Agenda item

That James Greenshields, Chief Executive, Tonic Housing be formally thanked for his presentation and for attending the Committee.

That during the recommendations stage of the in-depth review – consideration be given to making a formal recommendation to the Housing Select Committee to look at the evidence and the committee’s finding around housing provision for older members of the LGBT Community.

4.1       James Greenshieds, Chief Executive, Tonic Housing, gave a presentation to the Committee, a copy of which will be included in the agenda documentation. James also presented a short film to the Committee which can be found on the following link. (https://vimeo.com/160863683).

4.2       During the presentation, the following key additional points were raised:

·         Tonic Housing would be happy to submit additional data from their Business Plan on the LGBT community in London.

·         Older LGBT residents faced distinct problems in retirement and as users of social care or in social housing. It was an age group who had experienced many past injustices because of their sexuality and were at risk of experiencing them again as they approached older age.

·         28% more LGBT people over 65 took recreational drugs than non-LGBT people in 2016 according to statistics from Stonewall in 2107.

·         There had been a 75% increase in the number of transphobic crimes referred to CPS by the Police between 2014/15 to 2015/17 according to the CPS Hate Crime Report. (This represented 58 cases in 2014/15 rising to 98 in 2015/16).[1]

·         A disproportionate number of older LGBT people lived alone compared to the population as a whole.

·         Older LGBT people were reporting being scared about disclosing their sexuality to care staff. The research undertaken by Tonic Housing had been recognised by housing providers who reported that they didn’t always have the resources to research or tackle the problem further.

·         According to Stonewall, 45% of older LGBT people had felt discriminated against when accessing social services and 73% were anxious about disclosing their sexuality to care staff.

·         Following requests from Tonic Housing to housing providers to identify the number of LGBT residents; 11 out of 12 housing providers reported they had no LGBT residents. This appeared to be statistically improbable and helped to demonstrate that part of the problem was that people were not being identified or supported.

·         Opening Doors London and Stonewall Housing had been working  on the concept of a kite mark system for recognising excellence in housing and social care for older residents.

·         There were models for social housing for LGBT residents in the USA and in Germany but to date there was nothing in the UK despite the recognition of the needs of this sector of the community.

·         Tonic Housing want to work with partners to build an LGBT majority mixed community retirement facility.

·         There was also an aim to develop LGBT sensitive domiciliary care.

·         Tonic Housing was working closely with, and had backing from their five funders: Barrow Cadbury Trust; Comic Relief; Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Trust for London; and The Tudor Trust. 

·         They were also working with the development partner “Igloo Regeneration”.

·         Tonic were actively looking across London for a site and had approached a number of local authorities. Tonic would be very keen for the site for their proposed LGBT majority housing to be in Lewisham. They had already been in discussion with the Executive Member for Housing and with officers in the Council.

4.3                   During the discussion that followed and in response to questions from members of the Committee, the following additional points were raised:

·         Following a question regarding the fear of “ghettoisation” of sectors of the community from an LGBT majority housing scheme; the Committee heard that the housing scheme was not looking to create isolated communities. Integration was very important to the project and working with local housing providers and the local community and local authority was key. The scheme would also be carefully looking at longevity and sustainability including being able to adapt to reflect different issues in the future as they emerged. This could include changing the percentage allocated to the LGBT community.

·         Following a question on the financial sustainability of such a housing proposal and the costs to potential residents; the Committee heard that there was an aim of 50% of the units to being affordable. Tonic had also submitted funding bids and predicted the possibility of substantial legacy income in the future.

·         Finding those most in need could be challenging particularly if people were not disclosing their sexuality. Lots of work with the local community and community partners would be necessary.

·         Councillor Walsh, Vice-Chair arrived and took over the role of Chairing for the remainder of the meeting.

·         Some members of the Committee stated that a new housing scheme in the borough would be very beneficial for residents and it would be exciting to be at the forefront of promoting equality for older LGBT residents. Other members of the Committee noted that it was important to look at inequalities across all of the protected characteristics and carefully assess where there was most need to ensure Council resources were allocated prioritising those most in need.

4.4       Councillors Jacca and Walsh highlighted to the Committee the summary of their visit to Manchester. During the discussion, the following key points were raised:

·         Members of the Committee reported they had undertaken a very interesting visit to Manchester City Council and the LGBT Foundation where they had heard extensively about their work on equalities, LGBT provision, partnership working and their proposals for an LGBT retirement housing provision. They wished to particularly thank both organisations and the Scrutiny Manager for organising such an interesting visit.

·         Manchester City Council had a system of Lead Members where both backbench or Executive Councillors were allocated with special responsibilities and this included all protected characteristics from the Equalities Act many of which were further divided such as “Lead Member for Gay Men” and “Lead Member for Lesbian Women”. This helped to embed the importance of equalities across the Council.

·         Councillors Walsh and Jacca were asked to consider what they felt were the most important lessons learnt from the visit. They stated that the very well established partnership between Manchester City Council and the community and voluntary sector was one key aspect of Manchester’s success as well as equalities being embedded across the organisation such as through the emphasis placed on the Equalities Impact Assessment in reports.      

4.4       RESOLVED:

That James Greenshields, Chief Executive, Tonic Housing be formally thanked for his presentation and for attending the Committee.

That during the recommendations stage of the in-depth review, consideration be given to making a formal recommendation to the Housing Select Committee to look at the evidence and the committee’s finding around housing provision for older members of the LGBT Community.

That the report be noted.