Agenda item

The Director of Housing submits a report to the Housing Scrutiny Commission which provides feedback on the consultation exercise in relation to the proposals that were contained in the report on the first 24 months of the Homelessness Strategy that was presented to the Housing Scrutiny Commission on 11th August 2016.  The Commission is recommended to consider the feedback and responses to mitigate the assumed negative impacts of the proposals, and provide any feedback to the Executive as a result of the consultation exercise.

The Interim Director of Housing submitted a report to the Housing Scrutiny Commission which provided feedback on the consultation exercise in relation to the proposals that were contained in the report on the first 24 months of the Homelessness Strategy that was presented to the Housing Scrutiny Commission on 11th August 2016. The Commission was recommended to consider the feedback and responses to mitigate the assumed negative impacts of the proposals, and provide any feedback to the Executive as a result of the consultation exercise.

The Chair commented on the way the consultation results had been presented, as the figures had included responses from those who did not comment, or had no opinion. He added it had the effect of reducing the impact of the figures in relation to whether the proposal of a budget reduction would have a negative effect. The Chair asked that the figures be re-presented at a future meeting of the Commission, to omit non-responses or no opinion.

The report was presented by Caroline Carpendale, Head of Service. It was recognised that any proposed reduction could have a potential negative impact on service users, but with the number of people seeking assistance rising and the budget cuts, the Council needed to ensure the service could be targeted and offered to as many people in need as possible and be cost effective.

Eric Waweru, Chief Executive, The Centre Project, addressed the Commission at the invitation of the Chair, making the following points:

·         The feeling of most stakeholders was the Centre Project provided a holistic service, and was a link to other services people may need;

·         The removal of grant subsidy meant the service would not be sustainable, and the most vulnerable service users would not have the service as and when they needed it;

·         The proposal that people would go to the ‘Y’ Support Project was not supported by evidence;

·         The equality impact assessment assumed people would go to the Dawn Centre, but for various reasons people had stated they would not – the two services catered for different groups of people;

·         The Centre Project helped people become independent, and provided them with a support network;

·         Support would have to be provided by another centre, so there was not money saving, and was a false economy.

Two attendees hen gave their views;

·         “I used the Dawn Centre when I was homeless for showers and food, but over time I stopped drinking, got a job, and a partner. I left that service behind and now go the Centre Project. I need to move forward and have more confidence. I don’t have to go back. I want all these people behind me to move forward with me and not backwards.”

·         “I still use the Dawn Centre – I use the shower there. There are good people there. Some people have drug problems, alcohol, personal problems. The Centre Project is similar but people there are vulnerable with learning difficulties. The Dawn Centre is a scary place to go. The Centre Project built my confidence up. They are totally separate places. The Dawn Centre AND the Centre Project need to stay open, but not together, they are different centres. It won’t work.”

Jerry Connolly, Scrutiny Policy Officer then read out a representation received prior to the meeting (name and contact details provided - attached to the minutes for information). The representation referred to the need for protection of tenants from Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, and the way landlords could evict tenants for spurious reasons. The Chair requested a report on Section 21, and how enforcement and monitoring of landlords in the city worked be brought to a future meeting of the Commission.

The Chair asked those present if they wished to provide further evidence if they had tenancies which had broken down and how it had affected them, to the Scrutiny Policy Officer.

In response to further questions and comments from Members it was noted that:

·         Paper copies of the consultation had been made available to enable a wide response from members of the public and service users to respond. Most service users who wanted to respond to the consultation were assisted to do so, and all responses were included in the report.

·         The Centre Project expressed concern that the consultation document had been difficult to explain to service users as all the proposals on different services had been placed together.

·         The proposals in the report were not about a reduction in family accommodation, but about supported housing linked to singles. It was believed that individuals and their move-on strategy could be sustained by providing floating support services to support and sustain those individuals and tenancies.

·         One of the justifications for changing the supported housing model was the welfare changes and anticipated housing benefit cap introduced by Central Government. The model of supported housing would no longer be viable. The reduced bed spaces from 290 to 215 related solely to the Supported Housing units, no reduction in temporary hostel bed spaces was proposed. The supported units are proposed to return to LCC housing stock.

·         The authority currently had 21k homes, and it was projected that another 2.5k homes would be lost through Right-to-Buy over the next 4 years.

·         There was well regarded floating support provided to the most vulnerable service users from Supporting Tenants and Residents service who had a link to homeless services and with those who had an awareness of people with vulnerabilities. The intention was to maintain a programme where people could move on with floating support.

·         The grant to Centre Project was £24k (35-40% of their annual income) with other projects, such as Leicestershire Cares receiving approximately the same. One Roof project had received a one-off grant of £15k.

Eric Waweru, Chief Executive, The Centre Project, responded to Members’ questions and made the following points:

·         The Centre Project was funded by grants and other funding to provide other activities, but did not have a core grant. It was stated that if the grant funding of £24k was removed, then open drop-in sessions would cease.

·         The Centre had seen 185 people the previous year, had been the first point of contact for some of those who had visited the service, and had enabled them to get support without an appointment, signposting them where necessary to other support services. It was not the case that service users would access another service, as not all would go to the Dawn Centre.

·         Trustees for the Centre Project were aware of the proposed cut in grant funding and had tried to build up reserves of approximately £50k (including restricted funds). In addition the grant was supplemented by the Church who provided the premises for them to operate.

·         Estimated numbers of users in one week for the 3-day drop-in was 45 people – the Centre was contracted to 35 people a week, and already provided a higher service than the £24k grant subsidy.

·         Nobody presented with just a housing need, but with multiple needs. If a person presented as homeless they would be referred to Housing Options, and accompanied for support.

·         The Centre was a support network of people they trusted, and was an opportunity for them to talk to somebody and feel less isolated.

Members discussed the issues and made the following comments:

• It was stated that the project did provide extra help, and Members’ were of the opinion that the £24k funding that the Centre Project received gave them legitimacy to gain further funding because they were providing a service. They added that the social impact and other benefits of the project provided a service in excess of the £24k funding.
• Councillor Dawood, seconded by Councillor Aqbany, moved a recommendation from the Scrutiny Commission that the Centre Project maintain its funding.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried. Members believed that continuance of the £24k grant gave the organisation legitimacy to gain funding from other organisations.

Councillor Connelly, Assistant Mayor for Housing, was invited to comment on the report. He thanked the Head of Service for the report. He said he was aware that any review about the homelessness strategy was difficult and concerning to those who used the service, but the strategy had been successful and had assisted many people in the city and prevented them from becoming homeless. Though a large report, he thought it was important that the Housing Scrutiny Commission were presented with the same information as he had. He noted that significant savings had to be made a result of government cuts, and each service area had to be looked at to find savings, whilst protecting people from becoming homeless or getting back into secure tenancies as quickly as possible.

The Assistant Mayor added that he understood what Eric had said about the difficulties in engaging with people during the consultation process, and wanted to thank him for the constructive way he had assisted during the consultation, and gave credit to the Project. He also thanked representatives for the Centre Project who had attended the and  everyone present that recommendations arising from the meeting would be taken back to the Executive for consideration. It was also noted that there was no point in reducing services if more needed to be invested in the future to provide more help to people who had become homeless again because they could not access support services.

The Chair thanked all who attended the meeting, to those who had shared their experiences, and for the useful debate of the report. He added he was in agreement for the Centre Project to retain the current grant subsidy, and that all Members of the Commission were in favour of the proposal.

The Scrutiny Policy Officer informed the meeting that with the Chair, a letter would be written to the Executive summing up the debate, concerns and issues expressed at the meeting both by the Centre Project and Members. The letter would be circulated to Members of the Scrutiny Commission and the Assistant Mayor for Housing by Friday 18^th November.

AGREED:

that:

1.    The report be noted;

2.    It was the recommendation of the Housing Scrutiny Commission that the Centre Project maintain its funding, and the to the Centre Project would give the organisation legitimacy to gain funding from other organisations, and should not be stopped;

3.    The Chair would write to the Executive, summing up the debate, concerns and issues expressed at the Housing Scrutiny Commission meeting, both by the Centre Project and Members. The letter to be circulated to Members of the Scrutiny Commission and the Assistant Mayor for Housing by Friday 18^th November.

4.    A report on ‘Section 21’ and the monitoring of landlords in the city be brought to a future meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Commission.

Councillor Dawood left the meeting at this point and did not return.

The meeting adjourned for five-minutes and resumed at 8.19pm.