Interviews with John Littlemore, Head of Housing and Community Services; Neil Coles, Housing Manager; and Councillor John A Wilson, Cabinet Member for Communities and Leisure Services.

John Littlemore, Head of Housing and Community Services introduced the draft Allocation Scheme.  He explained that the previous points system to measure housing need had become complex and difficult to understand as well as to administrate.  It had been in place for 10 years and adapted over that period of time. Mr Littlemore highlighted the following points in his verbal update:

• The new scheme was in line with the Council’s priorities;
• The scheme promoted the Council’s priorities and was easy to understand;
• The new scheme was categorised by ‘bands’ as outlined in 1.2.12 of the document;
• Provisos such as a local connection and the definition of a housing need were defined in statute;
• There was an emphasis on making a positive contribution to the community which was promoting the Council’s priorities; and
• Band B, Community contribution, would have the largest allocation of vacancies.

Members felt that clarity was required in the document on community contributions and whether these had to be made locally. They Committee questioned what band applicants would be placed in if they had not made a community contribution and were informed this would the general band for housing need. The Council would have a responsibility to help applicants improve their circumstances to move into another band. It was emphasised that the scheme encouraged people to be more active and positive but it would take time.

A Member aired concerns regarding the inclusion of foster care under community contributions.  It was felt that this could encourage applicants to foster for the wrong reasons. The Committee considered the bedroom allocation criteria.  It was explained that this was an area that was not defined in law.  Members felt that this should be in line with recent Welfare Reform guidelines. It was highlighted that section 42 of the document only mentioned Golding Homes and should refer to all Housing Associations in Maidstone.

Members were supportive of the scheme and the shift towards work but concerns were raised about its effect on troubled households.  The Committee asked to be provided with the actual number of troubled families identified as part of the Troubled Families Programme and if possible, be provided with a breakdown by ward.

It was explained that every applicant on the housing list had been written to and had been engaged with online via Kent Homechoice and in the Gateway.  The Committee were informed that its comments would be considered as part of the consultation which would end on 30 November 2012.  Members questioned whether the consultation was available in any other format.  They were informed that 94% of applicants used the internet, digital TV channels or mobile phones to look for accommodation.

It was felt that the scheme should be reviewed 6 months after implementation in October 2013 by the applicable Scrutiny Committee

It was resolved that:

a)  Section 42 of the draft Allocation Scheme makes reference to all Housing Associations in the borough;

b)  The Committee be provided with the actual number of Troubled Families/households identified in the borough and if possible a breakdown of these by ward;

c)  Section 14 of the Allocation Scheme, Bedroom Allocation, be brought into line with the guidance and specifications given under Welfare Reform;

d)  That clarity be given within the document on Community Contributions; whether or not contributions must be made locally;

e)  The Committee be provided with an actual figure for Housing applicants who use the internet to look for accommodation.  This figure was estimated at 94% which was higher than expected; and

f)  Officers engage with Councillor Grigg to give proper consideration to her concerns regarding the inclusion of fostering under Community Contributions and the possibility that this could encourage applicants to foster children for the wrong reasons.