final stages. There would be no hostel closures or loss of bed spaces in the city.  The main challenge to the homelessness pathway was a lack of move on accommodation.  This was caused by a lack of sustainable accommodation in the city that was available at Local Housing Allowance rates.

 

The Panel questioned where in the city people tend to present as homeless and whether many applications were received from people from neighbouring districts.  The Panel heard that there were handfuls of such cases and that it was often difficult to identify where responsibility for these individuals lies.  Not all local authorities make provision for non-statutory homelessness so services located in Oxford did have an attraction effect to some extent. 

 

The Panel noted that Age UK had been awarded funding to speed up hospital discharges for older people and asked which agencies the City Council was working with on homeless hospital discharge protocols. 

 

The Panel asked what support the City Council provided to credit unions and whether such provision was sustainable.  Officers offered to come back on this.

 

The Panel questioned the City Council’s approach to preventing begging.  The Panel heard that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Homelessness Property Investment pdf icon PDF 217 KB

Background Information

 

The special City Executive Board on 30 July 2015 agreed to the six officer recommendations set out in this report.

 

Council on 23 September 2015 will be asked to approve changes to the Council’s budget, as per officer recommendations 5 and 6.

 

Why is it on the agenda?

 

For the Housing Panel to scrutinise the Homelessness Property Investment decision. 

 

The Housing Panel may wish to propose one or more recommendations to put to full Council on 23 September, with the agreement of the Scrutiny Committee on 7 September.

 

Who has been invited to comment?

 

Dave Scholes, Housing Strategy and Needs Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Housing and Property introduced this report.  The Panel heard that the City Council was levering in external funding to buy properties to prevent statutory homelessness.  Properties would be let to homeless households at Local Housing Allowance rates, releasing capacity in hostels.  St. Mungo’s would manage the properties and would be incentivised to move tenants on within 2 years, which would require intensive work with these households.  The scheme aimed to provide a return on the Council’s investment while also mitigating some of the increasing demand on homelessness services.

 

The Panel questioned whether the City Council would have flexibility and control in order to support tenancies exempt or excluded from the ordinary rules that apply to maximum Local Housing Allowance rates.  The Panel received assurances that such controls were in place.

 

The Panel questioned what would happen at the end of a 2 year tenancy if the household was unable to move on.  The Head of Housing and Property advised that households would not face eviction but that there would be a knock on effect and a risk that the homelessness pathway would become blocked.  St. Mungo’s would work with households to improve their employment prospects with the aim that they could afford to move on into private rented accommodation.  This would be very challenging but St. Mungo’s had a good record and the Council’s Welfare Reform Team had also proven that it was possible to get results.

 

The Panel questioned whether neighbouring districts had been consulted and heard that the districts were aware.  The City Council could choose where to buy properties and may get better value for money outside of the city boundaries but factors such as schooling would be taken into account when housing families.  Two other authorities outside of Oxfordshire would also be investing in this fund and in future there could be flexibility of movement across these three areas.   

6.

Oxford Growth Strategy pdf icon PDF 97 KB

Background Information

 

The City Executive Board on 10 September will be asked to note the contents of this report, in particular the potential need to identify additional resources of £310,000.

 

Why is it on the agenda?

 

For the Housing Panel to pre-scrutinise the Oxford Growth Strategy decision.

 

The Panel may wish to propose one or more recommendations to be put to the City Executive Board on 10 September, with the agreement of the Scrutiny Committee on 7 September.

 

Who has been invited to comment?

 

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Board Member for Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services,

Matthew Bates, Principle Planning Officer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Board Member for Transport, Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report and explained that it contained nothing substantially new but provided a useful summary of the current position.

 

A Principal Planning Officer highlighted an error on page 96 of the paperwork (paragraph 17 of the report), where ‘£50,000 for Vale of the White Horse and South Oxfordshire Examinations’ should read ‘£50,000 for Vale of the White Horse and West Oxfordshire Examinations’.

 

The Panel questioned whether the Council had looked at potentially cheaper alternatives to the proposed additional resources, such as co-funding some of this work on a county-wide basis.  The Panel heard that there was a joint working process but not full agreement on some issues, so there was a need for the City Council to frontload evidence to the Oxfordshire Growth Board.  Two districts were trying to evidence that Oxford’s housing needs could be met within Oxford, for example through the removal of height restrictions and certain environmental protections.  The City Council was identifying sites on the edge of the city for housing development and the Districts were not necessarily keen to carry out such work on a joint basis.

 

The Panel asked whether there was scope for the City Council to negotiate on issues such as housing density and height restrictions in the city, or to consider sites outside the city on major transport routes, in order to find middle ground and seek agreement with the districts.  The Panel heard that there had been positive engagement with some districts and less positive engagement with others.  The Board Member advised that finding solutions to Oxford’s unmet housing need would require difficult decisions about sustainability that would have to balance a range of views.  However the evidence that Oxford’s housing need far out-scaled its capacity meant that progress was now being made towards agreement of Oxford’s unmet housing need that would need to be met outside of the district.  The Board Member advised that the housing need figure that the City Council had agreed to accept [from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment] as a working assumption for the purposes of calculating the unmet element, was at the lower end of future projections and would not meet the affordable housing needs by some way.

 

The Board Member advised that height restrictions were very important to the character of Oxford but that did not mean that a completely flat skyline would be desirable.  Some higher developments on selected sites could be appropriate if they are carefully designed, such as potentially at the Oxpens site. 

 

The Board Member advised that the City Council would consider whether high density housing would be appropriate on future development sites.  It was unlikely that there were streets of older housing within the city that could feasibly be redeveloped and replaced with new housing blocks, as suggested by a Panel member.

 

The Panel expressed disappointment that so far, only student accommodation had been allocated on the Oxpens site.  The Panel heard that the City Council was awaiting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Housing Panel Work Programme pdf icon PDF 29 KB

For the Panel to review and note its work programme for the 2015/16 municipal year.

 

Minutes:

The Scrutiny Officer made the following proposals which were agreed by the Panel:

 

- Due to delays in housing-related decisions going to CEB, an additional Housing Panel meeting could be scheduled for 5 November 2015.  This would enable the Panel to pre-scrutinise decisions on the Sheltered Housing Review, Private Rented Sector Strategy and Housing Energy Strategy.

- As a consequence, an informal meeting scheduled for 26 October 2015 would be cancelled.

- Housing Panel members would be invited to the Finance Panel’s budget review meeting on 7 January 2016 (5.30pm start) to consider the Council’s Housing Revenue Account business plan and other budget proposals relating to housing.

- That a report on rent arrears would be scheduled to come to the Panel meeting in December.

 

Councillor Sanders apologised that she would be unable to attend the budget review meeting on 7 January 2016.

 

8.

Notes of previous meeting pdf icon PDF 91 KB

For the Panel to note the record of the meeting held on 4 June 2015.

Minutes:

The Panel approved the notes of the meeting held on 4 June 2015.

9.

Date of next meeting

Future public meetings have been scheduled for:

 

8 October

9 December

9 March

 

All meetings start at 5pm.

 

Members are also asked to note the dates of two additional informal meetings, on 26 October (5pm) and 7 January (5.30pm).

 

 

Minutes:

Noted