The Panel has invited witnesses to attend the meeting to help inform its investigation.
The Head of Crawley Homes, NASB Manager, Housing Needs Manager and Performance, Policy and Project Officer have been invited to assist the Panel by providing an update from the council’s perspective and current position whilst assisting the Panel to understand the challenges faced along with the provision of support currently being provided.
Councillor Irvine has also been invited as the Cabinet Member for Housing.
Whilst the individuals named above identifies those witnesses anticipated to speak at the meeting, this may change subject to availability and, at the discretion of the Chair. Further witnesses may be called in addition or instead of those listed above should they be unavailable.
Minutes:
The Housing Needs Manager and Performance, Policy and Project Officer (CBC) provided the Panel with an update since the previous report SHAP/69 and further information with regards to Registered Providers (RPs) operating in Crawley (as set out in Appendix A).
Panel Members raised a number of queries. The issues raised and the key responses included:
· Acknowledgement that the responsibility for governing and regulating RPs lay entirely with the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH). The council expected RPs to be meeting those standards and focused on the property, type of tenancy and then carried out affordability checks prior to accommodation. An information sharing protcol between the Council and RPs was already in place, but work was planned in the next 6 months to update this.
· Confirmation sought and obtained on any contractual agreement between RPs and the council with regards to standards. It was confirmed that nomination agreements existed which detailed the nomination arrangements for the allocation of social and affordable rental housing ensuring that the Council’s statutory duties were met by the housing providers operating within the borough. Service standards and operational processes for social housing providers must conform with their individual regulatory and governance requirements and were thus set at a level which met requirements to protect both tenants and housing stock and which reflected the expectations of their respective tenants.
· Noted that housing played an important role when dealing with financial, health issues and its associated factors and support was offered between various agencies including social care, health and housing authorities.
· Recognition that of the affordable housing built in Crawley over the last 3 years, it was estimated 225 homes were built by registered providers and that over the next two years registered providers were set to deliver approximately 57% of the new build social housing in Crawley, equating to over 270 homes. The nomination rights to registered providers properties secured by the council would play a significant role in helping to meet the demand for affordable and social housing locally and the Panel felt it would be beneficial to receive an update report on how enabling opportunities come forward and development partners were selected.
· Confirmation provided that through nomination agreements with registered provider partners, the council had secured nomination rights to 100% of newly built social housing in Crawley and up to 75% of social housing once it became available for re-occupation with 25% difference potentially equating to registered providers internal transfers.
· Acknowledgement that the majority of applicants placed less importance on the landlord, or on the amount of rent and more on the area in which they wanted to live.
· Noted that of the disrepair complaints received in 2022 to the Private Sector Housing regarding properties owned by housing associates, none had escalated to enforcement action.
· Clarity sought and obtained on the nomination rights secured for schemes outside the town’s boundaries (Kilnwood Vale and Pease Pottage). It was noted that new developments and affordable rent was a national challenge and that given the increasing demand for social housing (through rising homeless and housing register applications), and the pressures on the council’s temporary accommodation budget, positive engagement with registered provider partners was vital if the borough’s housing need was to be met through partnership working.
· Noted that whilst modular housing construction was being considered this was mainly for the provision of temporary accommodation.
· Acknowledgement that the new consumer standards were currently out for consultation and it was intended the revised standards would apply to all RPs with effect during 2024. This would result in customer satisfaction surveys, performance standards and benchmarking. It was felt it would be beneficial for RPs to provide local data for Crawley following the introduction of the new consumer standards and tenant satisfaction measures.
Following this, the Head of Crawley Homes and NASB Team Leader (CBC) provided the Panel with a general update on anti-social behaviour in relation to RPs and housing (as set out in Appendix B).
Panel Members raised a number of queries. The issues raised and the key responses included:
· Confirmation sought and obtained on Community Protection Notices. Information provided that these were generally served on individuals. There was the Alcohol Consumption PSPO together with the PSPO Car Cruising which were currently in place. The Panel were informed of the contact details and reporting arrangements for the council’s ASB team. It was noted that the council would co-ordinate any ASB information and report to the relevant RP.
· Noted that ‘hotspots’ could be compiled from ASB Team, Enforcement Team and Sussex Police, however it was important to liaise regularly and share information. Additional data from RPs would be welcomed to feed into any analysis. The Panel felt it may be beneficial to request additional information from Sussex Police as to whether there was any matter that they would wish RPs could address in relation to ASB.
· Acknowledgement that it would be vital for residents to be aware how and who to report issues to swiftly. Regularly meetings were previously held with RPs to review issues and share best practice. It was felt potentially beneficial if meetings at a strategic level (local where appropriate) could be established.
· Recognition that each registered provider has its own ASB policy which will set out their approach to responding to reports of ASB. It was noted that whilst ‘fly tipping’ was the tenant’s responsibility this could be seen as ASB, and the RP could potentially choose varying activities or charges to deal with this.
RESOLVED
That Panel Members thanked all officers for their attendance and informative contribution.