Agenda item

Officers Louise Corbett presented the report and answered the Members’ questions, with additional responses from Ian Bakewell and Cabinet Member Bob Greenland.

Challenge:

There’s no mention of prisoners – are they long-term or short-term, do we think of accommodation for them?

Being in prison doesn’t give someone a local connection. Once they are out, they are asked to go back to the area in which they lived previously. Therefore, it isn’t something that needs to be stated specifically in the policy, as they wouldn’t meet the criteria.

With a mobile app, whom do applicants go to if they don’t have the right technology or signal?

That is a valid point. We are aware that there are older or vulnerable people on the waiting list who perhaps aren’t able to self-serve or do everything digitally. Therefore, nothing has changed in relation to the team being available. We still have the phone number and officers to facilitate. None of that has ended but the digital side has made us more efficient. The public can still get Homesearch support from the Hubs and the Options Team.

It is good to have flexibility, as Covid will create more challenges.

The key aim of the review was to build flexibility into the policy, and that it was robust and would respond to challenges. We feel that with the proposed amendments we are covered well in these regards.

Has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out on the whole policy? What about older people who will not be given a mortgage, as they might not have the years in which to pay it back?

One was done, and it should be attached to the reports pack online. When it came to looking at capital assets and figures, such as £45,000 per annum for someone to have sufficient means to secure their own accommodation, we looked at a Monmouthshire average for property and rental prices, rather than area-by-area. This is because part of the aim is to simplify the process – we didn’t want to be drawn into the differences by individual town. The data led us to propose a sum that is reasonable for someone to be expected to solve their own housing issue, especially as purchasing might not be the right avenue, but the private renters’ sector could be. However, the difficulty of purchasing a property outright for older people, given the time required to pay off a mortgage, is noted.

What are the implications of the point scoring system?

It is a needs-based system. If someone were fit and healthy, and had capital assets, we would say that they have sufficient financial resources, and they would be placed in the lowest band (5). But if someone has a welfare need or a medical issue, the flexibility built into the policy now allows a little discretion whereby those cases can be considered, taking into account the person’s capital assets, with the medical issue giving them a higher banding. Other considerations included in the process would be their age, where they are living, etc.

Do the proposals link with those for Future Wales, the national plan for 2040? This says there should be 45% social housing, but in recent years we have only built 18-19%.

Councillor Greenland: We are in the middle of the process of formulating a new Local Development Plan now, which is the means by which new housing is delivered. Unfortunately, our plans have been much delayed by the pandemic. The problem we always have in Monmouthshire is that developers want to build large, 4-bedroom houses. We have to build in policies in the future that give us much more control over what is built. We have a problem in meeting the Welsh Government’s 45-55 split, because it is impossible to get a commercial developer to deliver that level of social housing. The level we have built is indeed disappointing – we had ideas of getting to 30% social housing. When a developer looks at a site, they will then negotiate with a local authority, and say they can’t build a certain amount. The site then either stays vacant or we negotiate whatever we can in terms of social housing. That’s no longer going to be the case because we have worked with Melin and Monmouthshire Housing, and I’m sure that in the future we will be able to achieve the level of affordable housing needed, particularly concerning land owned by Monmouthshire County Council.

Unfortunately, in considering the LDP and which sites to take forward, preference cannot be given to sites owned by the County Council. Sites have to be considered purely on their individual merits. The situation is therefore a difficult one, and not helped by the fact that in the National Development Framework, Welsh Government believes that housing should be near the Metro and up in the valleys. Nevertheless, in formulating the new LDP Planning officers will certainly look at how we can deliver the level of social housing that we know is needed.

Has consideration also been given to Care leavers?

Care leavers are awarded High Priority need, and always have been. We have really good links with Social Services, and we are trying to do even more work with them now. As soon as a young person is ready to leave foster care, support is given in terms of their housing, and their having a priority status in order to move on quickly through the system to permanent housing.

Should the policy include medical need, either physical or mental?

Medical need is addressed. We look at people’s mental and physical conditions. There is a medical questionnaire to fill out if a person declares a medical condition, and we ask for doctor’s information. In cases of a physical disability, an Occupation Therapist will look at the case and make recommendations in terms of housing and the level of need.

It’s not clear how the banding process reflects mental and physical needs.

It will depend on the level of their need. When someone applies, they will be asked if they have a physical disability or issue, and we will ask for information from doctors or anyone supporting them in that regard. Based on the combined information, an assessment is made as to whether the person is high, medium or low need, as medical need will only be taken into consideration if their current living conditions are unsuitable or making that medical need worse. If where they currently live is suitable for their medical need then they will receive a low banding, but if they need to be rehoused on medical grounds, then whether they are low, medium or high will depend on the severity of their condition. But that is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Is there a right to appeal on decisions?

Yes, any element of the decision process is open to review, so the person would simply need to contact the team.

Could the point about prisoners be clarified, regarding residents of Monmouthshire who have been incarcerated outside the county?

If a Monmouthshire resident were in prison outside the county it wouldn’t entitle them to any housing status in the local authority where they were imprisoned – they would be referred back to Monmouthshire. We have local connection criteria, with 5 years of residence being the standard that we look at, but there is discretion e.g. if someone applied after a long time in prison, we would look at their address history prior to going in.

What should someone do in the situation of the person at the bottom of the list?

It is very difficult when developing a policy and procedure to get every circumstance correct. There is flexibility in the policy to give discretion as and when it is needed. We have responded to the query regarding the individual, and the policy will support them. As the policy moves along we can look at particular cases, and make changes where we can. The team would welcome liaising with Tony Crowhurst about any aspect of the policy, on an ongoing basis as a Critical Friend.

Chair’s Summary:

The officers have agreed to check the banding process in relation to mental and physical needs and provide clarification in the final policy as needed, and check if the point relating to family members living in the community for 5 years needs to be clarified on p13 of the Appendix.

Councillor Harris suggested that perhaps we should be stronger in dealing with developers when they refuse to include the level of social housing that we require, but noted that the developers have a strong hand, and therefore backing should be sought from Welsh Government. Councillor Edwards observed, regarding the revision of the LDP and consideration of elderly residents, that the county doesn’t build enough bungalows and housing of a size that can accommodate a wheelchair, or a second bedroom for a carer, should one need to stay with the resident.

Tony Crowhurst queried the point about disabled people applying for private rental accommodation, noting that this has been a problem for many years. He described the case of an individual who has been sofa surfing for 18 months who has had an assessment done that supports her disability claim, yet remains at the bottom of the list. She lives in Caldicot but the closest place that could be found that suits her needs is in the Forest of Dean, 45 minutes from her circle of support. He questioned the concept of making an average across Monmouthshire, given its variety, rather than focussing on individual circumstances, and asked where in the document the Points system is explained. Councillor Greenland stated that he will take up Mr Crowhurst’s comments with officers.

The policy has been very helpful for Councillors to explain to residents the reasons behind applicants being given the properties they have. We aren’t going to please everyone but we are making good progress, and hopefully we can get as close as possible. The committee is happy for the recommendations to go to Cabinet.