Agenda item

(10.50 – 11.20am)

To analyse the effectiveness of the Councils Temporary Accommodation portfolio – making recommendations to Cabinet (if needed)

The HSDM and Cllr Shires introduced the report and explained that one of the main reasons the Council sought to purchase more of its own temporary accommodation (TA) housing stock was to keep people in their local community and close to support networks, in more suitable accommodation, aiding their recovery out of homelessness. Cllr Shires reminded the Committee of the rise in cost of overnight TA and how it influenced some decisions in the budget.

It was highlighted by the HSDM how the Council had gone from having one TA unit of its own in 2017 to having 32 by the end of 2025 and she paid tribute to the team’s effort in managing that effectively. The HSDM also paid tribute to the hard work from the Housing Options and Property Services teams in working together to bring those properties up to a good standard quickly. It was noted by the HSDM that when the Council put families into its own TA the subsidy completely covered the rental income, and it had even started making an annual surplus on the costs that were then reinvested in the homelessness service. Its own TA also made a massive saving compared to the net cost of nightly paid TA: up to £1.2 million was saved over the last 4 years. The HSDM explained that having its own TA was an asset that increased in value over time whilst half of what they used to pay for that TA had come from separate grant money and not mainstream funding.

Cllr Hankins asked if Members’ engagement with local parishes was having a positive impact on intervention in homelessness. The HSDM did say that the Council’s Community Connectors were working with parish councils to identify those in potential need, enabling them to carry out essential early intervention work but it had set criteria of what its TA needed, and in most cases, that was to be sited in towns close to facilities. Cllr Shires reiterated that the key message to local parishes was that new social housing developments were needed in their area to keep people local.

It was suggested by Cllr Bailey that how the Housing Team used the extra revenue generated by the second home premium in purchasing suitable TA for homeless families could be a positive news story. It could publicise, and in turn be a way of engaging second homeowners and make those who paid more tax feel they were contributing to a wider cause rather than feeling penalised. Cllr Shires and the HSDM both agreed.

Cllr Cushing asked what the criteria was for the Council when selecting its own TA as it had very few properties in Fakenham or east of North Walsham. The HSDM explained that they tried to find a balance between specific requirements of size, demand, budget and suitability of the property. The team was looking at a more even geographical spread but many properties to the east were least served by gas, and therefore, were less efficient, had a greater environmental impact and were not as cost effective for the resident. In the west, 2 of the 3 that they were currently purchasing were in Fakenham.

The HSDM clarified for the Chair that the most significant change, when considering improvements to management, was the establishment of the TA steering group as the management of the units had been spread across 4 or 5 service areas, and bringing that together to better understand shared agendas had helped, particularly around the right type of work to be done when taking on the property.

In response to a further query from the Chair, the HSDM explained that the indirect costs, such as the corporate allocations, were when a percentage of the costs had to be attributed to the end activity when comparing with other authorities or organisations delivering a particular service. Those indirect costs weren’t exclusive to the new TA or applied to nightly paid accommodation, so were not included for internal comparative purposes. In terms of the interest that would have been made on the £2.4 million that was spent on purchasing the TA properties, this was not included as it could be argued anything that might have been gained would probably have been used to pay for the increase in costs for nightly paid TA. The DFR also said that if the Council wasn’t investing in its own TA, then the grant money to pay for it would not have been given, and potentially NNDC would have received a smaller share of the revenue generated by the second home premium from NCC.

The HSDM also confirmed that the new authority after Local Government Reform (LGR) was completed would take on the TA and that, in some cases, it had to be retained for 30 years, as the reality was that the need for TA would remain after the Council, in its current form, ceased to exist. Cllr Shires strongly wished for TA to be protected for people so they can be housed, if needed, in their locality after LGR so as to not displace residents from their communities.

ACTION: The HSDM to confirm the number of new affordable homes built this year.