Brent Kilburn Connects to discuss air pollution, proposed parliamentary constituency changes & benefit cap tomorrow (Wednesday)

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

7pm
London Interfaith Centre, 125 Salusbury Road NW6 6RG
(Modern building with glass frontage and dome on top between Queens Park and Brondesbury Park stations) 206 bus ir walk down from Brondesbury Park station

Agenda

• Air pollution in Brent: what’s being done about it? Councillor James Denselow – Chair
  Aaron Kiely, Campaigner – Friends of the Earth, Tony Kennedy, Head of Transportation – Brent, Jennifer Barrett, Senior Regulatory Service Manager – Brent, Oliver Lord, Principal Policy Officer (Air quality / green transport) – Greater London Authority 

• Soapbox 
•  
• Draft proposals for new parliamentary constituency boundaries for England: what does this mean for Brent? Sean O’Sullivan, Electoral Services Manager - Brent
• Overall Benefit Cap changes from November 2016: be prepared!
  Are you aware of options available to you and sources of potential support and assistance?
  Neil Gann, Welfare Reform Project Manager - Brent

For further information please email brent.connects@brent.gov.uk

Task Group: Brent needs to rethink its partnerships with housing associations

Top 10 providers by housing association

Last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commitee considered the Task Group on Brent Housing Association's Report LINK. The task group was led by Cllr Tom Miller.

Executive Summary and key recommendations:
 

-->

The task group looked at the effects of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 in five key areas: Right to Buy, social housing supply, 1% social rent cut, a voluntary Pay to Stay, and partnerships with the council.

This task group supports increasing home ownership and is not opposed to the principle of giving tenants the opportunity to buy their own home; however, that can only work if homes sold under the Right to Buy are replaced at least one-for-one in Brent and that social and genuinely affordable housing still continues to be provided across all tenures in the borough.

Although the task group does not believe Right to Buy will be taken up in significant numbers, it could exacerbate the borough’s existing housing crisis by further reducing social housing stock. Even if social housing is replaced, there is uncertainty about the type of product that would replace it and there could be a time lag between loss and replacement. This will be made worse if already scarce housing stock is sold. Therefore, the local authority should insist on explicit exemptions of four-bedroom family-sized homes, supported housing and specially adapted housing which if it is sold under the extended Right to Buy will be extremely difficult to replace.

Brent Council also needs to consider other supply-side measures it can take such as joint development with registered providers which maximises the amount of social housing retained in the borough, and stimulating growth in other models of social housing in Brent such as housing co-operatives, community housing, self and custom build and community land trusts.

The demands of the legislation means Brent Council will also need to rethink its existing partnerships with housing associations, and the relationships between them. More of the knowledge and expertise which the local authority has could be shared as a way of building more effective partnerships. Similarly, the expertise which large housing associations have accumulated could be shared with the smaller registered providers in the borough.

The task group believes it may no longer be realistic for one local authority to be able to negotiate on equal terms with such large organisations. Therefore, the task group calls for far greater cross-London working as a counter-balance, and for a recognition of the important niche services that smaller housing associations offer to tenants and residents in Brent.

Finally, the importance of tenants’ voices and listening to their concerns needs to be remembered and this important perspective should be better integrated into partnership working.

Theme 1: Right to Buy 

1. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing convenes a working party dedicated to Right to Buy with registered providers which meets to monitor the impact of the policy in Brent and helps to mitigate any potential problems which are caused.
2. Cabinet Member for Housing sets out a common position to all registered providers operating in Brent that the local authority would like homes of four bedrooms or more, specially adapted housing, and older people’s housing exempted from the Right to Buy.
3. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing and Cabinet Member for Housing develop agreements with housing associations and the Greater London Authority which maximise the number homes replaced in Brent, including four-bedroom properties, as well as homes for social rent.
4. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing invites housing associations operating in Brent to fund jointly an anti-fraud investigator for a time-limited period to help housing associations’ investigations into Right to Buy fraud and offer free training for staff on fraud and speculative buying practices.
5. Director of Policy, Performance and Partnership to consider integrating Right to Buy into Brent’s financial inclusion strategy so that tenants are better informed about interest rates, mortgages, cost of major works, responsibility for repairs, and the operation of companies who encourage purchasing of homes under Right to Buy.
6. Cabinet Member for Housing requests that housing associations advise tenants of their financial options, and inform them of the wider responsibilities of becoming a leaseholder as part of the purchasing process for Right to Buy.
7. Cabinet Member for Housing ensures a working party of registered providers convened around the Right to Buy extension shares information and expertise about properties going into the private rented sector. 

Theme 2: Social housing supply
8. The Strategic Director Community Wellbeing and Lead Member for Housing to initiate further discussions with other London local authorities about collaborative arrangements for the provision of social housing in the future.
9. Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing to consider setting up a forum for smaller housing associations to be able to gain expertise and knowledge in business planning and other areas from the larger registered providers operating in Brent.

10. Cabinet Member for Housing and Strategic Director Community Wellbeing put in place mechanisms to signpost residents to information about the Community Land Trust Network and Federation Confederation of Cooperative Housing and self and custom-build networks and organises a one-off event to stimulate interest in developing other social housing models.
11. The Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing commissions a feasibility study about developing affordable self-build on marginal areas of council owned-land which is not suitable for its own house building programme.
12. Brent Council to update its Housing Strategy 2014-19 to weight available council- owned land not intended for the council’s own house-building programme towards housing association or partnership developments which house social tenants and vulnerable people in line with the council’s political commitments. 

Theme 3: Social rent reduction
13. Brent Council to continue to work closely with social landlords in the borough to evaluate the effects of welfare reform, in particular the overall benefit cap, and to develop appropriate processes and procedures that facilitate the achievement of this. 

Theme 4: Pay to Stay
14. Cabinet Member for Housing to request that housing associations operating in Brent report regularly to the council outlining any progress they are considering in implementing Pay to Stay. 

Theme 5: Partnerships
15. Cabinet Member for Housing organises more frequent forums around specific issues such as rents, welfare reform and employment as well as linking with London- wide housing groups so there can be a useful exchange of information and expertise.
16. The Strategic Director of Community Wellbeing organises a housing summit each year to bring together all the registered providers in the borough in addition to the regular quarterly forum meetings.
17. In collaboration with housing associations, Brent Council develops mechanisms that will enable housing association tenants to share their concerns and service priorities.
18. Cabinet Member for Housing to write to housing associations to encourage tenants’ representation at the board level of housing associations by bottom-up elections.

19. Cabinet Member for Housing to develop a partnership model which is more weighted towards those providing in-demand tenures and housing.

Green Party responds to Lords Committee report 'Building More Homes'

I thought readers would be interested in this release from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the Green Party's response

In their report, Building More Homes, published today LINK, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee criticises the Government’s housing policy for:

· Setting a new homes target which will fail to meet the demand for new homes or moderate the rate of house price increases.

· Restricting local authorities’ access to funding to build more social housing.

· Creating uncertainty in the already dysfunctional housing market by frequent changes to tax rules and subsidies for house purchases, reductions in social rents, and the extension of the Right to Buy. All of these changes reduce the supply of homes for those who need low cost rental accommodation.

· A narrow focus on home ownership which neglects those who rent their home.

The Committee makes wide-ranging recommendations to address the housing crisis, including:

· Restraints on local authority borrowing should be lifted. Local authorities should be free to borrow to fund social housebuilding as they are other building programmes. This would enable local authorities to resume their historic role as one of the major builders of new homes, particularly social housing.

The current historically low cost of borrowing means local authorities could make a large contribution to building the houses we need for the future. Further, the new Prime Minister has announced that the Government will abandon their fiscal target. This paves the way to increase local authority borrowing powers.

· Council tax should be charged on development that is not completed quickly. The Government’s reliance on private developers to meet its target of new homes is misguided. The private sector housebuilding market is oligopolistic with the eight largest builders building 50% of new homes. Their business model is to restrict the volume of housebuilding to maximise their profit margin. To address this the Committee recommend that local authorities are granted the power to levy council tax on developments that are not completed within a set time period.

· Maximise the use of public land. The Government must take decisive steps to build on the very substantial holdings of surplus publicly owned land. The Committee recommends that a senior Cabinet minister must be given overall responsibility for identifying and coordinating the release of public land for housing, with a particular focus on providing low cost homes. The National Infrastructure Commission should oversee this process.

· Local authorities should be given the power to increase planning fees. Local authorities should be able to set and vary planning fees to help fund a more efficient planning system and the upper cap on these charges should be much higher than the current limit.

Commenting Lord Hollick, Chairman of the Committee, said:

We are facing an acute housing crisis with home ownership – and increasingly renting – being simply unaffordable for a great many people.

”The only way to address this is to increase supply. The country needs to build 300,000 homes a year for the foreseeable future. The private sector alone cannot deliver that. It has neither the ability nor motivation to do so. We need local government and housing associations to get back into the business of building.

Local authorities are keen to meet this challenge but they do not have the funds or the ability to borrow to embark on a major programme to build new social homes. It makes no sense that a local authority is free to borrow to build a swimming pool but cannot do the same to build homes.

The Government are too focussed on home ownership which will never be achievable for a great many people and in some areas it will be out of reach even for those on average incomes. Government policy to tackle the crisis must be broadened out to help people who would benefit from good quality, secure rented homes. It is very concerning that changes to stamp duty for landlords and cuts to social rent could reduce the availability of homes for rent. The long term trend away from subsidising tenancies to subsidising home buyers hits the poorest hardest and should be reversed.

If the housing crisis is to be tackled the Government must allow local authorities to borrow to build and accelerate building on surplus public land.

Responding to the House of Lords Economic Committee’s report ‘Building More Homes’, Green Party Housing Spokesperson Samir Jeraj said:

Many of the committee’s recommendations -  on breaking the monopoly on developers, enabling council house building, and the misguided nature of the government’s focus on home ownership - reflect long-held Green Party positions.

However, they do not go far enough in some areas, particularly on Right to Buy. This damaging policy has rightly been scrapped in Scotland, and is on the way to being scrapped in Wales - it must be abandoned in England too.

To make council tax genuinely fair, it should be replaced by a Land Value tax, which would return to the community the value added to a property because of improvements that have been paid for by the public purse.
 

Tackling the housing crisis must be at the top of the new Prime Minister’s priorities, and taking on this report’s recommendations would be a positive first step.

How the reduced Overall Benefit Cap will impact on Brent residents

A report going to Brent Council Scrutiny Committee tomorrow demonstrates how the lowering of the Overall Benefit Cap (OBC) to £23,000 will impact on residents, with a particularly severe impact on single parents and single people.

According to the report the impact  of the cap so far

...in Brent has been lower than initially anticipated, although it has still had significant impacts. Among these, the relocation of families outside of Brent has been high profile, but affects only a minority of OBC cases (22 in 2015/16); there are generally broader factors including the wider welfare reforms (especially Local Housing Allowance caps) and the lack of affordable accommodation in Brent which have impacted on homelessness and the need to rehouse families outside the borough; OBC itself has played a relatively small part in this and the majority of resolved cases have been through employment.

  Lone parents represented over half (53%) of the cases capped and households with dependants accounted for over 77% of all cases. Single claimants were less likely to be capped as they were likely to be living in smaller properties and so entitled to less benefit. In terms of ethnicity, claimants from the black ethnic group were disproportionately impacted by the OBC, relative to their proportion of the overall Housing Benefit  caseload.

  The council currently has just under 3,000 households living in temporary accommodation, the fourth highest in the country, and including over 5,000 children. This includes the use of expensive and unsuitable Bed & Breakfast accommodation, hostel accommodation with shared facilities, and other nightly paid accommodation which is not fully covered by Housing Benefit and is subsidised by the Council at an unsustainable cost.

  Efforts to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation are made more difficult by the lack of social housing lets and the difficulty and expense of securing affordable private rented sector accommodation at LHA level rents.

  The effect of austerity and public sector cuts generally means that the Council is now less able to take an interventionist approach with affected claimants and the new Welfare Reform Strategy reflects a greater need to work together with partners, with the Council fulfilling more of a strategic and co-ordinating role, though there will still be intervention on a targeted basis towards the most vulnerable claimants; however, there will be a greater expectation on non- vulnerable claimants to take responsibility for their own outcomes (with appropriate signposting). [my emphasis] Finally the Council’s limited discretionary funding will have to stretch further and therefore provide less of a safety net for residents in future

The reduced cap will exacerbate an already difficult situation:

However, the planned lowering of the Cap from Autumn 2016 will present greater challenges to a larger number of claimants; in particular single people will be impacted who will generally not be statutorily homeless if they present to the Council, so there is potential for increased sofa-surfing, street sleeping, mental health and related social issues. The lowering of the cap elsewhere in the country will even make relocating out of London a less viable option. 


A comparison of the two charts below demonstrates the impact:

Click on charts to enlarge

 The table below shows the new limits per week.  Greater London rates apply in Brent.

The table below shows the Council's Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) in 2015-16

 

The Council's DHP budget has been reduced from £4.8m in 2013-14 in 2013-14 to £2.6m in 2015-16 .

The full report can be found HERE

South Kilburn residents face barely affordable rents hike - (if our sums are right)

South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been giving himself a headache trying to work out what Brent Council's 'affordable rent' policy really means. In this Guest Blog, after studying Council documents, he give it his best shot. We would be happy to hear from anyone who can show the conclusion is wrong (with workings!).

-->

At the Council Cabinet meeting on 26th January, a report from the “Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth” headed “South Kilburn regeneration Programme” was adopted. This concerned the approvals needed for the the next stages of redevelopment and regeneration. LINK

One of the recommendations in the document is:

“2.1. That the Cabinet agree to set rent levels for the affordable homes at Gloucester House and Durham Court once complete, at a rent equivalent to the Homes and Communities Agency Target Rent levels.”

The Gloucester House and Durham Court redevelopment involves:

“3.1 The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site involves: a. the demolition of Gloucester and Durham and the development of 236 new homes for a mix of market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) accommodation;”

On the rents:

“Target Rents

3.5 On 18 July 2011 the Executive agreed to adopt a rent equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels for affordable developments in South Kilburn until Borough wide rent levels were reviewed. The 18 July 2011 Executive report set out the background to the rent level change and concluded that setting HCA Target Rent levels on phases 2 and 3 and subsequent phases is the only realistic way of affording the South Kilburn regeneration

programme and avoiding the requirement for large amounts of grant that would not in themselves be certain of being awarded and, if awarded, would require rents to be increased to the new 'affordable rent' levels.

3.6 The Target Rent regime controls rent levels in the social sector. Target Rents are calculated by a formula, the basis of which is set out below. Increases in Target Rent levels are also pegged to inflation and subject to an overall cap.

• 30% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative property values compared to the national average

• 70% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative local earnings compared to the national average

• A bedroom factor is then applied so that, other things being equal, smaller properties have lower rents”

“3.7 Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 increases in Target Rent levels and caps have been linked to RPI as set out in the tables below:”

[for tables on caps you will need to refer to the document via above link]

“Last year Government introduced a new rent policy, and for the ten years 2015/16 – 2024/25, increases in rents in the social sector will be limited to CPI +1% and increases in rent caps will be limited to CPI + 1.5%.”

BUT

“3.8 It should be noted that new social rented properties being developed in South Kilburn have a higher capital value than existing Council properties and therefore will attract a higher Target Rent under the formula outlined. Inflationary rent increases on these newproperties, whilst governed by the same rent policy and same CPI +1% limit, will therefore also be higher in monetary terms (i.e. in pounds sterling). This is because 1) inflation will be applied to a higher base Target Rent and 2) the Council will sometimes (and more commonly than the Registered Providers managing the new properties in South Kilburn) not apply a full inflationary increase to rents across its own housing stock.

3.9 In line with the Council's commitment to maintaining current HCA Target Rent levels in regeneration areas it is recommended that the Cabinet agree to set the rent levels for the affordable units at Gloucester House and Durham Court and the Post Office Plus Site once complete, at rents equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels.”

Problem is, of course, that this is fairly impenetrable for those who want to know what this actually means in terms of real rent levels for the “affordable” new flats.

A Councillor helpfully enquired what this actually means and got this response from a Council officer:

“Your enquiry regarding affordable rents has been forwarded to me for reply. I have provided a brief explanation of the position below but please let me know if you would like any additional information or technical detail.

Target rent levels relate to Social Rented Housing, whether owned by a Council or by a Housing Association. These are based on a national formula that takes account of the capital value of the property and a factor for regional (London) earnings. They do not directly reference private rented sector rents. Target rents therefore vary across properties and boroughs. In Brent, as in many authorities current rents are below target rents but have been gradually moved towards them recent years under the government’s rent restructuring formula.

Current average rents for Brent’s council properties (which for larger properties are below target rents) are:

Bedsit - £93.91 / week

1 bed - £107.07

2 bed - £119.43

3 bed - £130.80

4 bed - £141.63

New affordable housing development is typically at Affordable Rents. These are directly based on market rents and are the lower of the maximum Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit) rate and 80% of the market rent (including service charge). Brent Council has a published Tenancy Strategy, that housing associations are required to have regard to, which provides guidance on maximum Affordable Rents. These set lower limits in order to support affordability, particularly for households who may be affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. The guideline limits are as follows:

1 bed – 70% market rent

2 bed – 60% market rent

3 and 4 beds – 50% of market rent”

Still with me? So what are local market rents?

This is where an internet search comes in.

To be as fair as possible (?) to Brent Council I’ve restricted myself to flats actually in South Kilburn, i.e. not even Kilburn High Road, Camden Kilburn or Brent Kilburn North of the Watford line and definitely not Queens Park.

Some results:

1 bed flat, Malvern Road (described by Estate Agents as Queens Park, but then they do that all the time) £260 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge avenue, £425 pw

2 bed flat, Malvern Road, £385 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge Gardens, £425 pw,

2 bed flat, Cambridge Avenue, £400 pw

3 bed, Chichester Road, £475 pw

2 bed flat, Canterbury Road, £375 pw,

1 bed flat, Malvern Road, £295pw,

enough, my brain hurts.

Anyway it should be clear from this search of just a small part of one estate agents website what the range of “market rents” is in the area.

Even taking the lowest market rent for each size of flat. this would give the following

1 bed flat Target rent (70% of market) £182pw. current average Brent council rent £107.07

2 bed flat Target rent (60% of market) £225pw, current average Brent Council rent £119.43

3 bed flat Target rent (50% of market rent) £237.50 pw, current average Brent Council rent £130.80

So, it appears that Brent Council aims to charge new tenants double or nearly double current rents. As well as new tenants, these will also apply to those previously in Council accommodation moved in to new properties.

Brent Council has always denied that regeneration amounts to social cleansing, but surely this proves the opposite.:

In addition to the fact that well over half of the new properties are for market sale (and a new 3 bed flat in South Kilburn was recently on sale for £850,000!) this amounts to a massive hike barely affordable for those currently living here.

'Out of borough' Brent housing placements increase by 426% as housing crisis deepens

The report on Housing Supply and Demand LINK going to the Brent Cabinet on Tuesday 26th August starkly sets out the extent of the housing crisis in Brent.

AST= Assured Shorthold Tenancy DV=Domestic Violence

Homelessness is on the rise and largely attributable to the ending of Assured Shorthold Tenancies in the private sector.  It is particularly high in Brent compared to other West London boroughs.

The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) cap has seen landlords withdrawing from renting to those families in receipt of benefits. It also means that the Council is unable to procure properties in that sector for homeless families.

The report says that the caps make it unaffordable to rent in the South of the borough for families who require two bedrooms or more, unless they are in receipt of Working Tax Credit and therefore exempt from the Overall Benefit Cap. Lack of supply means that there are not properties available in the South for working families and landlords in the North of the borough are unwilling to let to people on benefits.

This has meant that the number of private rented properties the Council has been able to find to prevent homelessness has fallen from 548 in 2010/11 to 164 in 2012/13.

The Overall Benefit Cap (OBC) introduced in August 2013 for workless households limits the benefit payable to families to £500 per week and £350 for a single person.  Brent has been one of the boroughs in the country most affected with 1,340 families capped by the end of 2013-14.

Approximately 950 had the cap removed during the year, predominantly through securing employment and qualifying for the Working Tax Credit.

Because of the high rents in London, the reports says that the Council will not be able to procure affordable housing to meet the demand from homeless households in Brent. They are instead looking for accommodation which 'is most likely to be outside of the borough and to a significant extent outside of London'.

The report states categorically:

If a household refuses an offer of suitable accommodation in the Private rented sector (under the provisions of the Homelessness [Suitability of Accommodation ](England) Order 2012) in the private rented sector the Council will consider that it has met its duties under homelessness legislation, and if the household are being accommodated in Bed and Breakfast accommodation, they will be given a reasonable period in which to make their own housing arrangements.

Couched in official language this seems inoffensive but it is the provision that sees families separated from relatives, friends and community and moved miles away with the resulting disruption to support networks and schooling. But see 4 below.

However households with children can then ask for help under the Children Act, which then puts the pressure on the Children and Young People Service. During assessment under the Act the family will be kept in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. The report notes that if applications increase 'additional assessment resources' may be required by the Children and Young People department,

At the end of March 2014 Brent had a total of 3,341 households living in temporary accommodation, a 3% increase during 2013-14.  Currently the Council is retendering the Housing Association Leased Scheme (HALS) which expires in February 2015. This currently provides 1,800 units of temporary accommodation, primarily in Brent.

The Council is also working with 18 private sector accommodation providers to provide housing units in 'cheaper parts of the country'. This has resulted in increased out of borough placements, particularly for larger households.

Out of borough placements have risen from 120 households in February 2012 to 632 in May 2014 (a 426% increase).  The report states:

This figures is expected to rise further due to the increasing demand pressure and the shortage of affordable supply in the borough.

All these pressures means, as local newspapers have reported LINK, that Brent is not compliant with legislation which restricts a family's stay in Bed and Breakfast accommodation to 6 weeks.  The number of households in B&B has increased to an average in 2013-14 of 299 per month. The report says this is due to the 'rising number of newly accepted homeless households and existing homeless households evicted from leased temporary, predominantly because the Landlord wants the property back.'

Another financial pressure on the Council is the 460 households living in temporary accommodation who are affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. This means their current accommodation is unaffordable and the Council has to make it up with Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP).

The report states: 'This is not sustainable position for the households or the Council, with no guarantee that the DHP budget will remain at the current high level in 2015-16 and beyond.' The Council is looking to address the issue through helping householders find work, securing affordable housing or 'by sustainably being able to cover the shortfall.'

As you read the report you cannot avoid feeling angry at the dire housing situation successive government have left us with. The selling off of council housing, the failure to build new social housing, the house price inflation induced by banks, estate agents and governments have combined to leave many families facing an impossible situation. I have seen at first hand in the schools where I am a governor what this means in real terms. Some of you may have seen the families, complete with suitcases, sitting in the glitzy foyer of Brent Civic Centre waiting to hear their fate.

Faced with this impossible and deteriorating situation, exacerbated by another round of severe cuts to come in the next few years, Brent council puts forward some ideas to address the problems. These include:

1. The Council will use 'proxy bidding' for capped householders who have been waiting longer than average for social housing to maximise their opportunities.   This means bidding on their behalf when possible housing comes up.

2. Consultation has begun on the possibility of making direct offers to those affected by the Overall benefit Cap provided they have been waiting longer than average.

3. Households affected by OBC in temporary accommodation and who have not secured employment will be relocated to more affordable and suitable accommodation as 'it will not be possible to sustain them in their current temporary accommodation using limited DHP funding.'

4. Before households with children are located outside the borough there will be a review of each individual case.'If a household is identified as having to remain in Brent due to exceptional social care, welfare, medical or other exceptional circumstances, then DHP funds will continue yo be used to meet the shortfall in rent while a longer term solution is sought.'

Clearly 4 leaves a substantial area of potential debate over what constitutes 'exceptional needs' with budgetary constraints always lurking in the background.

The report states that in 2014-15 there will be a projected 673 lettings into social housing (Council and housing association) but this will meet only around 14% of the current total demand from Bands A to C on Brent's Housing Register.  The majority will be through re-lets of existing  social housing stock but the Council expect another 180 to be delivered via the new build programme.

The Council plans to increase the numbers of lettings to homeless households to 80% of the total. They say this is necessary to mitigate the impact of the OBC on households temporarily in homeless accommodation that is no longer affordable, and to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation generally.  40 units have been set aside for the decant needs of South Kilburn regeneration.

The Council will be consulting over a 4-6 week period on the following amendments to its Allocation scheme:

1, Auto-budding - which would set the system to automatically to bid for property, at the council's discretion, once the  households falls into a target group, for example, the top 10% by waiting time, per property size.
2. Restore household's right to retain their Band C Housing register status and continue to bid in Locata, after accepting a Qualifying Offer in the private sector.
3. Increase Council and housing associations' ability to make direct offers.
4. In homeless households adult children (over 21) will be expected to share a bedroom with a same sex sibling of any age.
5. Possibility of including adult children  as part of a transfer/down sizing incentive package.
6. Acceptance of change of circumstance through starting and sustaining work (9 out of 12 months) to be given additional waiting time.
7. The residency criteria ('continuously lived in Brent for the period of 5 years or more prior to joining the housing register') would also apply to households in temporary accommodation. This would 'dis-incentivise homeless approaches'.
8. Over-crowding to receive equal priority as homelessness.

(Full version in Appendix D of the report)

Some of these proposals are bound to be controversial but whatever one thinks of them, they can only nibble at the edge of the problem - the Council, and local authorties in general, do not have the resources to dealwith such an enormous and escalating crisis.

The housing crisis outlined by the report makes it essential to tackle the housing crisis at national level and increase the amount of social housing new build.  Locally surely it should mean no more new developments with luxury house aimed at overseas investor but instead the provision of properly affordable housing.

Council responds to complaint over Council Tax Support Scheme consultation

Brent Council has responded to the complaint by Robin Sivapalan on behalf of residents that its consultation on the Council Tax Support Scheme was not advertised widely enough and gave inadequate time for responses. The council wants to keep the controversial current scheme with some small statutory changes.

Here is the Council's reply:

Dear Mr Sivapalan,

I refer to your complaint about the way we are consulting on Brent’s Local Council Tax Scheme for 2014/15. Firstly, I would like to make you aware that we have extended the consultation period to 13 December.

The consultation that is currently under way is on the proposal not to change the Local Council Tax Scheme agreed by full council last year (except for statutory changes to the prescribed scheme for pensioners and a minor amendment to explicitly include a specific group as vulnerable and therefore protected from paying at least 20% of their council tax which had not been made clear in the original scheme for 2013/14). There
is no requirement for an Authority to consult each year on its local scheme if there are only statutory changes, but we felt that we did want to give residents an opportunity to make comments so decided that we would run a web-based consultation.

Although we had made a number of stakeholders aware of the consultation process during network and partner meetings over recent weeks, we hadn’t formally written to advice agencies before this week. As you acknowledge, this was due to a genuine oversight for which I apologise, however on that basis, we have extended the consultation period for a week as mentioned above to allow those that had been unaware on the consultation an opportunity to comment.

I regret that it is not possible to extend the consultation to the end of January, as you request, as the Council is required to determine its scheme for next year before the end of January.

As your complaint makes significant reference to those affected by the current scheme, I consider it appropriate to comment on the current scheme and how we have tried to help our residents during what we all agree has been a difficult time. Firstly, I must point out that there cannot be a reinstatement of the previous Council Tax Benefit (CTB) scheme as this was a national scheme funded by central government that has now been abolished. The scheme that we are proposing to carry forward into 2014/15 was the subject of extensive publicity and consultation last year including the following::

 · Publicity on the Council’s website and a special email account set up for queries;
· Text messages to 2694 existing Benefit claimants;
· Emails to 1770 Benefit claimants;
· A leaflet issued with 13,000 Council Tax bills;
· Meetings and presentations to over a dozen organisations including Mencap, Citizens Advice Bureau, Help Somalia Foundation, Private Tenant Rights User Group, Older Persons Partnership Board, Brent Housing Partnership, Brent Mental Health User Group, Willesden Mosque and representatives from Lynton Close Travellers Site;
· Emails to 600 Area Consultative Forum members and 640 Citizens Panel members;
· Paper copies of leaflets and documentation in all Brent libraries;
· Features on the consultation in both the May and July 2012 editions of the Brent Magazine and publicity in the local media including the Harrow Times and the Brent and Kilburn Times;
· Presentations to 267 residents at the five Area Consultative Forums;
· Letters and emails to all partner organisations in the borough;
· A wide range of posters and other publicity throughout the borough.

Following the consultation period and full council’s agreement for the scheme, we wrote to all our customers in advance of the start of the scheme, and included a special advice leaflet in all our year end bills where CTB was in payment. Officers embarked on an extensive exercise to speak to as many of the customers affected as possible especially those who were likely to have to pay something towards their council tax for the first time. Where we were unable to contact the customer by phone, we wrote to residents affected inviting them to contact us so that we could explain the scheme and how it affected them and also to discuss how best they could meet their financial obligations. We also made arrangements to allow council tax to be paid in 12 instalments rather than the normal 10 to help spread the cost.

We have continued to try and engage with residents since the introduction of the scheme and take a sympathetic view with customers who are trying to pay their council tax.

Where residents are also affected by other aspects of the government’s Welfare Reform programme – the overall benefit cap or the bedroom tax restrictions - we have often been able to offer assistance with their housing costs.

Finally, in respect of the current consultative exercise, I do not believe that the process has been unreasonable and certainly meets or exceeds our statutory obligations.

We shall treat all responses seriously but will be subject to both time and financial constraints when considering any proposals for changes.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Monkley
Subsidy & Policy Manager