Agenda item

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Housing and Community Services Portfolio, which fall within the remit of this Committee. This information is provided in relation to the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services being held to account.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which set out activities and progress on work areas within the Housing and Community Services Portfolio, which fell within the remit of this Committee.

The following issues were discussed:

·       Universal Credit – whether the reduction in Universal Credit was impacting on rent arrears was queried. The Portfolio Holder commented that Universal Credit (UC) may work if administered properly but the way it currently worked could be damaging. People were now finding themselves in arrears who had never had before. The Council aimed to deal with people in this situation sensitively and did not seek to evict anyone for this reason.

·      Everybody In Scheme – the housing team were congratulated on the success of this scheme and it was queried whether any positive lessons from it had been learned. The Portfolio Holder confirmed a lot of lessons had been learned. Outreach work was beneficial but very expensive. Accommodation was available for homeless people but there were a few people who did not wish to be accommodated.

·      Importing and exporting of council housing tenants – in terms of whether any progress had been made on reducing this, the Portfolio Holder confirmed the Council did not seek to export tenants to other areas as it was important they were in a place with the necessary support systems. As a general principle, the Council did not accept council tenants imported from other areas.

·      Supported housing – reference was made to a case where a provider had been given a substantial sum to provide accommodation and support to vulnerable residents without providing a service.  The Portfolio Holder commented supported housing was going through a transitional stage and believed people did receive value for money and any complaints would be dealt with.

·      Affordable housing – what could be done to provide more affordable housing was questioned. The Portfolio Holder commented that more affordable housing was being built now compared to previous years. Decisions on levels of affordable housing in proposed developments were a matter for the Planning Committee.

·      Domestic abuse – noting the increase in domestic abuse during the pandemic the Portfolio Holder was asked if he was confident cross border support was working properly. The Portfolio Holder commented this was an issue the Council took very seriously and the best solution would be decided alongside the affected individual. In terms of how many men received support for domestic abuse, it was confirmed that 13 men had requested support and were treated as seriously as women who needed support.

·      Homelessness – whether an estimated 3000 empty properties in Medway could be used as homes or whether the Council could take more action to require owners to improve properties was questioned.  The Portfolio Holder noted that many properties had been improved following intervention by the housing team. Not all empty properties were neglected and it was not always possible to intervene but as a general principle he considered empty properties were not desirable. In terms of empty army accommodation, the Portfolio Holder advised Members that the army were aware the Council was interested in acquiring these properties.

With regard to the 70% successful homelessness prevention rate, the outcome for the remaining 30% of cases was queried. The Portfolio Holder responded that for that group the next step was to find temporary accommodation.

·      Capital work programme – whether the move to a 2-year programme to attract a better calibre of contractor meant a move away from using local contractors was queried. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that contracts were put out to tender and contracts were awarded on that basis. Local firms would be used if possible and where it was a national firm they were encouraged to employ local people.

·      Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) referrals and decisions – in terms of progress with the one compliant that was upheld, the Portfolio Holder commented he was happy with progress. Inter departmental working had not been as close as it should have been, but matters had now improved.

·      Community Hubs – the Portfolio Holder commented that the numbers of people using hubs and libraries was increasing quickly since the lockdown.

·      Adult education courses – responding to a comment that too many courses were aimed at people seeking employment, the Portfolio Holder stated that courses were kept under review but what could be offered was affected by lack of demand or ability to recruit a lecturer. Not all courses were about acquiring skills for work, and some were aimed to help with social isolation. A constraint was the courses had to essentially be self-supporting but did receive some public health funding.

·       Climate change – with regard to his thoughts on the COP26 climate conference, the Portfolio Holder commented that in some ways it had been disappointing. Some proposals had yet to be translated into funding opportunities for the Council to bid for or laws that had to be complied with. The Council would continue with its climate change action plan. In response to comments that the pace, urgency and leadership on this matter at the Council were lacking, the Portfolio Holder assured Members climate change was seen as a real and serious problem. More needed to be done but preventative measures were very expensive. Any additional money spent on climate change meant less for services. More government funding was needed, and this was expected. The Council would continue to work with other  Kent councils to bid for climate change funding. 

The Portfolio Holder undertook to provide Members with information about Mears Group’s climate change policy. In terms of how environmentally friendly the new council housing stock would be, the Portfolio Holder undertook to provide a written answer on the housing stock query.

·      Developments at Hoo and air pollution – a comment was made that the loss of the Medway Curve railway link to the peninsula would significantly exacerbate air pollution. When the Council would start to properly record air pollution levels at Four Elm Hills was questioned.  The Portfolio Holder stated there would be an impact on air quality due to loss of the Medway Curve railway line to the peninsula, although he considered the railway would be built eventually. He was sure the monitoring work referred to would resume as soon as possible.

·      Electric vehicle charging points and solar panels – in response to when these would be significantly increased, the Portfolio Holder commented the planners were now requiring charging points for electric vehicles in new developments. The Council was part of Kent County Council’s electric vehicle scheme, and the aim was to map the location of all charging points.

·       Voluntary and Community Sector – whether the Council would step in if a VCS organisation was struggling financially, the Portfolio Holder replied that the sector had provided vital support during the pandemic. While the Council would try to be as supportive as possible, there was not a one size fits all approach in terms of offering support to struggling organisations.

·       Medway Development Company (MDC) – reference was made to large sites owned by the Council and how this related to MDC’s development plans was queried. The Portfolio Holder responded that as each development presented a financial risk then this had to be done at a suitable pace and to also prevent a glut of properties on market. These sites would be worked through, including Strood waterfront. Demand appeared to strong and good returns were expected.

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for his attendance and agreed to note the report.