Agenda item

To receive members’ questions under procedure rule no.11.  The procedure rule provides that any member may ask the chairman of a board or group any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Support Services.

Councillor D Everitt put the following question to Councillor R D Bayliss:

“People desperate for accommodation and on NWLDC housing waiting list are upset and angered to find many vacant properties empty with no work taking place. I like other Council tax payers are appalled at the revenue that is being lost to this council by this unacceptable situation. Please state which three properties have been vacant for the longest period and when you expect them to be let.

How much revenue was lost to this council this month from empty properties”.

Councillor R D Bayliss gave the following response:

“There are currently a higher number of properties empty which require considerable work to bring them up to the void lettable standard, a standard we have developed with our involved tenants.  For those properties included in the Decent Homes Improvement Programme, we have been undertaking the works whilst the properties have been empty to minimise the disruption for new tenants and maximise the funding from the Homes and Communities Agency.

Our void turnover as a percentage of our stock is 8% which is slightly lower than the housing sector average of 10%.  At 1 September 2014, there were 270 properties vacant, with the respective details being as follows.

56 are currently undergoing repair works prior to them being offered for reletting through the Choice Based Letting (CBL) advertising process.  This includes properties requiring extensive damp, and/or asbestos work which is completed by specialist contractors.

38 are with Kier or Lovell undergoing Decent Homes improvements.

21 are awaiting inspection either prior to repairs being ordered, or prior to them being advertised for letting after repairs are completed.

57 are with Housing Management and are moving through the process of being advertised and let to new tenants.

98 are in Sheltered Housing Schemes with no demand from eligible home seekers (these include Greenacres, Wolds Court and Westgates schemes).

The three properties which have been vacant for the longest period are:

·        13 Woulds Court

·        21 Greenacres

·        13a Hood Court

In 2011 the Housing Service completed a review of the corridor style sheltered housing scheme to assess the investment needs and levels of demand for all of the buildings. Three schemes were subsequently identified as being surplus to requirements and in July 2011, Cabinet approved the recommendation for the schemes to be decommissioned.  The three schemes were Woulds Court, Greenacres and Heather House. 

Two of the properties which have been vacant for the longest period are within a decommissioned scheme (13 Woulds Court and 21 Greenacres). 13a Hood Court is a very small bedsit flat for which there is no demand from any eligible elderly applicants.

Our approach to the future of our empty and low demand sheltered housing schemes has been developed and will be reviewed by the Director of Housing when he joins the team later this month.

The amount of rent loss for August was £43,162.08 which equates to 3.2% of the gross rent.  An allowance is made within the annual Housing Revenue Account budget to reflect the predicted level of rent to be lost from vacant properties.

I wish to reassure Members that the current level of void properties is reducing, and actions have already been taken by officers to ensure we find new tenants as promptly as possible when works are completed”.

Councillor D Everitt commented that this situation did not arise overnight.  He added that he was pleased with the last part of the response.  As a supplementary question, he asked if Councillor R D Bayliss would agree that it would be beneficial to have an update on the situation at every Council meeting.

Councillor R D Bayliss agreed to provide updates as far as was reasonably practical.  He referred to the quarterly performance updates that were already available, however he agreed to discuss with officers ascertain whether an extract could be made available for the next meeting.

Councillor D De Lacy put the following question to Councillor R D Bayliss:

“Would the Portfolio Holder update Council on the progress being made in identifying those residents who have their Housing Benefit reduced wrongly as a result of the legislation on under occupancy of properties, commonly known as the bedroom tax”?

Councillor R D Bayliss gave the following response:

“To find out who might qualify for a refund we needed to know peoples’ circumstances going back to 1996.  Changes to our IT systems meant that we were unable to identify people immediately who qualified so to be on the safe side we included everyone who could possibly qualify.  After a number of computer programs were run we narrowed down the number to 168.

We wrote to all 168 and received 47 responses.  Through further reminders, telephone calls and a second letter which included a prepaid envelope this increased this to 101 responses. Of these 38 were eligible for a refund.

Two additional people have since been found to be eligible for a refund following further phone calls and examination of paper records, bringing the anticipated final total to 40”.

Councillor D De Lacy welcomed the response, in particular the fact that 40 residents had been identified for a rebate.  He felt it was only right that he thanked the staff and Councillor R D Bayliss for their efforts to date.  He commented that even the Liberal Democrats believed that the bedroom tax would be banished after next May.

Councillor J Legrys put the following question to Councillor R D Bayliss:

“How many requests received during the last 5 years for adaptations to the homes of frail, elderly, disabled and other medically unwell people were agreed by the County Council’s Occupational Therapy Teams and forwarded to this Council for action?

In each case - how long did the service users and carers concerned have to wait for the recommended work to be undertaken by this Council and or its Contractors”?

Councillor R D Bayliss gave the following response:

“Between January 2009 and mid September 2014, the Council has received a total of 302 referrals from the Occupational Therapy team representing LCC’s Adult Social Care Service in support of a major adaptation to Council tenants’ homes.

In the 5-year period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2014, the Council completed major adaptations in response to 263 Occupational Therapy referrals received during this 5-year period.  The average period to complete an adaptation was 174 working days (35 weeks or 8 months).

The Council’s target is to complete all approved urgent referrals within 8 months and routine within 14 months (18 months for cases requiring planning or Building regulation approval)”. 

Councillor J Legrys thanked Councillor R D Bayliss and the Head of Housing for the work they had undertaken to provide a response.  As a supplementary question he raised the following points:

·        What had happened to the remaining 39 referrals in respect of which major adaptations had not been completed?

·        What was meant by the average period to complete an adaptation?  Was this the mean, mode or median, and what was the variance?

·        What was the longest waiting time for completion of a referral?

·        How many residents who had been referred had died, or had been admitted to hospital or residential care whilst waiting for adaptations?

Councillor R D Bayliss advised that he would respond in writing after the meeting.