Meeting documents

For Members to consider the attached report.

Contact Officer: Julie Oliver, Principal Housing Officer 01296 585109

AVDC was a member of the Bucks Home Choice Partnership which also consisted of Chiltern DC, South Bucks DC and Wycombe DC. Each of these authorities managed the allocation of affordable and social rented accommodation within their districts. The partnership operated a common Allocations Policy which was being reviewed in response to changes made by recent case law following the Localism Act 2011 and Homeless Reduction Act 2017. As a Local Housing Authority, AVDC had a statutory duty to consult the public and housing providers about the allocation of social housing in the county. The committee received a report which proposed policy changes that would be consulted upon in due course. A note was circulated to Members at the Committee which corrected a typographical error in the report. 

The proposed changes had a material effect on who qualifies for Bucks Home Choice. Officers assured Members that there would be no major changes to the current policy. The changes would affect the relative priority band awarded to certain types of applicant and would introduce a new priority Band E. This Band was added to allow appropriate priority to be awarded to applicants in different circumstances and housing need. This Band would ensure applicants without a local connection to the area in which they apply are given less priority than those with a local connection.

Band E would be utilised for reasonable preference groups who applied but had no local connection. This would ensure the allocations scheme was lawful but still allow for applicants with a local connection to have priority.  Revised priority bands would also be linked to AVDC’s statutory preventative function following the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act and would allow those threatened with homelessness or living in crowded conditions to have additional priority. This was so that applicants could be re-housed before they became homeless and required temporary accommodation.

Applicants who had applied for assistance from one of the four districts in Bucks Home Choice where the council had decided they are homeless and in priority need but were determined to be homeless intentionally were currently in Band D. It was proposed these applicants would be moved to Band E so that they are not prioritised above applicants that were found to be unintentionally homeless.

All the proposed changes in the report sought to achieve the following policy objectives:

·         Respond to recent case law and government guidance so that Allocations Policy was lawful

·         Utilise the Allocations Policy as a homelessness prevention tool

·         Continue allocating the largest properties to the largest families who need it most thereby making the best use of housing stock

The proposed changes to the Allocations Policy would have no effect on existing Lettings Policies, notably the local policy which ring-fenced a quota of properties to applicants with a connection to one of four sub groups in Aylesbury Vale. Existing applicants would not need to re-apply to be re-assessed under the new system. Instead applicants would be automatically re-assessed placed into new priority bands and notified in writing. These were subject to statutory review proceedings so it was expected there would be uplift in officer time to address this.

Members sought more information from the officers and were advised that:-

      i.        There were 4,800 on the housing register across Buckinghamshire with 1,370 applicants in Aylesbury Vale. Demand currently outstripped supply and this was not expected to change. Instead the focus was on managing current supply effectively.

     ii.        One of the proposed changes would ensure that those who were in supported accommodation outside their local area would maintain their local connection.

    iii.        Applicants aged 16/17 would need an adult who could hold the tenancy as a trustee.  It was confirmed that vulnerable 16/17 year olds would most likely be under the care of the leaving care team and a responsible adult would therefore be available. Regardless of this, it was very unusual for an allocation to be made prior to a care leavers 18th birthday.

   iv.        All of the local authorities within the Partnership had been working under the same common allocations policy. There was a level flexibility in the policy based on locality which was accommodated through local lettings policies which sat underneath the common policy.

    v.        It was difficult to determine which district was under the most housing pressure as there were various factors that contributed towards it. For instance, Chiltern and South Bucks had difficulty with housing numbers not coming forward and their unmet need.

   vi.        It was unclear what effect the new NPPF would have on AVDC with regards to the unmet demand from other authorities and specifically the effect of unmet affordable demand. There had been discussions about a potential quota of allocations that could be received from Wycombe DC or Chiltern & South Bucks DCs; however no agreement was in place. Officers were continuing to explore potential options.

  vii.        There were 51 households on the housing register that wanted to downsize property. Factors for doing so included the possibility of lower maintenance for smaller properties and potentially lower heating bills.

 viii.        An under occupied property was defined as one where one or more bedroom was unoccupied. This was a challenge as these were often family homes where children had moved out and/or residents wanted to have a spare bedroom for family members or guests. Registered providers did offer incentives and choices to encourage residents to voluntarily downsize. Although some under occupiers would be affected by the ‘bedroom tax’, Members were assured that no pressure was applied to downsize in these instances and AVDC tried to facilitate moves. Moreover, there was not any effect on the security of tenure in existing tenancy agreements.

   ix.        If no bids were received for homes in Aylesbury Vale by those with a local connection then applications would be considered by those from outside the Vale. However this was a rare occurrence due to demand.

    x.        The consultation would last six weeks and communication of this would go to stakeholders and Parishes. Also the consultation would be advertised on the Bucks Home Choice website. Officers were seeking guidance about whether to write to all existing applicants as part of the consultation exercise.

RESOLVED –

That the Committee were satisfied for the proposed changes to the policy be consulted on and that Committee’s comments be referred to Cabinet.