The Chair introduced the report which set out an update on the current performance in relation to Temporary Accommodation (TA) and current budget position.  The report also discussed the current risks and controls in place to manage the TA budget.

The Head of Housing and Communities added that the Council had been notified of their grant for the next three years, which included the previous homeless prevention grant and domestic abuse grant, plus rough sleeping funds.  The TA element had been split and was in the revenue support grant.  She was very disappointed that the funding would decrease in the next couple of years.  When the homeless prevention grant was consulted on last year, the revised formula indicated that the Council would be better off, but in fact was worse off.  She added that other deprived areas had the same issue, so it appeared the formula was wrong and the areas most in need seemed to be missing out. The Council was now looking into what lobbying could be done to resolve this. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Clarification sought for the terms ‘homeless’ and ‘sleeping rough’;

·         considered the 2025/26 winter had been very wet, rather than very cold, and referring to paragraph 2.15 in the report where the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) had been activated for 27 nights, how did this compare to previous winters?;

·         had a response been received from Alison McGovern MP, as set out in paragraph 2.5 of the report?;

·         was a change in Registered Providers (RP) delivery forecast in the next one or two years;

·         was there any evidence of some landlords exiting the market, as predicted by the Renters Rights Act?;

·         in terms of the decrease in grant funding, considered this was a mistake in the worked formula;

·         clarification sought as to whether bed and breakfast accommodation was block booked ahead, or booked on the day?;

·         what was the turnaround for a Council-owned property to be fit for purpose for the next resident?;

·         how did caravan parks impact on the TA figures during their closed season?;

·         Energy Performance Certificate changes would lead to further delays in achieving RPs;

·         needed to recognise that Q3 was always ‘tough’, and going forward needed to encourage Parish Councils to develop rural exception sites by commissioning Local Housing Needs Assessments to justify building affordable homes on land not normally used for housing, and this would also help with the Council’s five-year housing supply and KALC should be asked to promote this;

·         referring to Bridge House, could an update be provided?; and

·         was a commuted sum policy, or the law?

In response, the Head of Housing and Communities explained that broadly, when someone ‘bedded down’ they were classed as ‘sleeping rough’, and she added that the Council services were available to all who needed it in any case.  In terms of SWEP, this had been activated in November/December 2025 when there had been relatively warm days, followed by cold nights, and activations of SWEP had been higher this winter.  The Section 151 Officer had received a response to the letter saying they would look into the grant funding matter.  She added that there was not supposed to be more than a percentage decrease in the grant funding each year.  They had acknowledged that the calculation was wrong and this year’s grant had been retained.  In terms of the risks around RP delivery programme, with the announcement of the new affordable homes programme, it was hoped that there might be some increase.  A lot of the Council’s RPs were still improving the conditions of their existing stock and until they had resolved those capital strategies, there was unlikely to be a quick delivery.  She outlined the process of securing RPs through the Section 106 process, and said that although there were many solutions, they were not necessarily lining up.  Generally nightly-let accommodation was booked on the day, but there were some houses in multiple occupation (HMO) which could be block booked.  There were sometimes delays on getting new residents in Council-owned properties as electrical testing had to be carried out for each new tenant to make sure the property was safe.  In terms of a person’s route to homelessness, this varied from case to case, and she highlighted that domestic abuse cases were prioritised.  Information on caravan parks was set out in paragraph 2.16 in the report and the Head of Housing and Communities explained that this was a massive ‘hidden’ issue and suggested a housing needs assessment on the east of the Isle of Sheppey could help to unpick the issue.  She confirmed that she would provide some information in terms of having a contractor in place to clear meter debts between lets.  Bridge House was empty at the moment, it was unsuitable for referrals from SBC and Southern Housing were looking for alternative uses for the building.  In terms of commuted sums, the Council negotiated affordable housing with the developers, then viability was discussed.  The Council always went with homes above a commuted sum.  She confirmed that she would get further information on the matter from the relevant officer.  She confirmed that it was policy and could be amended as part of the emerging Local Plan.

Councillor Angela Harrison moved the following motion:  That once the formal information on commuted sums was received, this be considered by the Planning & Transportation Policy Working Group.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:

(1)      That the comments made on the performance report and the controls in place to manage the TA budget be noted.

(2)      That once the formal information on commuted sums was received, this be considered by the Planning & Transportation Policy Working Group.