Agenda item

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 3 March 2025 relating to the proposed purchase of the YoHo building has been the subject of a 6 member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee is recommended to either:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the originaldecision takes immediate affect without amendment).

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report informing the Commission that the Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 3 March 2025 relating to the proposed purchase of the YoHo building has been the subject of a 7-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Chair clearly outlined the process that he would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in. The Commission was recommended to either:

a) Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report was noted the process continues and the call-in will be considered at Council on Full Council or

b) Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments were made the process continues and the comments and call-in would be considered at Full Council); or

c) Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wished for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal was agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in would not be considered at Full Council and the original decision takes immediate effect without amendment).

The Director of Housing gave a presentation outlining the issue using the slides attached.  Key points (other than those on the slides) included:

• The council continued to face financial pressures in this area, with £11m added to the homelessness budget for the last two years, and an overspend of £6m expected this year.
• Despite the law limiting the length of stay in Bed and Breakfast to six weeks, the average length of stay in Leicester was currently 97 days, leading to criticism and financial penalties from the Social Care Ombudsman.
• There were 1966 individuals on the housing register in need of one-bed properties, with an average wait time of up to 6 months.
• The council was on track to deliver 1600 new homes, with 1100 delivered in the last 4 years.
• YoHo was a fairly new 134-unit building, exclusively self-contained and with modern facilities. It could help meet the demand for temporary accommodation.
• Acquiring the building would:
  • a. enable the council to move all those currently in bed and breakfast.
  • b. reduce the council’s spend by £2.8m a year and;
  • c. provide clients with more independence including cooking and laundry facilities.
• The council planned to work with a specialist housing provider with extensive experience managing such buildings.
•  Different levels of support would be provided to the clients depending on where they are on their journey.
• The building would not serve as another Dawn Centre but would provide accommodation to those on a positive trajectory toward independent living.
• The plan was to reconfigure the building from 134 to 118 units, to enable the council to accommodate areas for support services and engagement; and communal use.
• The YMCA for single people has a similar set up to the one proposed for YoHo, has been run successfully for many years and did not cause issues for the local community.
• Watford, in conjunction with YMCA had a 10-storey building in the city centre which is 200 bedrooms and have used it since 2020 as temporary accommodation. The residents had been well integrated into the society.
• The YoHo building had 7 floors and residents will be able to access only their own floor and community, alongside the ground floor which will be communal.
• The Yoho building would exclusively be for singles; couples and families will not be accommodated.
• The management plan would be subject to further scrutiny.
• The Yoho building was ideal for those needing support around health issues because of its proximity to Inclusion Health care in Charles Barry house and Homelessness Mental health team and Turning Points.
• Two external and one internal valuation were undertaken and indicate that the property is worth more than the council is paying.

The Chair invited the proposer of the call-in, Councillor Kitterick, represented by Cllr Sahu (Seconder), to make their case. The following points were raised:

• The council lacked the experience in managing a building of this size, as the YMCA example cited was smaller in size, and though long in operation, proved to be inadequate for the increasing number of clients.
• The restriction of residents to own floors underscored the concerns about their vulnerability.
• There was insufficient information regarding the planning behind the purchase.
• The large number of residents could have significant impacts on both the building and other residents in the area.
• The flats were small (23 sqm) and below national standards.
• There should have been a more robust management plan, with evidence from other external providers of buildings of this size that have been a success.
• There was no site visit to the building by the commission.
• The planning strategy had not been clearly outlined, especially given the proposed remodelling and the planning conditions for it to be used as student accommodation.
• The per unit would cost an excess of 6 figures, which did not seem a bargain as was indicated in the presentation. This money could be spent on other housing needs in the city.
• The per-unit cost was higher than expected, and the building’s purchase price exceeded the national average for housing families.
• The performance of the Housing Network as managers had been questioned based on the feedback of residents who stay in their properties.

The Chair invited the City Mayor to respond, and the Deputy City Mayor, Housing and Neighbourhoods responded on his behalf. The following points were raised:

·       The cost of using bed and breakfast (B&Bs) accommodation was far higher than temporary accommodation. This was in addition to the fact that they lacked essential facilities like cooking and laundry and made it difficult to develop a network of friends/build a community.

·       The YoHo purchase addressed an immediate need for temporary accommodation, not as a long-term policy.

·       The decision that was called-in relates to the purchase, and not the management of the building.

·       The management of the building would be subject to further scrutiny.

·       The Housing department was open to organising a site visit for commission members.

The Chair invited the following partners, Help the Homeless and Homelessness Charter for the City of Leicester to make representations. The following points were made:

• There was a well-evidenced need for suitable temporary accommodation that the YoHo building would fulfil.
• The building would provide a vital stepping stone for individuals transitioning toward independent living, offering stability not found in BnBs.
• There was expertise in the city as well as around the country that the council and partner organisations can heavily draw from, and that can be mobilised to provide ongoing assistance to people living in these units.
• Many of the services already had established relationships with these individuals.
• The concerns about anti-social behaviour by the residents were misplaced, as these individuals were already a part of the community, in more suitable accommodation.

The Chair invited a service user to share their experience, and the following points were made:

• The B&Bs did not provide the stability required to integrate properly into society, because you can’t do your own cooking or washing. The living situation was also not good for one’s self-worth.
• The YoHo building would provide a supportive environment where individuals on their path to independence could thrive.

The Chair invited a response to the comments, and officers noted that:

• The plan to address housing needs was being executed under several strands, including building and renting properties, and the purchase of over £100m worth of housing since 2019.
• The YoHo building fell under temporary accommodation. A planning use change would be sought if it was ever to be made a permanent accommodation.
• The pre-planning application for the building had been done and the purchase is subject to final planning.
• This type of accommodation was demand-led and when the demand died down, the council could look to the best use of the building.
• The use of the building would be restricted to 12-18 months.

Members of the Committee discussed the report which highlighted the following points:

• There was a need for the commission to be kept informed if the property was not being used as planned or the outcomes for purchasing were not being achieved.
• There was a potential for people with different vulnerabilities to take up the property and there was need for a plan around this.
• The management of the building needed to be thoroughly revisited.
• Consideration should be given to issues around fire safety and noise. Additionally, there was need for an independent structural survey to be commissioned.

In response to questions and comments by members of the OSC, officers noted the following:

• There was already a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for any accommodation within the service to monitor the actual length of stay of users and this data would be shared with the commission on a periodic basis.
• In housing vulnerable individuals or those with protected characteristics, their preference /suitability would be taken on board in their placement.
• The cost of the property was £10.9m and being funded through the £45m loan to support homelessness.
• The needs of families were being addressed as well – though the purchase of 140 family properties, which were dispersed across the city.
• The council did not purchase housing for investment returns.
• What would be saved by this purchase was the equivalent of £65 a night for an individual to stay in a B&B. The council received approximately 18% back in housing benefits.
• Assurances were given that the building was 90% over the line on due diligence and would be signed off as satisfactory in due course before purchase.

The Chair asked if the proposer wished to withdraw the call-in.

Councillor Cassidy moved that, following the points raised during the meeting, the call-in be withdrawn. This was seconded by Cllr. Mohammed and upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the call-in be withdrawn.