Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)       Petitions: to receive any petitions presented to the full council or at the meeting itself;

 

(b)       Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 11 January 2018;

 

(c)   Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 11 January 2018.

 

Petitions

 

65.1   There were no petitions. 

 

Questions

 

65.2   John Hadman asked the following question:

 

Night shelter at the Brighton Centre

“Given that the Council funded “outreach work” to identify rough sleepers who would benefit from the availability of this night shelter; that work has been ongoing for nearly a year to identify a site for this shelter; that six full time employees have been recruited; and 25 volunteers have been, or are being, trained could you provide figures for the numbers of people using the facility each night, the number of people refused access, and the number of users transferred to the Brighton Centre from other places of accommodation?”

 

65.3   The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. The Night Shelter has been a huge success. At present 30 people a night are being offered a place at the night shelter and attendance in numbers accommodated at the Nightshelter vary. No client referred has been refused a placement. No client has been accommodated at the Nightshelter from other accommodation and all placements have been made for clients sleeping rough in the city.

 

So far 6 people have been supported from the shelter into more permanent housing options and 2 have been supported to reconnect out of the city.

We have secured an extension at the Brighton Centre for an additional month and shelter will remain there until 11^th March.”

 

65.4   Mr Hadman asked a supplementary question regarding the financing of the use of the Brighton Centre. He asked if the £135,000 rewarded by the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee was used for this purpose following his petition last year to open night shelters. The Chair confirmed that that money had been used for the night shelter. The Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing reported that currently it looked as if the entire budget would be spent if not a small overspend of that budget. Therefore the council were not anticipating there being any underspend at all of the budget that was granted last year.

 

65.5    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.6   David Thomas asked the following question on behalf of Barbara Roberts:

 

Legal action against B&HCC leaseholders on the Bristol Estate

 

“Within nine working days of the Chair of this committee saying “We can confirm that we are not attempting to win litigation at all costs“, the Council made an Application to the Property Tribunal naming 39 Respondents; a common tactic putting the maximum amount of pressure on residents over the Xmas and New Year period. Presumably the council officer who wrote the Chair’s response knew this.

There were errors in the Application. Was this due to action being rushed through just prior to the holiday period or poor and incorrect record keeping by the Council?

65.7     The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. At the 15 November Committee meeting I said: “We can confirm that we are not attempting to win litigation at all costs and that instead after two years we would welcome the Tribunal’s findings on this issue based on their independent assessment of the issues.” That is still our position. The council made the application to the Tribunal on 28 November. The timetable for leaseholders to respond to the application was set by the Tribunal, not by the council.

It would not be appropriate to comment further in a public forum now that the tribunal are dealing with this case.” 

 

65.8   Mr Thomas asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I would like to understand how the answers we have been given and subsequent behaviour squares with the Council’s responsibilities regarding Duty of Candour, Duty of Care and honesty to this committee?”

65.9   The Executive Director of Neighbourhoods, Communities and Housing explained that the council by going to the independent Tribunal were giving the opportunity for the leaseholders to put their case forward and it would be considered in an independent manner. The council did not have any say over when the responses were to be given however the council did contact the tribunal and say it was happy and open for there to be an extension granted. The Executive Director understood that the leaseholders were currently in discussion or in communication with the leasehold tribunal. As the Chair had said it was not appropriate to have detailed discussion about this matter at this time. Going through the tribunal process would give the opportunity for the leaseholders and council both to put their case forward in front of the independent tribunal, who would be able to assist in the matter.

 

65.10  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

           

65.11    David Croydon asked the following question:

 

“Those parts of the Mears Group contract that I have been allowed to see are, mostly, very good.  In the light of further information being published regarding fraud, of 468 post inspections of work carried out by the subcontractor through Mears only 30 failed.

However, when internal audit carried out 39 ‘door to door’ inspections, 8 of which had already been passed by Mears, 7 out 8 of these failed for “significant overcharge”.

Will the Committee support the call by Councillor Mears, made over a year ago, for an investigation into the Mears/B&HCC contract?”

 

65.12    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. This case from several years ago related to a single sub-contractor working on a small proportion of responsive repairs. The checks undertaken by our Housing team identified the overpayments being made to the sub-contractor.

At the time the council took steps to recover all the overpayments and associated costs owed to the council and improve the controls and inspection regime with our contractor and their sub-contractors.

The council also commissioned a review of the partnership to further identify  improvements that would benefit the partnership, residents and stakeholders. The learning from this will be used to inform the programme for delivering housing repairs, maintenance, improvements and capital works post April 2020; when the current contractual arrangements expire.

A report on the procurement programme will come to a forthcoming meeting of the Housing & New Homes Committee.” 

 

65.13  Mr Croydon invited the councillors to come on a tour of Clarendon House with him and his surveyor to see some real buildings and listen to a different point of view from that of the council officers and Mears.

 

65.14  The Chair replied that she was sure all committee members would be perfectly agreeable to accept any invitations received.  

 

65.15  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.16    Barry Hughes asked the following question on behalf of Madeleine Sailani:

 

 

 

“Knightguard Security Ltd

“I have been made aware that a director of a company called Knightguard is being allowed to survey and, generally, condemn entrance doors across the city? Does the committee appreciate that any profit from the new doors fitted goes to the very same company?”  

 

65.17    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. We have recently let a new laundry contract and following break-ins, and an attempted break-in at three launderette locations, we have had to review resident access arrangements at 7 sites in the city.  We are already aware of the work that might be needed at these locations, and are seeking quotes from Knightguard. 

There have been one or two locations where Knightguard, on visiting the location, was able to suggest alternative solutions that might be less costly, while providing a tenant focused response to the problem the Council is seeking to resolve.

Any decision to replace a door entry system or door would ultimately be made by the council not a contractor.”

65.18  Mr Hughes stated that the incidences of which he was aware did not relate to launderettes. He asked if the committee really believed that this sort of relationship made sense? A gentleman from Knightguard turned up at a block of flats and without knowledge from the residents, condemned the door entry system. The residents were then confronted with a section 20 notice asking them to pay collectively several thousand pounds. The council ought to have some system whereby they could check the need for such radical work.

 

65.19  The Executive Director of Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing replied that there had been no cases where a contractor had identified that works needed to be carried out and that these had been re-procured with that contractor without any council involvement. If anybody, (resident or contractor) suggests that there are any issues with door entry systems they are inspected by council officers who make the decision as to whether the work needed to be carried out. Where the council have had Knightguard carrying out work, and they had identified works which could carried out more cheaply, then that had been considered by the council. There had been no incidents where the council had not checked what has been said and had not carried out its own evaluation of what is needed before any works are procured or any section 20 notices are issued.      

 

65.20  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.21    Clare Hudson asked the following question:

 

Children in Bed and Breakfast Accommodation

“Confirmation was given at the last Committee meeting that no children have lived in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks.

Does this mean that these children have been moved to permanent accommodation within the six week period or on to other emergency or temporary accommodation?”

 

65.22    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. It is correct that no children or pregnant women have been in Bed & Breakfast type accommodation with shared facilities for longer than 6 weeks – as per statute. Such households are moved to other temporary accommodation that has self-contained facilities.

The Council also offers to assist households to move to private rented accommodation. With regards to young people who are unable to live at home, our approach is to absolutely avoid the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. However it would not be possible to provide a blanket ban as there have been a couple of occasions when we have had to do this due to the very specific circumstances that young people have found themselves in and the lack of alternatives. We would only ever do this in very exceptional circumstances.”

 

65.23  Ms Hudson asked if the Chair could explain why she, her wife and her one year old son were placed in an HMO in Eastbourne for 8 to 10 weeks in 2016.

 

65.24  The Chair replied that the Committee was unable to talk about specific cases at this meeting however, she was sure that the officers would talk to Ms Hudson at the break. 

 

65.25  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.26 Nichole Brennan asked the following question:

 

“In light of the figures provided by Dr Tim Worthley of the 17 homeless people (average age 46) who died in 2017 in Brighton and Hove I must question the adequacy of the Council’s implementation of SWEP.

The Executive Director for Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing referred to the fact that “Government statute is three nights below zero” in order for SWEP to be triggered.

Could the Committee clarify which statute?”

 

 

65.27  The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. There is no statutory requirement for the council to provide a SWEP provision. This council, like most authorities, use the guidance issued by Homeless Link in partnership with the Department of Communities and Local Government which provides guidance to local authorities on their responsibilities and on best practice. The council have recently updated our policy on opening SWEP and I can reassure you it is in line with the Homeless Link Guidance.”

 

65.28  Ms Brennan asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Can you explain why when the count was on, that SWEP was not activated on five freezing nights?”

 

65.29  The Executive Director of Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing explained that theSWEP was activated when there was either an amber warning or whether the temperature is zero or less for two consecutive nights. When that has happened then SWEP has been activated and has also been activated at further times. In the last two years the average SWEP numbers in the SWEP season has been 11. This year already SWEP had been activated 12 times. The council believe that it has activated SWEP on all the times when the guidance said that it should and in addition it had activated at further times.

 

 

65.30  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.31    Kiah Garrett Gotch asked the following question:

 

Agenda Item 66(d):  Council Owned Short Term Homelessness Accommodation

 

“This item is to be warmly welcomed. It is a pity that the “Supporting information” is not comprehensive and the proposals are lacking in detail. It is of the utmost importance that this policy is not treated in the same manner as the policy to have a Council run night shelter decision was treated a year ago.

Will the Committee ensure this initiative is kept out of the hands of property developers?

 

Will the Committee ensure community involvement and impose a tight time schedule to buy/build/refurbish appropriate accommodation?”

 

65.32    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. This item is subject to tonight’s committee decision as set out in item 66(d). Subject to the decision tonight, the council has a duty to consider all options and make their decision based on best consideration including value for money.

 

The Committee remains committed to community engagement as required as part of the decision and policy process and will aim to deliver appropriate accommodation subject to the relevant governance, financial and legal requirements as efficiently as possible. The committee will be asking for a further report on this matter. The council was already building and refurbishing its own temporary accommodation and that should be put in the report with any other options.” 

 

65.33  Ms Garrett Gotch stated that it was very worrying that the Chair had refused to listen or respond to other important questions on housing. She and others believed that the Chair was acting outside of the council’s constitution in refusing questions on St Mungos, Discretionary Housing Payments, the council’s statement on housing benefit and the implications of government reports in two key responsibilities of this committee. The refusal to explain the action taken was an affront to democracy transparency and accountability. 

 

65.34  The Chair thanked Ms Garrett Gotch for her statement.

 

65.35  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.36    Maria Garrett Gotch asked the following question:

 

Agenda Item 69: Housing First

 

“Housing First, introduced in Finland, places homeless people in permanent housing before they become afflicted by issues such as addiction and mental illness. It removes any initial complicated tests, and in essence trusts individuals to turn a corner independently, with support provided further down the line. A 2017 report by EU housing organisation Feantsa, named Finland as one of the only EU countries not in the midst of a homelessness crisis. The Centre of Social Justice recommended that the UK government consider the experimental approach. Does the Committee agree?”

 

“This report shows that of the 10 people going through the B&HCC “initiative” that as of January 2018

1.     One person is in emergency accommodation

2.     Two people are in temporary accommodation

3.     The two people in Social housing were occupants prior to Housing First

4.     Two people are “disengaging” from the project

My question is very simple; how can this initiative be described as having a “Housing First” approach and when will a Housing First Initiative be put in place run by professionals who know what they are doing?”

 

65.37    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question.  The Finnish Housing First model does not place people in permanent accommodation but places people into (largely) congregate supported housing with a personalised and psychologically informed model, and without fixed timeframes for move on.

 

This is in line with current Housing & Adult Social Care Commissioning on supported housing for single homeless and rough sleepers.

 

The Housing First contract Commissioned by B&HCC has a fidelity based support model ensuring clients continue to receive support even where they fall out of housing. This is in line with best practice guidelines.

     

It was not open to the provider or the Commissioners to offer permanent housing and alternative arrangements, including long term supported housing placements in self-contained properties without move on expectations and long term temporary accommodation in leased properties were made available. Where a client no longer has capacity to receive support or chooses to disengage they are safely transitioned to alternative appropriate support models. The current provider is a recognised market leader in the field and is currently part of a wider research study to ensure that they continue to offer the best possible service within current accommodation restrictions. Over 70% of the original clients have maintained accommodation and are continuing to receive support”

 

65.38  Ms Garrett Gotch stated that the report showed that out of 10 people going through the B&HCC initiative that is part of January 2018. No 5. One person is in emergency accommodation. No 6. Two people are in temporary accommodation. No 7. Two  people in social housing were occupants prior to Housing First and 8. Two people are disengaging from the project. How can this initiative be described as having a Housing First approach and when will the first Housing First initiative be put in place and run by professionals who know what they are doing?

 

65.39  The Chair replied that the committee would discuss the matters raised in the supplementary question under item 69 – Housing First.

 

65.40  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.41    Keith Marston asked the following question:

 

Agenda Item 67:  Housing Revenue Account Energy Strategy

“The Council is considering an up to date Energy Strategy. However, given this “will prioritise energy efficiency solutions with the aim of mitigating fuel poverty” it is strange that household income is excluded as this is directly related to the definition of “fuel poverty”.

Why is this not included in the strategy and will the Committee consider a review of the draft strategy by experts clearly beyond influence of interested parties from a business perspective and based upon an ecological and up-to-date technical analysis?”

 

65.42    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. This is our first HRA Energy Strategy, it aligns with our landlord function of maintaining, and where feasible, improving properties, this includes increasing energy efficiency. The strategy sits alongside and interacts with a number of relevant strategies, including the corporate Fuel Poverty & Affordable Warmth Strategy developed alongside colleagues in Public Health.

As your question highlights, Fuel Poverty is known to have a number of causes: low income, poor energy efficiency and high energy prices

The consequence of being fuel poor can result through differing degrees of any of these three causes.  However it is generally recognised that improving the energy efficiency of homes can have the largest and most long-lasting impact on addressing fuel poverty.  As a landlord we have a primary responsibility for the energy efficiency performance of our buildings. 

The strategy suggests a twofold approach; the first is Technical which is where our more challenging responsibility as a landlord lies.  The second is Lifestyle, which as a council and social housing provider we are intent on supporting through energy saving advice and support services, including collaboration with financial inclusion and income-support services within both housing services and the wider council. 

There is no exclusion of addressing household income; however it is worth recognising that the matter of financial inclusion and low income has a much wider scope than that of fuel poverty and the energy efficiency of buildings. These issues are also recognised in the Fuel Poverty and Affordable Warmth Strategy; the strategies will work alongside each other to address all causes of fuel poverty and its impacts.

In respect of the second part of the question, if approved, the progress of the strategy will include independent external expertise to support business planning and/or technical analysis where appropriate”

 

65.43  Mr Marston stated that his question was about the inclusion of household income, as the government’s own definition of fuel poverty was percentage of household income spent on energy bills. Therefore household income surely had to be included in the report.

 

65.44  The Chair replied that the council were including financial inclusion and income support services and they had a holistic approach around supporting residents with their income and with any expenditures. That hopefully would take care of some of the issues around lifestyle, helping with energy, saving advice and support. 

 

65.45  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

65.46  Councillor Barnett asked where the council were building property for temporary accommodation. The Chair replied that the council were refurbishing Stonehurst Court, an ex-sheltered housing unit, and reconverting it back to ten two bedroom houses for temporary accommodation use. The Committee also agreed to turn the Oxford Street housing office into temporary accommodation. The council were also looking at other options through the buy back policy where the council was looking to purchase property lost to the council under Right to Buy, and using those properties for accommodation. There were other initiatives that the council were considering and a report would be would be submitted to a future committee.  

 

Deputations

 

65.47    The Committee adjourned from 4.55 and returned at 5.15pm.

 

65.48    The Chair agreed to take the following late deputation which was presented by Ree Melody on behalf of Love Activists: 

 

“We would like to know why the council has not adjusted or even expanded the Housing First model here in Brighton since the end of the pilot project which took place during the end of 2014 through to February 2015? We know that the pilot was 70 % successful, giving permanent homes and adequate support alongside to 10 homeless people, 7 of which maintained their tenancies.

 

We are deeply concerned about the length of delay in expanding this model. We have kept a timeline of actions and inactions since the end of the pilot project here in Brighton as follows…

 

Ten months after we first heard about the housing first pilot here in Brighton, in January 2016, Love Activists included the proposal of expanding Housing First model within our 7 solution based proposals to end homelessness, knowing it to be a proven working model  which has ended and significantly decreased the levels of homelessness in other parts of the world.

 

A few months later in April 2016, the committee agreed to bring forward a report on the pilot to enable the project to have the opportunity to move forward.

 

In November 2016, the report was supposed to be heard. Yet it was deferred several times until finally being heard in June 2017. Which meant that in the end it took 14 months to provide an inadequate report which meant things could not move forward whilst homeless human beings remain suffering and dying on our streets.

 

Yet there is already data out there which is even in the report itself about the models effectiveness. For example, it states that in 2003 and 2008, the New Economics Foundation estimated that a single homeless person, if they were homeless for one year, it would cost the UK public purse between £24,000 and £26,000 more than other citizens. Showing how economically this model can save money.

 

More importantly, Housing First can quickly help get people off the streets and provide permanent homes with support alongside. The data shows strong and consistent outcomes for tenancy sustainment of between 70-90%.

 

The recent evaluation of the 9 Housing First projects around the UK, found that a significant 74% of current service users had been successfully housed for one year or more by 5 of the Housing First services.

 

Since the introduction of the model in this country, it has only focused on helping the most entrenched homeless. Although it is a model which can help all types of homelessness as proven in Canada where they adjust it to suit all individuals whether old or young, no matter what their needs are. We can provide useful information and contracts directly to the homeless hub in Canada to assist in councils applying the same strategy here in the UK.

 

In the past we have been told that the council does not have any affordable properties to expand the model. Yet there has been many opportunities via new housing developments which we believe could have included making some of the properties available towards Housing First. It has also been a year since the council has voted unanimously to make use of the empty buildings which could also be used towards the model.

 

Too many preventable deaths have occurred on our streets whilst the council massively delays on expanding this proven working model.

 

We want to know when and how the council will move forward by adjusting and expanding it and if they will truly make use of empty buildings to prevent more lives being taken by the harshness and the struggle of living on our streets which can be avoided by the Housing First solution.” 

 

65.49    The Chair informed Ms Melody that she would receive a written response.

 

65.50    RESOLVED

 

(1)                That the deputation be noted.