Agenda item

To receive the Portfolio Holder Annual Report from Councillor Brandon Clayton, Portfolio Holder for Housing, Local Environment and Health.

(Report attached and oral report to follow).

Further to consideration of the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Local Environment and Health’s written report at the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on 18th October 2011, and Members’ agreed questions to be put to the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Brandon Clayton, in respect of his Annual Report to the Committee, the following responses were provided:

1)           What action has been taken to provide more social housing in Redditch?

Members were advised that Redditch Borough Council was actively investigating opportunities to provide affordable housing options throughout the Borough.  In 2010/11 the Council had developed 100 new affordable homes, which comprised a mixture of social rented homes, intermediate rented homes and shared equity homes.  The Council was aiming to provide approximately 200 further affordable homes in 2011/12.

The Council had worked with the Homes and Community Agency’s (HCA’s) four year funding programme, which enabled the Council to access government funds in order to subsidise affordable housing.  As part of this process funding had been secured for affordable housing at Marfield Farm, Church Hill, and for Dorothy Terry House.

2)           What are the current trends in relation to:

a)           homelessness enquiries to Redditch Borough Council?

Members were advised that the total number of homelessness enquiries between April 2010 and April 2011 was 302.  The Council had helped 218 of the people who made these initial enquiries to avoid becoming homeless.

b)           the number of statutorily homeless people being housed by Redditch Borough Council?

The Committee was informed that between April 2010 and April 2011 20 people classified as statutorily homeless were housed by either Redditch Borough Council or relevant local partner organisations.

The Council was keen to ensure that vulnerable people were housed in temporary accommodation whilst waiting to secure a permanent residence.  At any one time 14 dispersal units were maintained by the Council to accommodate individuals in this position.  The properties used as dispersal units varied over time to ensure that appropriate use was made of the Council’s housing stock.

The Council did not accommodate people in hostels within the Borough and only occasionally utilised bed and breakfast accommodation in emergency situations.  However, some individuals who required specialist treatment for substance abuse were provided with accommodation in hostels outside the Borough where appropriate services could be accessed.

3)           What affect on the capital programme will the purchase of the housing stock have?

The Committee was advised that it was difficult to answer the question at this stage.  Officers were scheduled to present a report on the capital programme the following month and it was anticipated that further clarification would then be made available.

4)           What action is Redditch Borough Council taking to reduce the number of empty properties within the town to as close to 0 as possible? What obstacles, if any, are there in relation to reducing the number of empty properties?

Members were advised that at any one time there could be numerous empty properties located within the Borough.  These properties were classified as short-term empty properties if they were empty for less than six months and as long-term empty properties if they were vacant for more than six months.  The Council was keen to minimise the number of long-term vacant properties.  There were many reasons why a property might become empty for lengthy periods of time, including the hospitalisation of the owners or ongoing probate arrangements.  In each case appropriate action needed to be taken.

In Redditch 265 properties had been empty for more than six months by the date of the meeting.  This compared favourably to the same time in 2008 when there had been an estimated 386 long-term empty properties.  The long-term empty properties within the Borough were all privately owned.  The Council had limited powers in relation to privately owned properties, though could intervene in certain circumstances such as for environmental health reasons. 

The introduction of the New Homes Bonus (NHB) would encourage local authorities to invest in work to reduce the number of empty homes.  Local authorities would be rewarded in the same way for returning an empty home to use as they were already rewarded for developing new homes.  This reward consisted of the equivalent of Council tax income to the local authority for the six financial years after the property had been returned for use.

5)           What initiatives are you considering to increase the rates of recycling in Redditch?

The Council was co-ordinating a three month campaign to increase awareness amongst residents about waste and recycling services.  Adverts had been displayed on the Council’s refuse vehicles as well as in local print media.  The Council had also produced banners for the campaign which would be displayed in the Kingfisher Shopping Centre and other public spaces over the festive period.  This process formed part of a wider campaign that had been launched by the Council’s Environmental Services and would be taking place in stages. 

Unfortunately, Members were advised that despite an increase in the number of items that residents could recycle using the Council’s recycling service there had been a decrease in the rate of recycling in the Borough.  The reasons for this decline were difficult to confirm, though there were various factors which could impact on recycling rates, which included the provision of independent recycling facilities at local supermarkets.  The Council was anticipating the Increasing Recycling Task and finish Group would help to identify suitable actions that could be taken to improve recycling rates within the Borough.

RESOLVED that

the report be noted.