Agenda item

Purpose: To give the Commission the opportunity to comment on the final draft of the Housing Allocations Policy.

(Councillor Franks declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3 due to the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

Mel Brian introduced the final draft of the Housing Allocations Policy and referred the Commission to Appendix B which listed the amendments made to the document as a direct result of the public consultation that had taken place. The Commission was being given the opportunity to comment on the final draft of the Housing Allocations Policy prior to it being considered at the Executive.

Mel Brain explained that the majority of amendments were technical and sought to clarify the process. The members of the Commission heard the reason for each change before they were invited to comment on the final draft of the Policy.

Councillor Gwen Mason asked whether the amendment to section 16.4 of the policy would result in families receiving more suitable housing. Mel Brain advised that the amendment brought the process in line with the Housing Benefit process. The application would still require sufficient evidence before an additional bedroom could be awarded. Councillor Mason was satisfied with the proposed policy and stated that the assessment process must be robust in order for it to be effective. In response, Mel Brian advised the Commission that new case law provided tests for the assessment of an application.

Councillor Franks asked whether limits within the assessment process considering children’s ages had been increased or decreased. Mel Brian advised that the age was lowered in some cases and raised in others.  The age limit was set at ten years for the purpose of assessing whether a garden was required because it was assumed that a child above that age would be able to play in the local area and therefore have less need for a garden.

Councillor Jeff Beck highlighted typing errors within the policy document and suggested that the document was unbalanced in places by referring only to ‘his’. It was agreed that the errors would be corrected and amendments would ensure that policy was balanced.

Councillor Jeff Brooks suggested that an overview of the consultation feedback would help the Commission to contextualise the amendments. In response, Mel Brain advised that she did not have the information available at the meeting but advised that some feedback was derived from individual’s specific experiences. Mel Brian explained that some people were concerned about changes to the financial test threshold and that it was agreed the threshold would remain in line with the national policy. Mel Brian explained that amendments made to the assessment process for disabled children, looked after children and the policy of dealing with violence towards staff were all a direct result of the consultation. Mel Brian stated that nothing had been taken out of the document as a direct consequence of the consultation.

Councillor Alan Macro noticed that there was a high turnover on the Common Housing Register (CHR) and made reference to the reported rate of annual re-registration. Mel Brian was asked whether the two interlinked and whether the process of contacting people by letter was flawed and therefore contributed towards the high numbers. Mel Brian advised that the registration process involved contacting the individual by letter, text and phone. Responses were monitored annually and staff would proactively contact people who had not returned their registration request.

Councillor David Goff questioned the reference on page 37 to the applicant providing information on their race, age and gender etc. It was suggested that this contradicted the statement that such factors would not form part of the decision making process. Mel Brian explained that the information was requested in order that the service could monitor the allocation of housing and to highlight areas for improvement within the process. Councillor Franks recommended that the policy was reworded in order to clarify this.

Recommendation: The policy would be worded to say: This would allow us ensure that housing is been allocated fairly.

Councillor Garth Simpson asked whether the Housing Allocation Policy effectively addressed the qualification criteria used to determine whether an applicant was entitled to West Berkshire housing. Mel Brian advised the Commission that the local connection criteria were set at a national level. The homelessness policy had also been used in order to define the local connection policy due to its clear and precise structure.

Councillor Mason asked whether the process identified applicants with Mental Health issues. Mel Brian advised that the system would highlight such factors and these would be allowed for during the decision making process.

Councillor Brian Bedwell acknowledged that the policy would be reviewed in five years but suggested that the Commission received an update in 12 months time. The recommendation was approved by the Commission.

Recommendation: The Commission would receive an update in respect of the Housing Allocation Policy in 12 months time.

The Commission praised Mel brain and the Housing Allocation Task Group for their hard work and the final draft policy.

Resolved that: The report was noted and the Commission would receive an update in respect of the Housing Allocation Policy in 12 months time.