Homeless families are being housed in empty council homes in a bid to cut the cost of temporary accommodation – but the trade-off would mean longer on the waiting list for others.
Brighton and Hove City Council is launching a consultation on its short-term scheme, which has already seen some homeless families rehomed since 19 January.
The short-term scheme, which is set to run until 1 May and involve up to 80 empty homes, is estimated to save the council £0.75 million this year.
However, it will cause delays for some people currently on the housing register bidding for homes.
Homeless people are usually expected to wait for council housing while living in temporary accommodation, as being placed straight into a council flat can create an incentive to contrive homelessness.
The council is considering extending the scheme past 1 May for another year, and is seeking feedback, particularly from those on the waiting list or existing tenants.
The priority for the accommodation is families with children, households currently placed outside the city, and those in nightly paid temporary accommodation where there will be demonstrated health or educational benefits.
The proposal being looked at is the option of continuing the use of vacant council homes as temporary accommodation for up to a maximum of 100 additional properties over a further 12 months.
It estimates this would involve around 20 er cent of the council homes that become available for letting over a year.
Some empty homes are exempt from the policy – seniors housing properties, mobility-adapted properties and housing association properties.
The council also retains the right to allocate homes to households on the housing register in certain exceptional circumstances, which are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Cabinet member for housing Gill Williams said: “We introduced this short-term scheme to improve the support for homeless families and help ease the increasing homelessness crisis our city is facing.
“One of the key priorities in our Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2025 to 2030 is to increase supply and standards in temporary accommodation, and we have a number of schemes in place to do that – including developing more council-owned and managed temporary accommodation.
“But we need to act now to ease the acute pressure on temporary accommodation support. We believe this measure will have positive impact on mental and physical health, particularly for children and vulnerable adults.
“We’re now inviting resident’s views on the scheme and the scheme and the option of extending it for up to a maximum of 100 additional properties over a further 12 months. Please do take part in the consultation to have your say.”
Click here to take part in the consultation, which runs to 1 April.
If it gets people off the streets and/or out of expensive hotels then it’s got to be a good thing, the list manipulation has always been there, maybe look closer at the details to avoid it. And apparently a money saver as well.
When they say empty homes though, I think they mean the LPS blocks they are currently decanting because they are due to be demolished.
I’ve just taken a look at the consultation and the council seems to be very sketchy on where the ‘void’ properties are and they need to be transparent if the reality is that most of the empty properties coming up are likely to be void because they are in LPS blocks where they are actively being forced to relocate about 500+ tenants in properties that have such serious structural issues the council has decided to demolish them rather than repair, this should be made clear!
It’s quite a common method, if that’s the case, Bill, to use voids as meanwhile guardianships. I think we also need to temper this slightly, that those LPS blocks are going to be over at least a five-year period. If the alternative for a void is to be empty for a significant period of time, I’d rather they were used to give someone a place to stay, even if it’s temporary, right?
The LPS block surveys found that the buildings no longer meet current safety standards for withstanding a collapse in the case of an explosion or large fire. It sounds like a high risk move to me.
People also need to be aware that it’s not getting people off the streets as such, it’s moving people who have been assessed by the council as having a legal housing duty who they need to provide accommodation to by law. It is housing this group of people in void council stock, rather than private sector options, it won’t make a dent in street homelessness and rough sleeping, just reduce costs the council has for providing accommodation.
While I get that the council has huge budget pressures and it needs to reduce the amount it spends on temporary accommodation costs, I feel uncomfortable with the council moving permanent tenants out of LPS blocks because of the safety risks, only for the council to then move lots of vulnerable people in who the council has a homeless duty to. It comes across to me as the council placing some really quite vulnerable people in its most risky housing stock they have. It does not seem to me they are not being treated on an as equal basis as permanent tenants, who are being moved out over safety risks.
I get the council’s dilemma because of costs. I just have genuine concerns about the risks if the voids that the council has coming up are in these LPS blocks that are earmarked for demolition.
Just to clarify, the LPS blocks aren’t about to all explode or fall down. The modernising of legal safety practices and changes to the older pre-Grenfell fire health and safety regulations just meant that they were built under the old rules, all w ell and good. They just don’t pass the new requirements so they wouldnt be built now and it would cost too much to make the required changes to the blocks.
Well put Hanover Bill.
This shouts two tier. If it’s not safe for current tenants then it’s not safe for any tenant.
Voids are being created for a reason and this smacks of saving money over safety.
We’ve seen how that can tragically end.
I’d like to gently push back a little bit on the safety aspect. The risk is low, but not compliant with modern guidance. The decant is precautionary over a multi-year programme, and short-term occupation is considered acceptable on risk grounds. The decanting is happening at a slow attrition-pace, rather than an immediate evacuation as we saw at England House. And the waking guard is there alongside some other mitigation aspects to reduce risk.
But I completely agree that the optics feel like unequal treatment. People will feel differently where the balance lies here, I’m sure. I agree with you, though, that it is not a long-term solution.
In response to M Jacksomn, yes, I realise the blocks are not all about to explode, of course not, that’s not what I’m saying. But unforeseen events do happen, including and especially fires, which places people at risk.
Independent surveys from structural engineers say “The conclusion is therefore that the blocks in their current state are inadequately robust to resist disproportionate collapse.” The council deemed strengthening works too costly, so they made a decision to demolish.
Yes, it is prudent for the council to move people out in a managed way, I’m questioning whether moving a large number of vulnerable people in increases risk, or is risky in itself.
I also have big concerns about how open and transparent the council is being by running a consultation but making no mention that the likely voids will be in these LPS blocks. I think many people could respond differently to the survey if they knew that was going to happen.
There have been several fires in recent years in the councils housing stock, in some cases linked to anti-social behaviour where there is a density of vulnerable residents housed. If the council wants to have honest and open conversations with residents, it needs to give open, honest and clear information, not hide some facts or forget to mention key relevant points about potential safety implications in the consultations they run and the press releases they put out.
It may be cheaper for the council to use the voids, but I’m not convinced it is the answer if the voids in question are in these blocks with known structural problems which have had concerns raised by structural engineers about their robustness.
A couple of years in there is a couple years off the streets for some and out of hotels for some others, and a bit of time to chase funding for housebuilding, an improvement, not a big one but some.
But this isn’t about housing rough sleepers. People who are sleeping on the streets are generally people who the council has decided rightly or wrongly (often wrongly) that they don’t have a legal housing duty to house. Teh council has ZERO intention of housing people in void properties it has decided it does not have a legal duty to house.
The people the council will house in void properties are people who they have a legal duty to house, who they are currently housing in temporary accommodation provided by private housing providers. The council wants to save money by housing them in void properties that come up, mainly in the LPS blocks set to be demolished.
The proposal will NOT result in the council housing more people who are sleeping on the streets right now. It’s purely about saving money by moving people who the council have a duty to house who are in temporary accommodation that the council wants to cut costs.
I agree there is something to be said about the council reducing costs, I just remain wary of these blocks being the solution given the structural weaknesses known about them. I maintain that the council not making clear where the voids will be is not being open and transparent and their consultation is flawed and misleading as a result.
But Bill, these properties are not any different compared to when than they were before the updated legalisation.
For example, the introduction of a fire alarm in a building does not make it any more or less likely to catch fire, right?
Same concept.
The list manipulation has always been a factor, including the classic “get knocked up to get a council flat”. Taking that to one side, if this saves money on temporary accommodation, that means the savings could then be put into building new homes, which is ultimately the goal.
I guess the debate will be about the short-term vs the long-term benefits.
I think that would depend on if the “savings” were actuall money or more likely I suspect less borrowing ?? either way it saves as you say on temp housing, just a question of how much is relevant to borrowing, or not.
Been watching the Place Overview and Scrunity that’s going on, and Cllr Taylor is talking about this specific pressure. 1:09:00 roughly? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PdQOB2PpsI
Will they be for locals?
Suggest that you re-read the article as it clearly answers your query.
No Jessica, they plan to house the Welsh there.
All very well as far as it goes, but for tenants like myself who are being rehoused because of the problems with our tower blocks are possibly not feeling quite so benevolent. So the Council gains £0.75m, but anyone being chucked out of our council flats through no fault of our own might have a different view, and their are 8 blocks of us.
Don’t think it’s anyone’s fault these days that the 50 year old buildings were built very badly. It’s a shame people have to move but unfortunately it needs to happen, imagine another Grenfell. Not worth it for the sakes of sentiment
What I would say is any policy that stops scummy bedsits profiting on tax payer money and thus give the council some money that can be spent on new housing stock has to be a win.
The blocks wern’t build badly, they had a life span ca 40-50 years, any use beyond that was never in the calculations but some 1930s blocks are still standing well. Kampsax was the Danish company main player back in the 50s 60s, many blocks around Europe are doing well, the negleted ones are the problem ergo Grenfell, the blocks are not defunct as such, just never been maintained and or upgraded over the years and now too expensive to make compliant, = tear down start again
You make a good point; the forced displacement is not a pleasant one, and I absolutely agree that the council should bend over backwards to support those having to move. I understand there’s the option of returning once the new builds are completed? Maybe that is something we should ensure gets nailed down?
I welcome practical steps that reduce the spiralling cost of temporary accommodation while ensuring vulnerable families have a stable roof over their heads.
Too many local families have been stuck in costly and often unsuitable temporary accommodation for far too long. If Brighton and Hove City Council can use empty council homes to bring those families into secure housing more quickly — and save £750,000 of taxpayers’ money in the process — that is a move worth serious consideration.
However, we must be honest about the trade-offs. People on the housing register have already been waiting far too long, and any additional delays will understandably cause frustration and anxiety. Those residents deserve clarity, fairness, and transparency about how decisions are being made.
This situation underlines a bigger national failure: we simply do not have enough genuinely affordable homes. Councils are left managing shortages rather than solving them. The long-term answer is clear — we need sustained investment in social housing, reform of planning rules where necessary, and stronger support for local authorities so they can build and acquire more homes.
Agreed. And part of that leads back to an earlier article where the council are using EFS of £15 million to kickstart that transition. Getting TA costs under control is a big one that the council can do locally; devolution brings more potential for more impactful projects; and nationally, we should be challenging the government to make those reforms to enable affordable housing at LHA rates or better, ideally social.
What I heard is that about £6 million of the EFS that the council want to borrow is actually planned to go into their reserves and so it isn’t actually allocated for anything at the moment. It sounds crazy to me for the council to borrow £15 million from the government as a loan over about 20 years at a rate of around 6%, which means they will pay abt £11 million in interest over the period of the loan, and for a chunk of the loan to sit in council reserves.
You’re right about the allocation of the EFS, it was part of the conversation at Scrunity yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PdQOB2PpsI
I agree it does sound silly on the surface, but it was clarified by the Chief Financial Officer. Because the reserves were drained to “dangerously low levels” by the Green administration to “one of the lowest in the country”, it means that without a financial buffer, the council cannot invest in long-term solutions like buying back homes or building council housing.
You are right that the interest over 20 years, but the nuance is to compare it to the £20m/year now being spent on private landlords; money that disappears versus investment in homes. When I think about it in context, it makes much more sense.
But what is it is not moving families into secure housing more quickly. What if it is moving families into void properties that are empty for a temporary period before they are demolished.
If any LPS blocks are the voids the council is planning to use, it will not provide these families with long term secure housing, it will be short term accommodation in blocks which are earmarked for demolition because of structural issues.
Agree on the longer term answer about the need for more investment in social housing. In the short term, there are multiple empty private sector properties in the city that companies and owners landbank, which the council could do more to bring those into use. The council could stop Right to Buy altogether if the Labour government had the political will to stop social housing still being sold off.
Agree on the removal of RTB, I think it hurts far more than it supports, plus how not all the captial receipt goes to the council, making it very costly to replace stock. I also think there are other ways, beyond just selling a property, to help people onto the private housing market; which was the original plan of RTB.
Guardianships have a place, particularly if it’s via a CLT or ALMO, because the money generated from meanwhile can be guaranteed to put back into building homes. A double dip of benefit, if you will?
I do agree that landbanking is a challenge, also. CPOs and reform from central is way forward there to force the issue legislatively. We’re seeing some movement on the latter, but that takes time.
Sounds like an obvious idea as long as they are homeless individuals/families capable of independent living and do not need higher-dependency or specialist housing owing to drug, mental health or educational needs. How often are all council and social housing properties checked to ensure the legal residents are still living in them though and they are not being unlawfully sub-let? One of the unspoken horrors of the Grenfell tragedy is that many of the flats had been unlawfully sublet, meaning that many of the dead will never be known as they weren’t officially resident there.
all 72 victims identified, last one identified in 2017,
There’s been a push recently to increase estate inspections. How effective they have been since the change is a good question. You should put an FOI in through Whatdotheyknow so we can all see the answer.