Issue - meetings

Following consideration of a report of the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing, the Homes Policy Development Group has made the following recommendation that:

a)    Option 2 – to purchase one property – Scheme 1 - be approved as the preferred option in terms of size, location and ongoing maintenance.

b)    That full funding is utilised from Earmarked reserves (EMRs) as set out in Section 3.3 of the report.

Following consideration of a report * of the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing the Homes Policy Development had recommended that: Option 2 – to purchase one property – Scheme 1 – be approved as the preferred option in terms of size, location and ongoing maintenance. They had also recommended that full funding be utilised from Earmarked reserves (EMRs) as set out in Section 3.3 of the report.

The Cabinet Member for Housing thanked the Homes Policy Development Group for their consideration of this matter, however, he was not of the same mind as he believed purchasing two properties could house up to 14 people and could save the Council a significant amount of money in B&B costs.

The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing provided the following summary:

·         Current hotel and B&B costs were a significant expenditure to the Council.

·         Purchasing these properties would ultimately reduce these costs and provide more flexibility when trying to house Homeless individuals.

·         The properties provided an attractive opportunity to potentially house up to 14 people and were located centrally within the district.

·         It was anticipated that capital costs would be covered by utilising earmarked reserves (EMRs) for private sector housing and homelessness. The revenue costs would be covered by other Rough Sleeping Initiative funding and Flexible Homeless Grant.

·         Ultimately there would be a significant difference in terms of cost between housing a person in the Council’s own property of approximately £71 a week compared to the B&B cost of £374 a week.

Consideration was given to:

·         It was anticipated that both properties would be fully occupied.

·         As property assets their value would likely increase in the future.

·         Repairs and refurbishments were anticipated to be completed ‘in house’.

·         Tenants would be supported by the Homelessness Team as well as receiving contracted specialist support in order to ensure the needs of vulnerable Tenants were met.

·         The Council had to maximise all opportunities presented to it in terms of trying to house Tenants. There were also opportunities to work with other care providers and Housing Associations.

Following this initial discussion the Cabinet decided to go into Part II by passing the following resolution:

Under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the next item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

(Proposed by the Leader)

Returning to Part I, the Cabinet,

RESOLVED that:

Both properties be purchased and that full funding be utilised from Earmarked reserves (EMRs) as set out in Section 3.3 of the report.

(Proposed by Cllr S Penny and seconded by Cllr C Eginton)

Reason for the decision – the project provides a long term solution to the provision of temporary accommodation.

Note: * Report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing seeking agreement to purchase either one or two houses in multiple occupation, currently in the private rented sector, for use as temporary accommodation and for rough sleepers.  

The Group had before it a report * from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing seeking agreement to purchase either one or two houses in multiple occupation, currently in the private rented sector, for use as temporary accommodation and for rough sleepers.

It was agreed that discussion with regard to the report should take place in private session and it was therefore:

RESOLVED that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and Part 5  - Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Returning to open session it was:

RECOMMENDED to the Cabinet that:

a)    Option 2 – to purchase one property – Scheme 1 - be approved as the preferred option in terms of size, location and ongoing maintenance.

b)    That full funding is utilised from Earmarked reserves (EMRs) as set out in Section 3.3 of the report.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Reason for the decision:

The project and its outcomes are supported by the current Housing Strategy 2021-25. In particular the aim of the project is to reduce the current spend on B&B as temporary accommodation and to provide accommodation with support for rough sleepers and those at risk of rough sleeping. The project will be supported utilising external grant funding and earmarked reserves.

Notes:

(i)        * Report previously circulated; copy attached to the minutes.

(ii)        Cllr S Clist declared a pecuniary interest as he owned a rented property and had business dealings with the agent who had valued the properties in question. He therefore left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and did not take part in the vote.

(iii)       Councillors R J Dolley, S Pugh and R F Radford declared personal interests in that they also owned property that was rented out, either currently or in the past.