Agenda item

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

 

The Council Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.

Councillor Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         The opportunity was being taken to raise housing as an area for debate in view of the spiralling cost of Temporary Accommodation and action being taken to address this issue both in terms of managing supply and reducing the overall level of demand.

 

2.      The complexity of the issues to be addressed were recognised, with the paper looking to highlight the work also being undertaken by officers and members involved in the review currently being undertaken by the Temporary Accommodation Scrutiny Work Stream who had been looking at what could be done to resolve the issues around the rising level of need for temporary accommodation in Enfield.

 

3.      The cost of providing temporary accommodation for households accepted as homeless was now the single largest cost pressure facing the Council over the next financial year, with the cost pressure identified for 2015/16 identified as £7.7m.

 

4.      Whilst the obvious solution would be to provide more affordable homes the measures in place to increase housing supply were expensive and would also take time to deliver.  The Opposition Group were also not supportive of the approach being taken under the Housing Gateway initiative given the impact on the local housing market.  The paper had not, however, focussed on these measures as the need to build more housing was accepted between political parties at both a local and national level.  In addition the paper had not focussed on the impact of “Right to Buy” as an issue, given this was current Government policy that the Council had little, if any influence over.  Another major issue highlighted related to population increase and migration, although again it was accepted this was something beyond the immediate control of the Council.

 

5.      The Opposition Group had identified a number of more locally focussed measures which they felt would assist in addressing the current position and managing the overall cost of temporary accommodation.  These related to the following areas (as detailed within the Opposition Business Paper):

 

a.      acting to reduce the number of households accepted as homeless by tightening the burden of proof in relation to the criteria laid down in government guidelines;

 

b.      providing greater financial and more targeted incentives to private landlords; and

 

c.       increasing the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation being placed in accommodation outside of the Borough.  This would need to be based on a targeted approach which recognised the associated legal issues but it was felt could be achieved with the necessary political will by the Majority Group.  It was pointed out that more homeless households were placed in Enfield by other Councils than any other London Borough last year, with the exception of Lewisham and Croydon.

 

Whilst recognising that the issue was complex with no simple solutions and was not something for which the Council was entirely responsible, Councillor Smith concluded by highlighting the need for difficult decisions to have to be made and implemented in order to address the situation and urged the Administration to seriously consider the measures identified within the Opposition Business Paper.

 

Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

 

1.         that whilst pleased to focus on housing as an issue, he was concerned about the use of evidence and data provided in relation to an ongoing scrutiny review being used as the basis for the Opposition Business Paper.  He felt this could be seen to undermine the scrutiny process and potentially impact on the consensual way in which the Temporary Accommodation work stream review had been undertaken to date.

 

2.      the need to recognise the impact of the current coalition government’s housing and welfare reform policies, especially in relation to “Right to Buy” and the increase in discount, which since 2012 had led to the sale of 320 properties in Enfield.

 

3.      Due to the complexities of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) formula it would be virtually impossible to replace units lost under Right To Buy with new stock on a one to one basis.  A recent nationwide study, carried out by Shelter, found that a Council would have to sell eight properties under the current HRA formula in order to replace one.

 

4,      The restrictions currently placed on HRA borrowing limits had also limited the ability for local authorities to be able to build new stock.

 

5.      The pressure on temporary accommodation was fully recognised, but some of the information referred to in the opposition business paper was incorrect e.g. figure quoted on the cost pressure and housing subsidy.  Not to do anything about housing would present a risk to the Council and the Administration was working hard to increase the supply of housing using initiatives such as the Housing Gateway and small housing sites schemes.

 

6.      The Council had written to Ian Duncan Smith (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) and Brandon Lewis (Minister of State for Housing and Planning) about the cost pressures faced by the Council as well as the impact of cuts to the Discretionary Housing Payment.  The response from ministers had been disappointing, only stating that they would continue to monitor the situation.

 

7.      The efforts being made by the Council to manage the pressure in relation to the placing of households in temporary accommodation

 

8.      The need for the opposition to respect the scrutiny process.  As Cabinet Member for Housing he had sought to involve the opposition lead on Housing in consultation around policy development, such as on the Housing Allocation Policy.  He was happy to attend scrutiny work stream sessions to provide information on the Administration’s approach towards tackling the issue of temporary accommodation and called upon the opposition to work with the current Administration in order to look for positive ways in which the problem could be tackled.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

 

(a)     The need highlighted by members of the Opposition Group:

 

·                to recognise that the information from the scrutiny review used to inform the opposition business paper had been provided in an open public meeting and was therefore within the public domain.  The criticism in relation to an undermining of the scrutiny process was not therefore accepted.

 

·                to carefully consider the recent history in relation to housing policy, which had not seen the “Right to Buy” legislation repealed by the previous Labour Government and the smallest number of houses built (according the Office for National Statistics) during the same period since the 1920’s.

 

·                to recognise that the current housing shortage had been created not only as a result of the limited building programme under the previous Labour Government but also as a result of what was regarded as a failure to secure transitional arrangements and properly plan for the expansion of the European Union and associated levels of migration experienced as a result.

 

·                to challenge the limited progress being made on delivery of the housing development at Meridian Water and failure of the Council to secure 2^nd tranche Housing Zone status for the development.

 

·                to look for ways to increase the level of affordable housing at the same time as looking for more targeted approach in terms of the provision of financial incentives to landlords as a means of securing rented accommodation and preventing evictions.  Enfield currently paid landlords at Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rent levels but support was expressed for the proposal within the opposition business paper to consider offering higher rents than LHA in return for longer term security of tenure and lower turnover.

 

·                for the Council, given the increase in the number of households being accepted as homeless within the Borough, to adopt a more sceptical and rigorous approach towards assessing applicants.  Support was expressed for more focus on the burden of proof under homelessness guidelines to be placed on the claimant rather than on the Council.

 

·                for serious consideration to be given to the proposal that the Council should seek to significantly increase the number of households in more expensive temporary accommodation placed in permanent accommodation out of the borough where the difference between rental costs and the LHA was lower than Enfield.  It was recognised this would need to be in accordance with DCLG guidance and in suitable locations to avoid disrupting employment, caring responsibilities and children’s education but a number of potential areas had been identified outside of the M25, which the opposition felt needed to be seriously considered.

 

(b)     the need identified by members of the Majority Group:

 

·                to recognise the decrease in value of housing investment in relation to building over the past 30 years.

 

·                to highlight what was felt by the Majority Group to be the main cause of the current housing problems which was the government’s programme of welfare reform and unintended consequence of the benefits cap.

 

·                To highlight what was felt to be the flawed nature of the opposition business paper in terms of not seeking to address the main causes of the current housing problem and only the symptoms.

 

·                To recognise that the opposition’s proposal in relation to increasing the burden of proof on households presenting themselves as homeless was illegal under current legislation and homelessness guidance.  It was also felt that the proposal to incentivise landlords was also flawed and would only serve to further distort the private rented sector housing market.

 

·                To avoid stigmatising or blaming those homeless households currently placed in temporary accommodation for the situation in which they found themselves or to blame this entirely on the issue of migration.  Often these were the poorest and most vulnerable households and the placing of those in temporary accommodation out of borough was something that required careful and sensitive approach.

 

·                For a more rounded approach towards addressing not only the symptoms but also the causes of the current housing situation and for this to be focussed on the review currently being undertaken by the Temporary Accommodation scrutiny work stream rather than subject to political debate.

 

Councillor Smith summed up, on behalf of the Opposition Group, by highlighting that it had not been his intention in preparing the paper to disrespect scrutiny or the work of the Temporary Accommodation scrutiny work stream.  His aim had been to raise the profile of what he felt to be an important subject, and not to make political points.  He did not personally agree with every aspect of the government’s current housing policy and welcomed the approach agreed by Cabinet in March relating to the Right to Buy One for One Replacement Scheme.  The intention was not to stigmatise the poor but to look for solutions that would help to address a complex and difficult situation, which it was felt the recommendations in the report would all assist in doing.

 

In response, Councillor Taylor (Leader of the Council) highlighted the progress being made by the current Administration in seeking to increase the level of housing supply within the Borough.  It was felt that the way households presenting as homeless were managed was proportional and fair and the proposals within the opposition business paper in this respect were felt to be unlawful, unworkable and also undesirable and were not something the Majority Group could support.  In terms of the other proposals, it was felt these could best be considered as part of the ongoing review being undertaken by the Temporary Accommodation scrutiny work stream, which would be able to apply the necessary rigour and challenge to their consideration.  For these reasons the recommendations in the Opposition Business paper were not supported.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote to be taken on the following recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper:

 

(1)    That the Council reduce the number of households being accepted as homeless by placing the burden of proof on claimants to demonstrate that they meet the tests laid down in Government guidelines.

 

(2)    That the Council incentivise private landlords to let to Enfield Council at rents that more closely reflect market levels in order to reduce the use of more expensive emergency accommodation.

 

(3)    That the Council take steps to move significant numbers of households currently in emergency accommodation to cheaper areas outside the M25.

 

The above recommendations were put to the vote and not approved.  In accordance with section 15.4 of the Council Procedure Rules the Opposition Group requested a roll call vote, with the result as follows:

 

For:  21

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor Lee David-Saunders

Councillor Don Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terry Neville

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against:  35

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Gurney Dogan

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Pat Ekechi

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esengali

Councillor Krystal Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

Councillor Jansev Jemal

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Bernie Lappage

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Haydar Ulus

Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya

 

Abstentions: 0