Interviews with:

John Littlemore, Head of Housing and Community Safety; and

Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Officer

The Chairman introduced Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Officer and John Littlemore Head of Housing and Community Services.  Ms Kershaw introduced the Draft Housing Strategy. She explained that Maidstone had taken the opportunity to refresh its Housing Strategy at a time when the coalition Government was introducing new legislation affecting housing and the financial climate was making it harder for people to obtain mortgages.  The key aim of the document was to develop Maidstone borough’s urban and rural communities as models for 21^st century quality and sustainable living.  The Officer described it as an overarching plan that would guide the Council and its partners in tackling the major housing challenges facing the borough.  The Strategy was looking ahead, covering 2011-2015, and aligning itself with the Homes and Community Agency’s four year development framework. Members were informed that the Strategy covered two of Maidstone Borough Council’s three priorities; For Maidstone to be a decent place to live and Corporate and customer excellence. The strategy also reflected the vision and long term objectives of the Sustainable Communities Strategy 2009-2020.

Members questioned the gaps in the document. It was explained that the document was a draft and the gaps would be completed as part of the ongoing consultation process and the targets would be informed by those meetings. With regards to targets Members agreed that the document would make more sense if these were referred to as target dates. The Committee felt that the way in which the document demonstrated that its four priorities were actioned could be made clearer by simply changing the order of the four elements used to explain this. Members made a number of suggestions regarding the wording of the document. They were assured that the examples given had been altered at an earlier stage in the consultation process (after the report had been submitted to this Committee).  Officers were able to additionally take on board Members advice on referencing within the document as it was felt that background documents had been used to inform the document in areas such as Risk Targets and other statements. It was agreed a brief footnote highlighting the document or website used would be sufficient. The Committee questioned some of the wording in the document that made reference to legislation that had yet to become law. This led Members to question the timing of the document. Mr Littlemore explained that the Housing Strategy had expired and they had been faced with the choice of waiting or moving forward with the legislation pending.  He told the Committee they had chosen the latter option, making informed assumptions where necessary. Members felt that the wording could be changed to reflect this. The Committee additionally asked that the outcomes for the priorities were altered to read as a statement rather than an explanation for greater impact.

Members specifically queried Priority 3 in the document in relation to Actions. It was highlighted that only small landlords were mentioned.  It was felt that there should be an additional paragraph to ensure that it was clear that action would be taken against any landlord providing poor living conditions.

The Committee raised questions about Homelessness in the borough and were informed that this had risen for the first time in four years reflected by an increase in those in Bed and Breakfast accommodation.  Mr Littlemore explained that the footfall at the Gateway had increased from 2,100 in 2009 (January-March period) to 3,100 in 2011 for the same period.  The Committee was informed that a different approach had been taken for 2011 in counting the number of people sleeping rough in the borough. In the past a physical count had been attempted, the current year’s approach was an estimated figure given by Porchlight, the Police and the Day Centre.  The estimated figure for Maidstone was 26.

The Officer explained that the Government Rough Sleeper Advisors had helped Maidstone to identify gaps in their procedure that would be taken forward following on from their diagnostic visit.  He told that Committee that Maidstone needed to understand and adopt current ways of working and understand what was happening now. Members questioned rough sleepers in rural areas.  Mr Littlemore explained that this was difficult to identify and they were reliant on PCSO’s and Parish Council’s in these areas.  If rural hotspots where found he assured Members, services would be directed to them.

The Committee was also interested in the impact that the Prison had on Housing in Maidstone.  Mr Littlemore told Members that there was an issue for Maidstone with people returning to Maidstone after release because they had built up a network on day release.  The Officer also highlighted the female prison and the probation hostel as areas that contributed to housing needs in this area.  It was decided that the issue should be saved for a later discussion

Members raised questions on a number of Housing issues that were not covered in detail by the Housing Strategy.  With regards to Older Persons and Young Persons Housing they were told that supplementary documents were being brought forward.  Rural Housing and Rural Exception Sites was a particular area of interest.  Mr Littlemore informed the Committee that they were committed to providing rural housing but that the biggest challenge was finding sites. The Officer explained that they had two surveys to complete.  Members offered their support in this task and were instructed to contact Andrew Connors in the Housing Team for advice.

Members asked the Officer for updates on relevant Housing plans to enable them to remain informed in all areas.

With regards to the Housing Strategy Members felt unable to endorse the document in its current state but advised they would be prepared to review the document electronically once the suggested amendments had been made.

 It was recommended that:

a)  The Draft Housing Strategy with the revisions recommended by the Committee be circulated to Committee Members and appropriate Substitute Members electronically for approval;

b)  Where a ‘Target’ is present in the document, this should be changed to read ‘Target Date’;

c)  The early creation of the document ahead of the Localism Bill becoming Law created a hiatus in the Committee’s understanding of some of strategy’s intentions.  It is recommended that where the wording in the document can appear vague; the sentence should begin ‘it is anticipated that’.

d)  The order in which information is presented to demonstrate how priorities will be actioned should be revised to the following for ease of read:

o  Priority

o  Why it is important to Maidstone

o  Outcomes (labelled a, b and c if multiple)

o  Actions

e)  Under Priority 3 in the document there should be an additional paragraph to cover large landlords, offering the assurance that there will be action taken against any landlord providing poor living conditions;

f)  The outcomes should be harder hitting in their wording, providing a powerful statement rather than a diluted explanation;

g)  The document provides a reference to risk factors and other areas of Housing that have their backing in another overarching document.  Where this is the case there should be a footnote or a link to the relevant website;

h)  The Committee expressed their interest in the development of the West Kent Local Investment Plan and the Kent Supported Plan.  John Littlemore to provide copies or links to these documents via the Scrutiny Officer; and

i)  That Assisted Living be addressed and be brought into the Housing Strategy.