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.
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.
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.