Minutes:
The Committee received a collaborative presentation from guest speakers, Caroline Killeavy, (Chief Executive Officer, YMCA), Heidi Walton, (Chief Executive, LEAP Housing), Claire McGonigle, (Deputy Chief Executive, Framework, Lincolnshire) and Sandra Blow, (Operations Manager, Framework, Lincolnshire). During consideration of the presentation, the following points were noted:
Heidi Walton - Chief Executive, LEAP Housing
Sandra Blow - Operations Manager, Framework, Lincolnshire
Caroline Killeavy - Chief Executive Officer, YMCA
The collaborative presentation concluded with a short summary in which the following points were noted:
The Chair thanked guest speakers for the informative presentation from all guest speakers and Officers. The Chair welcomed comments and questions from Members of the Committee. As a result of discussions between Members and speakers, the following points were made: -
Question: Thanks given for the detailed and informative presentation. In reference to homelessness registration criteria, was that policy or legislation? Of the 300 in temporary accommodation, how many were outside of the city?
Response: The criteria derived from homelessness legislation. A number of individuals that resided in temporary accommodation would have been moved out of the City and/or County for events such as Steampunk and Graduation however would be brought back into the City afterwards. It was the case that other districts had housed individuals within Lincoln.
Comment: The Council placed those in need in the best possible accommodation. The provision of accommodation needed to be of a reasonable standard.
Comment: It may the case that one room for a family was better than a Travel Lodge which offered no cooking facilities. If certain items were required, they would be bought for example, toasters and air fryers would be gifted. Larger items such as beds would be purchased and the money loaned. Licensed properties would be furnished in any instance. Figures would be circulated to Members further to the meeting.
Question: What was the criteria for big items and smaller items?
Response: Smaller items would be for the value of approximately £80 however larger items such as washing machines had been purchased.
Comment: There was amount of funding reserved to furnish homes to a high standard. It was unfortunate that on occasion when individuals left the premises, some of the equipment was not present after departure. Grants were used alongside revenue support.
Comment from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: The Council was innovative in use of Government funding. The issue did not affect Lincoln alone, it was a country-wide problem. Homelessness was often the result of a situation in a person’s life in which they did not receive support. There had been a reduction in housing budget support from Lincoln County Council (LCC) of 25%.
Comment: Support offered and given to residents from the Housing Department was admirable and had helped many residents with mental and physical health issues.
Question: Additional Council housing and social housing was needed, approximately 60 houses were sold a year. How many houses were built?
Response: Within the last five years, the CoLC provided approximately 400 additional affordable housing into their stock. A number were purchased off plan however Council land was also used. Lindum Group had been contracted to build 11 homes at Hermit Street and specific Government grants provided 40-50% of the cost before entering the open market. A great number of Right to Buy properties were being repurchased by the Council. Over 70% of the properties that were purchased under Right to Buy, were under private rental, not to the families that originally purchased them. There was not enough move on accommodation to move forward. Costs had risen significantly within the private sector rental area. There was a threshold of what costs could be covered from Housing Benefit as the local housing areas included Gainsborough. The rent level in Gainsborough had no correlation to Lincoln levels and therefore, the local housing allowance was artificially low due to the inclusion of lower priced rental areas. The CoLC often used grant funding to top up private rental costs.
Comment from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: Right to Buy had distorted housing stocks and as a result, approximately 80% of stock was 1-2 bed properties. Prior to Help to Buy, the spread of properties was more even.
Question: The private rental sector experienced new regulations a number of years ago. Due to this, had there been a general decrease in private sector renting?
Response: There was a number of issues in relation to the availability within the private rental sector. Firstly, there were more regulations. More recently, smaller landlords that owned 1-2 properties moved out of the market due to mortgage increases. In addition, tax advantages had been removed over years which was significant. These factors resulted in a gradual withdrawal of the number of properties available to rent. The number of individuals that required support rose dramatically. Therefore, the result was a higher demand than supply with the supply not always being where it should be.
Comment: Further to the introduction of new Government regulation, private landlords would be required, by 2028, to ensure their properties had an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of C or above. This would not be financially viable for many landlords.
Response: The removal of a Section.21 Eviction was likely to have a significant impact also.
Comment: Negotiation with landlords appeared to diminish further to the reopening of Courts after the Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, prevention figures dropped as negotiation with landlords was not possible. Landlords had chosen to sell properties instead of re-letting them.
Question: The work of County Lines and the Police was positive to hear. Rough sleeping was the most harmful thing to happen to an individual. How effective had the issue of rough sleeping been dealt with? What measures should be taken to address rough sleeping within the City?
Response: A success criterion was ultimately the removal of an individual/s from the street. As a City, collaboratively, work had been very successful. However, funding had gradually been reduced and in order to effectively support an individual, funding was required. It was important to recognise that large amounts of funding used for support came from outside of the City. There had been groundbreaking NHS projects that should be championed nationally and more work could be done to facilitate those collaborations.
Comment: Emergency accommodation facilitators were not health services or mental health professionals. It was important to work alongside other agencies, together, to support Lincoln people.
Comment: Framework, Lincolnshire were often the last agency during the early hours of the morning. Services were considerably stretched and the organisation faced many situations on a day-to-day basis without being the appropriate professionals to deal with them.
Comment: Lincoln faced a significant problem 2/3 years prior the Covid-19 pandemic. The number of rough sleepers was above 30. At the last count, the figure had reduced to 14. The number decreased to zero due to work that was carried out throughout the pandemic. Given the support and funding, this was achievable however the number had risen once again.
Question: Given Local Government criteria, how accurate was the figure?
Response: Numbers changed given the time of the year and occasionally, the time of the month.
Comment: The count of those rough sleeping had previously been carried out on a set down and involved a person bedded down as part of the count. More recently, a snapshot was taken and a meeting followed to consider anything that may have been missed. The figures submitted now we more realistic than previously.
Comment: There had been an increase of rough sleeping in two areas over the last year. Firstly, 50% of individuals housed in emergency accommodation were female. They may had fled risk that was not necessarily visible and at risk of harm from others. Secondly, there had been an increase in individuals that had lost tenancies and mortgages given the cost-of-living crisis. All vulnerabilities needed to be considered, not just a sole focus on rough sleeping.
Comment: LEAP Housing had previously experienced a 60/40% split of male to females that accessed provision. Further to the Covid-19 pandemic, there were more females within the service than males.
Comment: Collaboration with the University of Lincoln may be beneficial.
Question: It was notoriously difficult to move on from charitable organisations. How was staff morale and residents’ wellbeing maintained? The work of charitable organisation was fantastic however it was not where individuals wanted to stay permanently.
Response: Recruitment was very difficult. There had been many capable and skilful people exit from organisations. This was due to do burnout and the wellbeing risk to the workforce. In addition, staff for night cover was a challenge. It was important to recognise the relentlessness of the work. Staff were encouraged to have a vocation to cope effectively.
Comment from Sandra Blow, Operations Manager – Framework Lincolnshire: Staff witnessed trauma often and included dealing with death regularly, suicide, overdoses and occasionally, staff were the first on the scene. Therefore, organisations were heavily invested in ensuring staff wellbeing. Regular debriefs took place and staff had access to wellbeing practioners and psychologists they could make appointments with. Staff were also offered the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) through Human Resources (HR). Invidiauls should not reside for longer than six months. Private rented accommodation was not used as it was unaffable and limited. Individuals were motivated with in-house activities and volunteering to offer improvement to areas of their lives whilst they waited for housing.
Comment from Heidi Walton, Chief Executive – LEAP Housing: Staff worked with high levels of risk on a day today basis. Employees were not professions and were not paid professional salaries. One of the greatest risks to the organisation was stable staff structures.
Comment from Caroline Killeavy, Chief Executive Officer – YMCA: All emergency accommodation providers regarded it as a privilege to work with the people the services supported.
Question: How much did emergency housing cost the CoLC per year?
Response: £975,000 would be spent on temporary accommodation. Approximately £390,000 would be reclaimed through Housing Benefit and therefore, there would be a £580,000 General Fund cost to the Council. The figure was not a Housing Revenue cost. The Local Housing Allowance was a cost not seen in relation to Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation. The Local Housing Allowance for B&B accommodation was £91.00 per week in Lincoln. The cost in real terms could be as much as £600. The Council could only claim in Housing Benefit subsidy.
Question: Was it possible for the Council to offer flexibility with the housing need banding?
Response: The Council continued the allocation of properties, within the remit of the law, at the request of Members. Policy required Member approval. At the end of week commencing 18 September 2023, 86 properties were void; less than 1%. Over 60% of Council housing stock was let to those who were homeless or rough sleeping. Therefore, a revision of the banding would not offer a resolution. The Council would continue to respond to its statutory responsibilities however there was not enough housing. The CoLC supported Government initiatives which included support offered to refuges from Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan and the asylum dispersal process which meant 177 bed spaces needed to be found within the City before the end of December 2023. Approximately 96% of asylum applications were granted and those individuals had no local connection. As such, the banding did not apply. The Council understood and recognised the benefits to health, work, mental health, families’ relationships and children’s development of a warm, safe, dry home.
Comment: The solution appeared to be the need for a considerable programme of social housing building.
Response: With planning permissions, a large-scale build programme could take over 2 years to take effect. The need was imminent.
Comment: It was a necessity to reconsider the provision of housing. Commercial buildings may require adaption into residential homes.
Comment: There were many houses empty within the city that were owned privately.
Response: Empty property working groups considered empty houses on a quarterly basis. The target was to consider long-term empty homes. A number within the city had been privately owned for 30 years. One private owner had agreed to open the flats above the shop so there would soon be another 3 flats available.
Comment: AirBnB was a considerable difficulty. Some streets that surrounded the Cathedral, ordinarily 2-bedroom terraced houses, were unachievably priced. AirBnB properties in the area yielded considerable amounts of money and resulted in approximately 30% occupancy. There had been discussions on the topic with the Local Government Association (LGA).
Comment: It was not comprehendible to consider where individuals would be in the absence of charitable organisations. As a city, where did Lincoln benchmark compared to other areas?
Comment from Claire McGonigle, Deputy Chief Executive – Framework Lincolnshire: Framework Lincolnshire was an East Midlands charity. The situation was grave everywhere. Situations that had historically been experienced in larger areas such as Nottingham, had now moved into smaller areas. Many pressures which include lack of social housing stock, lack of private rented, AirBnB, all combined to create the housing crisis currently experience. Lincoln was not different when compared to other areas.
Comment from Caroline Killeavy, Chief Executive Officer – YMCA: YMCA were governed locally and had local trustees. There was another 80 YMCA’s across the Country with a significant amount of devilment across all facilities. YMCA had succeeded in working with local authorities and partners and there was a raft of new builds across the Country. Speed was hampered by Lincoln having its own housing stock. The issues could be attributed to the commission process in Lincolnshire. Other areas of the country were commercially collaborative and worked with organisations outside of the commission arena.
Response: The pinch point was the Right to Buy. New build council estates required regeneration which created an additional pressure on the Council.
Comment: Individuals that slept on sofas did not quality for Band One. It was not possible to release individuals as it would result in a regression back into a homeless situation as the Council could not house them. Should individuals in emergency accommodation be offered other types of activities to prevent Anti-Social Behaviour?
Response from Caroline Killeavy, Chief Executive Officer – YMCA: The individuals that were supported by YMCA had not received support elsewhere. Vulnerable individuals came from within the community and were residents and voters. They came from Lincoln. They were individuals from within society and organisations had attempted to work collaboratively to seek solutions. It was not possible to refuse support to those people. YMCA welcomed a visit from Members to NOMAD.
Question: How many individuals that received support from YMCA, lived in Lincoln beforehand? The presence and work of charitable organisations was invaluable however could result in pressures.
Response from Caroline Killeavy, Chief Executive Officer – YMCA: YMCA staff welcomed a visit from Members to be provided with the opportunity to witness the services and support the charity offered to vulnerable people.
Comment from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: The people that accessed support from charities were Lincoln people. Individuals suffered things throughout their lives that weren’t effectively supported at the time and some of the residents required lifelong support. Rough sleepers had shared very interesting stories.
Comment: The invitation for Members to visit was welcomed. Consideration could be given in the future to a housing and homeless conference.
The Chair offered his thanks to guest speakers and officers for all of the information provided to Committee and for the remarkable work carried out by charities, for residents within the city.
RESOLVED that: