Agenda item

To consider a report by the Director for Digital, Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 8

Before the Committee was a report by the Director for Digital, Sustainability and Resources, a copy of which had been circulated to all members, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as item 8. The report before members set out background information on the Portfolios of the Adur and Worthing Executive Members for Customer Services to enable the Committee to consider and question the Executive Members on issues within their portfolios and any other issues which the Executive Members are involved in connected with the work of the Councils and the Adur and Worthing communities.

The Executive Members for Customer Services were present to answer questions.

A Member asked the following question The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in extraordinary demands being made on Council staff. What impact has the pandemic had on the Customer Services team and how well are they placed for a potentially challenging winter ahead? Members were told that in terms of the volume of work that the team has to deal with, reactive demand for both telephone and face to face advice has dropped since pre-pandemic.  The team was dealing with about 80-85% of pre-covid volumes, and that had freed up its capacity to shift to a more proactive, preventative model (as reported to JSC in July 2021).  In terms of the type of work that the team encountered, the level of need, and the complexity of residents’ circumstances had increased. The team had formal training on recognising vulnerability, and on maintaining personal resilience whilst providing that type of support. It also received management and peer support – there were daily all-team meetings, regular 121 and coaching sessions and “debriefings” after particularly difficult calls.  In line with other teams also had access to mental health first aiders and to the councils’ Employee Assistance Programme. The team was well placed for the winter ahead.  The main risk to its ability to support residents would be if covid or non-covid sickness levels had a significant impact. The team had recently recruited short term temporary staff specifically to mitigate the risk of increased demand in the winter months.

A Member asked the following question: The short stay 37 bed accommodation unit for homeless people at 22 Lyndhurst Rd is coming towards the end of the free 5 year lease period. What plans are in place to rehouse the residents in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act?  The Committee was told that The Council’s Housing Services had been in conversation with Turning Tides about the closure of Lyndhurst Road since the beginning of the year. Every resident in Lyndhurst road would have a move on plan which will depend on their current support needs. The move- on options are likely to be a move into independent or semi-independent living or move to another supported housing scheme if they still needed support. Residents who move into independent accommodation will continue to receive low level support.

A Member asked the following question: The recent street count estimated 15 rough sleepers in Worthing. What provision will be made in Worthing in the absence of the winter night shelter? How does this break down in terms of gender and has this changed? Members were told that Winter provision consisted of placements into temporary accommodation and some provision in communal areas of supported housing, with additional security staff being provided for high risk individuals who had been evicted from a variety of accommodation provision. In preparation for SWEP,  which was being activated as of 25 November 2021, all rough sleepers had been made an offer of accommodation over the previous few days, for those who had refused an offer, it would remain open to them should they wish to access accommodation over the SWEP period. Outreach would continue to check on the welfare of anyone rough sleeping during this period. Support would be provided via Outreach who had additional resources for in-reach from Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) funding, the Singles Homeless Team as well as St Clare's Community Hub. Following agreement with DLUHC, RSI funding would be used to continue to house this cohort over the winter period as there will not be additional winter funding available for Worthing. Some of the night shelters were supporting those activities as they did the previous year. The gender breakdown for the Worthing Street Count was 14 males and 1 female. The number of females rough sleeping at any one time had on occasion in the past been as many as 5, the addition of Emerging Futures female provision in Worthing had resulted in a consistent reduction of female rough sleepers in Worthing.

A Member asked the following question: The National Poverty Charity Turn2Us warned that at least seven million people across the UK are missing out on unclaimed benefits, increasing the risk of being pushed into poverty. Could the Executive Member give us an estimate of unclaimed benefits in Worthing? Members were told that the majority of state benefits were administered by the Department for Work & Pensions with the Councils only responsible for the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support. It was therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the unclaimed benefits across Adur and Worthing. However, one of the purposes of the Councils’ Proactive project is to support customers to claim the benefits that they are entitled to and this is building on the work that Revenues & Benefits and Customer Services already undertakes to encourage customers to claim Council Tax Support.

A Member asked the following question: Homelessness exacts a huge personal cost to those who endure it. In addition to the trauma and the emotional trauma that can accompany the events leading to the loss of one's housing, it can mark the beginning of a steep downward spiral. The unique distress of lacking a settled home can cause or intensify social isolation, create barriers to education, training and paid work and undermine mental and physical health. The impact on children can be more profound and long lasting. Does the council attempt to calculate a cost in £s in terms of the actual impact of being without a home, or in terms of the potential need for interventions to address the impact of homelessness on people's physical and mental health? The Committee was told that It was difficult to calculate the cost of the impact of homelessness on individuals because individual circumstances varied and it was often complex.  Several studies had estimated the cost of the impact by calculating the cost of meeting the increased demand on services that intervene when a person became homeless. It was beyond doubt that the impact of homelessness was devastating both on the individual, their family and also society. Proactive and early intervention had been shown to be more beneficial to the individual and their household and more cost effective to statutory services when compared to the cost of relieving homelessness.  The Council could calculate the cost of relieving homelessness on the day but the actual cost of intervening to address the impact of homelessness includes the cost of other agencies such as mental health services, social care services, the NHS, Offender Management Services and many others who also intervened. As part of the Councils’ “Make Homelessness Prevention Everyone’s Business” campaign in 2018, it was estimated the resulting 113 successful homelessnes preventions resulted in the following gross expenditure being avoided –

Housing                                               - £832,101.49

NHS                                                    - £253,582 savings to NHS services,

Mental Health Services                       -  £123,841 savings

Offender Management services          -  £707,469

While costs give a way to quantify expenses on homelessness, as identified during the  “Make Homelessness Prevention Everyone’s Business” campaign, it could sometimes obscure the individual tragedy that results from homelessness.

A Member asked the following question: I know you have been managing this portfolio for over 4 years, what do you think are the biggest changes that have taken place and do you have one specific change that you think has been the most challenging? The Adur Executive Member told the Committee that the introduction of a capital programme which had been non-existent when the Executive Member had taken over and dealing with Staff and Performance; getting the right staff to in to do the job

A member asked the following question: The ATF is an important mechanism for liaison between the council and the tenants/leaseholders; we cannot see when the last AGM was held, nor minutes listed. We have members of our community keen to join and work with the ATF. For transparency, please can we ask them to host an AGM (if due) and publish minutes & meetings on their own and the Councils website. Is there a meeting planned for Dec (as stated on their website)? Members were told that The Adur Tenants Forum (ATF) had been impacted by COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was working with the ATF to restart the tenants forum.  A venue in Fishersgate had been refurbished for the use of tenants and leaseholders. The venue was handed over to the Chairperson of the ATF on 17th November. The Council was providing administrative support to the ATF and would be meeting with the ATF to set a date for its next annual general meeting. Minutes of meetings would be published on the ATF’s website (https://www.adurtenantsforum.co.uk).The Council continued to encourage residents in estates to set up residents groups which would form part of the ATF. Officers were keen to engage with resident groups to discuss issues that affected them locally.

A Member asked the following question: On 10 July 2019 yourself, Cllrs Boggis and Parkin, featured in a press release about the old civic centre site. The central thrust of the piece was to herald the fact the site was to be used for 100% affordable housing. ‘At least 40 per cent would be social rented and the rest shared ownership.’ The planning statement on the Civic Centre site application AWDM/1450/21 says in section 6.4.4. ‘In this respect, the proposal shall deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing (30%) at the prescribed tenure mix of 75% social/affordable rented housing and 25% intermediate housing. The scheme will therefore be 100% compliant with Policy 21 of the Adur Local Plan.’ On the application form it is somewhat vague saying:  ‘out of 171 dwellings 38 are social, affordable or ‘intermediate rent’ and 13 are ‘affordable home ownership’. As Shoreham residents get increasingly outpriced, when is this council going to prioritise social rented housing for people in housing need, rather than backtracking on promises? The Adur Executive member stated that the planning application does propose a policy compliant scheme incorporating 30% affordable housing. However, the applicant Hyde Housing had indicated that following the grant of planning permission it would be able to draw down Homes England funding to deliver all 171 dwellings as affordable housing. The intended mix would be for 40% social rent and 60% intermediate (or shared ownership housing). Hyde Housing had entered into a strategic partnership with Homes England to provide additional affordable housing over and above what can be secured through the planning process. As a result the development would deliver a significant number of affordable homes to benefit the local community and in particular those in housing need. The Council’s Joint Strategic Committee approved its Delivering Pathways to Affordable homes strategy in March 2021 which set out its approach to delivering affordable homes. In terms of prioritising homes for social rent the housing evidence pointed to the fact that homes of all tenure especially including social rent and affordable rent. The proposed development will provide a mix that meets the needs of a broad range of residents in line with our adopted policy. Rather than backtracking on its promises, the Council had just completed the construction of 15 new homes for social rent at Cecil Norris House in September year demonstrating the Authority’s commitment.

A Member asked the following question: The Adur Homes Management Board that was proposed by the JOSC housing working group is still not functioning the way it was envisaged. Not all the roles have been filled and there are still documents or minutes from the previous meetings on the Council's website. What is hindering publication of the documents? Members were told that the Adur Homes Management Board (AHMB) was reconstituted in 2020. The new board, which met quarterly, had met four times since it was reconstituted and its next meeting was planned for December 2021. The Board had eight standing members, which was comprised of the Executive Member for Customer Services and the chair of the Board, three senior Council Officers and four resident representatives. The four resident representatives were Adur Tenants Forum (ATF) and Sheltered Housing Action Review Panel (SHARP), who were represented by their chairpersons, the Leaseholders Representative Group which had just been restarted and had nominated a representative to attend the AHMB and a young person’s representative. The Council would work with both the ATF and the Leaseholders’ Forum to identify and support a young person to sit on the board.

A Member asked the following question: Council reports indicate that Adur Homes are 100% compliant on fire risk assessments. But Adur Homes does not seem to be 100% compliant on fire risk mitigation. For example, in Eastbrook, Cllr O’Neal has received and forwarded a number of complaints about unsafe doors which aren’t a fire safety standard, and about windows which do not open. Can you tell us how you will work with Cllr O’Neal to address these as a matter of urgency? The Committee was told that as a landlord, Adur District Council had a legal duty to ensure its properties had valid and up to date fire risk assessments. Fire Risk assessments were booked in advance and planned over a 3 year cycle. Appropriate actions were taken to address or mitigate any immediate risk identified but other risks which do not require immediate attention are in a current programme of works. For instance, properties with inner rooms were fitted with an enhanced smoke detection system and residents were provided with appropriate advice once the inner room was identified. The Council had commenced major remedial works on these properties. The Council had already delivered Phase 1 of the fire door programme, which were the critical door sets. Phase 2 commenced on Monday 29 November 2021. Over the next 18 months, the Council would replace about 1,000 door sets. Councillors should provide details of properties of concern, The Executive Member would ask officers to look at these and take appropriate action.

A member asked the following question: Given the acknowledged state of Adur Homes’ service to residents, what has been brought in to compensate individuals who have suffered losses and hardship as a result? Members were told that to ensure fairness and consistency, residents who had suffered losses or hardship were encouraged to put in a claim with the Councils’ insurers.

A Member asked the following question: I have mentioned to the Executive Member before about one tenant who was in Adur temporary accommodation in Bognor Regis whose ceiling repeatedly flooded and ruined her belongings. I promised to forward the information by email. The resident has been told she should have had contents insurance. Can you tell me whether that actually exists in these circumstances, and whether any appraisal has been done as to how affordable that is for people in TA? What else can be done to compensate? The Committee was told that the Executive Member was aware of the matter which involved a former tenant of Adur Homes, who made a homeless application. Officers had looked into this matter and provided a response to the resident. As the resident was not satisfied with the outcome, the matter was being dealt with through Councils’ complaint process. The Executive Member was hopeful that this would resolve the matter to the resident’s satisfaction. The resident would have an opportunity to refer the matter to the independent Local Government Ombudsman if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the complaints process.