Substitutes are not allowed.

Apologies were received from Councillor Elise Benjamin and Councillor Gill Sanders.

None.

The Environmental Health Service Manager introduced the report.  The Panel heard that Oxford had a relatively high proportion of private rented accommodation and relatively low levels of owner-occupation.  In an otherwise deregulatory era, Government was strengthening the regulation of this sector.  The new private sector housing policy sat under the Council’s Housing Strategy.

The Panel asked a wide range of questions, including about; how the Council can identify other properties owned by landlords, whether more could be done to return empty properties to use, what was being done to address the issue of beds in sheds and how any priority area for the selected licensing of non-HMO private rented sector accommodation would be evaluated.  The Panel heard that the Council would need permission to introduce a selective licensing scheme covering more than 20% of the geographical area of the city.  Any assessment of priority areas for selective licensing would be based on how best to maximise the stock that would be covered by the scheme, as well as the volumes of service requests and reports of anti-social behaviour in different parts of the city.  Ideally the sector would pay for its own regulation, as happens with HMO licensing.

The Panel questioned how tenants in the private rented sector would be encouraged to engage in the consultation and heard that this was a challenge with the exception of students as private rented sector tenants were disparate and not formally organised in groups. 

The Panel noted that the Council’s primary focus to date had been on regulating the houses in multiple occupation (HMO) market.  The Panel questioned the links and information sharing between the HMO enforcement and planning enforcement functions and found that the while some checks were in place, the Council could not legally refuse a HMO license application on the basis that planning permission had not been sought or granted.  Refusals could only be based on the condition of the property and a fit and proper person test.

The Panel questioned what could be done to address the issue of rubbish or bulky items being left outside HMOs, for example when students vacate these properties at the end of term.  The Panel heard that there were various enforcement options the Council could use, including serving a notice on the landlord to remove items within 7 days and the option of works in default, where the Council could remove the items and bill the landlord.  In the event that the landlord then refused to pay, a charge could be held against the property until such a time as it was sold. 

The Panel questioned how residents could report an unlicensed HMOs or an HMO in poor repair and heard that this facility was available online. 

The Panel agreed to scrutinise a refresh of the Council’s Empty Property Strategy and will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Private Sector Housing Strategy again following the public consultation.

The Panel supported the general approach taken and agreed to make five recommendations to the City  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

The Head of Housing Strategy and Needs introduced the report.  He explained that the formula for rent increases on HRA properties leased to partner organisations was based on the target rent formula that had previously been applied to Council houses with up to five bedrooms.  The Panel questioned the impact of the rent increases on partner organisations and supported the approach outlined in the report.

The Head of Housing Strategy and Needs provided a presentation on the review of OP housing, which made thirteen recommendations.  The Panel heard that a report would be presented to the City Executive Board (CEB) in March but that a draft report would be available and could be circulated to members soon. 

The Panel made the following comments:

• variations in life expectancy in the city should be factored in to age growth projections;
• the Tenant Scrutiny Panel should be updated and engaged with;
• the Age UK Home Share scheme, once approved, should be promoted in the Older Persons’ Guide and on the Council’s website.

The Panel supported the approach being taken and agreed not to pre-scrutinise the CEB report at the March Panel meeting.

The Panel is recommended to:

i)             Note and agree its work programme;

ii)            Agree to schedule a joint session with the Tenants Scrutiny Panel on 11 April 2016 to consider a report on Tenant Involvement, as well as any items scheduled for March that slip to April;

iii)           Note and comment on the provisional Housing Panel meeting dates for 2016/17.

The Panel noted its work programme and the provisional meeting dates for 2016/17. 

The Panel agreed to hold a joint session with the Tenant Scrutiny Panel focused on Tenant Involvement on 11 April 2016.

For the Panel to note the record of its meeting on 10 December 2015.

Noted.

9 March 2016, 5pm

Noted.

The Panel did not discuss the confidential appendix.