Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the Committee refer the following as part of the Locational Priority Policy that will be presented to Mayor and Cabinet on 11 November 2015:

‘The Housing Select Committee discussed the proposals in the Locational Priority Policy and Temporary Accommodation Procurement Strategy at its meeting on 27 October.

The Committee raised concerns about the Location Priority Policy defining ‘close to borough’ as “located within 90 minutes travelling distance of the London Borough of Lewisham by public transport.” The Committee understood that the policy had considered 90 minutes as a ‘reasonable’ commuting time, as it was in line with the 90 minutes jobseekers could be required to travel to work, but raised concerns about primary schoolchildren having to travel that far to and from school.

The Committee were reassured by officers that they were committed to placing homeless families with children as close to the borough as possible, and would only use the 90 minutes stipulation when there were no suitable, available properties closer to Lewisham. The Committee were informed that the policy had been discussed with the Council’s legal team and was drafted in light of the recent judgement in Nzolameso v Westminster City Council, and to ensure that it satisfied the requirements of the case and protect the Council from future legal challenge.

The Committee agreed to keep the policy under review, and would also receive from officers the modelling information that was used to help devise the Location Priority Policy. The Committee also requested the information on the ages of children of families placed outside of the borough to help monitor the policy.

The Committee also asked for an amendment to the policy that would explicitly stipulate that “officers would endeavour to place families with children as close as possible to the borough.”’

5.1      Genevieve Macklin (Head of Strategic Housing) presented the report to the meeting. The key points to note were:

·         The catalyst to the change of policy was the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nzolameso v Westminster City Council, which required local authorities to have ‘a policy for procuring sufficient units of temporary accommodation secondly, each local authority should have and keep up to date, [and] a policy for allocating those units to individual homeless households.

·         Lewisham had an increase of 40% for households that have been placed outside the borough (June 2014-June 2015).

·         Lewisham has approximately 1,800 in temporary accommodation, and the cost of this is rapidly increasing.

·         The Council currently spends in excess of £5m per annum on the provision of accommodation and other services for homeless families under s17 Children Act 1989 who are excluded from support under Housing Act 1996, for example because they have no recourse to public funds or have made themselves intentionally homeless.

·         The Location Priority Policy requires that if the local authority has a duty to secure accommodation, an assessment will be carried out to determine the location priority of the applicant. The assessment will determine whether the applicant has:

o   Priority to be located in the London Borough of Lewisham

o   Priority to be located close to the London Borough of Lewisham

o   No priority as to the location of a property.

·         Regardless of the location priority, the Council will have regard to the principal needs of any children in the household, and the need to safeguard and promote the children’s welfare. In particular, regard will be had to any disruption to schools, medical care, social work, other key services and other support.

·         In respect of the categories of location priority for ‘close to borough’, the Locational Priority Policy defines ‘close to borough’ as located within 90 minutes travelling distance of the London Borough of Lewisham by public transport. 90 minutes was considered as a ‘reasonable’ commuting time in-line with the 90 minutes jobseekers could be required to travel to work.

·         There are a number of qualification criteria that households must satisfy to be eligible for a ‘close to borough’ placement, for example, children who are enrolled in GCSE, AS, or A level courses in the London Borough of Lewisham, with public exams to be taken within the current or next academic year.

5.2      In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

·         The Committee raised concerns about the 90 minutes travelling distance as stipulated in the Locational Priority Policy. Members felt that it was problematic for schoolchildren, especially primary schoolchildren to get to and from school in Lewisham.

·         The Committee also raised concerns about the 90 minutes travelling distance being based on the distance jobseekers can be required to travel to work.

·         Officers stated that it would not look to place families outside the borough unless it had no choice but to do so.

·         Officers stated that they were committed to placing homeless families with children as close to the borough as possible, and would only use the 90 minutes stipulation when there were no suitable, available properties closer to Lewisham.

·         There was a shortfall of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom properties available across London to place homeless families.

·         Lewisham has issues with over-occupation of property and under-occupation of some properties, which is similar to many London boroughs.

·         When a family is placed on the Housing Register, officers will liaise with the family to ensure they have been placed in the right banding and given the best opportunity to be provided with the most suitable accommodation.

·         Officers will look at innovate ways to expand their accommodation portfolios, such as pop-up housing and ‘decamped’ housing to help alleviate the temporary accommodation shortage. Accommodation must be of suitable standard to be considered.

·         The Council can signpost charities and organisations to individuals if they are interested in housing homeless families, but there are safeguarding and administrative concerns if the Council itself tried to operate such a scheme themselves.

·         Officers consulted with other Council Directorates and London Boroughs before devising its own policy.

·         Those families who make themselves homeless would need to find their own solution to getting accommodation, even though the Council will look at the representations sympathetically.

5.3      RESOLVED: That the Committee refer the following as part of the Locational Priority Policy that will be presented to Mayor and Cabinet on 11 November 2015:

‘The Housing Select Committee discussed the proposals in the Locational Priority Policy and Temporary Accommodation Procurement Strategy at its meeting on 27 October.

The Committee raised concerns about the Location Priority Policy defining ‘close to borough’ as “located within 90 minutes travelling distance of the London Borough of Lewisham by public transport.” The Committee understood that the policy had considered 90 minutes as a ‘reasonable’ commuting time, as it was in line with the 90 minutes jobseekers could be required to travel to work, but raised concerns about primary schoolchildren having to travel that far to and from school.

The Committee were reassured by officers that they were committed to placing homeless families with children as close to the borough as possible, and would only use the 90 minutes stipulation when there were no suitable, available properties closer to Lewisham. The Committee were informed that the policy had been discussed with the Council’s legal team and was drafted in light of the recent judgement in Nzolameso v Westminster City Council, and to ensure that it satisfied the requirements of the case and protect the Council from future legal challenge.

The Committee agreed to keep the policy under review, and would also receive from officers the modelling information that was used to help devise the Location Priority Policy. The Committee also requested the information on the ages of children of families placed outside of the borough to help monitor the policy.

The Committee also asked for an amendment to the policy that would explicitly stipulate that “officers would endeavour to place families with children as close as possible to the borough.”’