Agenda item

Report of the Director of Housing.

6.1       The Committee received a report that provided a background to a review of the Council’s Community Supportive Housing (CSH) also commonly known as sheltered housing.  The Council had commissioned the Housing Learning and Information Network (LIN) and Arcadia Architects to complete a review of the Council’s 1000 units of CSH.

 

6.2       The review was commissioned in response to: uncertainty over future demand for CSH and declining demand from council tenants, who might free up family sized housing if they chose to move into CSH; an aging stock, some of which needs investment and doesn’t meet modern requirements; and the need to ensure the council is making the best use of this asset and that it is aligned to wider council objectives. 

 

6.3       Overall the study aims to assess if the Council is making the best use of its CSH asset and to make any recommendations for change.

 

6.4       Consultant Ian Copeman, Housing LIN presented the emerging findings from work done so far on the review. 

 

6.5       Members were asked to comment on the emerging findings and evidence gathered to help develop clear and feasible recommendations, which will be presented in a final report which is due in May/June 2017. 

 

6.6       The emerging findings were structured around three core questions: 

 

             i.          How well is CSH meeting current demand and how well will it meet future demand?

 

            ii.          How does it contribute to meeting the Council’s key priorities and objectives?

 

           iii.          What changes are needed (for the stock to better meet current and future demand and the Council’s priorities) and how can they be made?

 

How well is CSH meeting current demand and how well will it meet future demand?

 

6.7      Mr Copeman outlined the demographic context which revealed that in the next 13 years there would be a 42% increase in residents aged over 60 and a 52% increase in the number of Westminster residents aged over 75.  Moreover there would be an increase of 56% between 2013 and 2033 in the long term conditions associated with ageing, such as dementia.

 

6.8      To estimate the future demand for CSH, the Council had applied the CSH waiting list to population projections and other external factors.  The review revealed that across all years to 2030 demand for CSH exceeds supply.  Mr Copeman advised that in the UK less than 0.5% of accommodation is suitable for over 60s compared with 5% in Australia and some other European countries.

 

6.9      Mr Copeman informed the committee that the bulk of residents looking for CSH are people currently residing in the private rented sector (PRS).  A small but growing number of applicants have a rough sleeping background. Some are in general needs social housing while there is also an element who do not fit into any of these categories.

 

6.10    In response to questions about the accuracy of the projections Barbara Brownlee, Director of Housing and Regeneration, explained that the unique complexities and characteristics of Westminster present challenges in estimating future demand.  She explained that there is a growing cohort of men living independently in Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) which skew calculations.  As the Council has no control of the PRS the Council will not be aware of their requirements until they present themselves.

 

6.11    Members asked whether there is a substantial number of single ex-servicemen living in HMO accommodation.  Barbara Brownlee stated that she was not aware whether this is the case.  However, she advised that ex-service personnel receive priority for general needs housing.  Members suggested that given the number of barracks situated in Westminster it would be advisable for the Council to liaise with related charities such as the British Legion, to understand if this is the case.

 

6.12    The Committee asked whether CSH was being delivered through section 106 obligations as part of the planning process.  Members also asked what discussions the Council’s housing service was having with Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) about such provision.  Barbara Brownlee advised that extra care and sheltered housing provision had been included as part of the affordable housing provision within the Chelsea Barracks redevelopment.  However, she explained that the Council was not yet able to accurately identify where the inclusion of CSH in individual schemes would be appropriate.

 

6.13    The Committee asked about the opportunities for including CSH in the Council’s programme of housing renewal.  Stephen Falvey, Commissioning Manager for Carers, advised that some of the housing to be delivered at Lisson Arches will allow for additional, extra adaptions to be included at a later date if required.  Barbara Brownlee explained that other than at Lisson Arches CSH provision had not been incorporated as part of the programme of housing renewal.  This was now changing and officers were looking at different options across the sites.

 

 

6.14    Members asked how purpose-built CSH differs from the aim to future proof general needs homes so that residents can remain in their homes for as long as possible as they become older.  Barbara Brownlee explained that the latter do not include substantive interventions.

 

            How well does it contribute to meeting the Council’s key priorities and objectives?

 

6.15    Mr Copeman then highlighted how CSH aligned with wider Council priorities and objectives.  The key objectives included:

 

·           Providing homes for those in need and improving quality of life, protecting vulnerable people and supporting people to make their own life choices;

 

·           Addressing homelessness;

 

·           Supporting people to remain in their homes and communities, maintaining their maximum level of independence and community engagement, avoiding residential and nursing placement if possible;

 

·           Helping people to prevent the onset of long-term health conditions such as dementia and heart disease.

 

6.16    Neil Revely, of the Kings Fund, which is acting as a critical friend to the project, provided the context for reviews of sheltered housing undertaken by other local authorities.  Some of the common factors prompting reviews included a projected increase in the older people population and low demand and poor standards for existing sheltered housing.  The committee noted that some other local authorities have a surplus of CSH.

 

6.17    The Committee asked whether the existing CSH stock enabled couples to stay together.  Mr Revely outlined the importance and benefits of enabling couples to stay together.  One person for instance may provide informal care.  Barbara Brownlee explained that while the Council now has some CSH accommodation that is suitable for couples these are all 1 bed units.  The Council was looking at developing 1.5 bed CSH units for couples where living rooms can be split off to provide additional sleeping space where circumstances required.

 

6.18    Members discussed how CSH can help people to remain independent and avoid residential and nursing placements which would also benefit the NHS by reducing care costs.

 

6.19    The Committee noted that under occupying Council tenants willing to transfer to CSH are eligible for a cash incentive payment and they have the highest priority to be rehoused.  Members asked how the Council can better incentivise under occupying tenants to downsize to contribute to the council’s objectives of providing homes for those in need and addressing homelessness.  Barbara Brownlee explained that some under occupying Council tenants will not consider moving to alternative accommodation no matter how large the financial incentive due to a number of reasons including the enviable location of their homes.  She also explained that the Council would need to have suitable CSH accommodation to offer residents to transfer to which it currently does not have.

 

            What changes are needed (for the stock to better meet current and future demand and the Council’s priorities) and how can they be made?

 

6.20    Mr Copeman then outlined the emerging findings of the assessment of the CSH stock.  These were as follows:

 

·           There are limited opportunities for remodelling bedsits without losing social units

 

·           Some schemes operate as community hubs with varied success

 

·           Telecare and Assistive Technology is limited to pull cords

 

·           Many bathrooms still have baths with showers installed

 

·           Security issues in particular around main entrance is a theme across the stock

 

6.21    RESOLVED:

 

1.          How well is CSH meeting current demand and how well will it          meet future demand?

 

The committee noted that while there were difficulties in accurately calculating future demand for CSH, due to the unique circumstances and characteristics associated with Westminster, there was robust evidence to indicate that current and future demand for CSH exceeds supply. 

 

2.          How well does (CSH) contribute to meeting the council’s key            priorities and objectives?

 

(i)            The committee noted that the majority of CSH was built in the 1970s.  Despite a programme of upgrading and improvement during 2008-10, some schemes now need further investment as standards for CSH have moved on since the stock was developed.  Therefore, some of the accommodation does not fully contribute to the objective of supporting people to remain in their homes and communities, maintaining their maximum level of independence.

(ii)          The committee noted that other local authorities have a surplus of CSH.  It therefore recommends that the Cabinet Member for Housing consider opportunities for providing out of borough CSH provision to meet demand which will in turn assist with wider Council priorities of providing homes for those in need and addressing homelessness.

 

(iii)         The committee recognised the importance and benefits of enabling older couples to remain together in purpose-built, self-contained sheltered housing.  However, the committee noted that although the Council has some CSH accommodation that is suitable for couples these are limited to 1 bed units.  The committee supported the development of 1.5 bed CSH units for couples where living rooms can be split off to provide additional sleeping space where required.

 

(iv)         Members noted that the NHS would be one of the main beneficiaries of new additional CSH as enabling people to remain in their homes and communities as they grow older can reduce the cost of Adult Social Care and avoid residential and nursing placements.  The committee therefore stressed the importance of the Council involving the NHS in any future discussions on CSH.

 

(v)          The committee noted that under occupying Council tenants willing to transfer to CSH are eligible for a cash incentive payment.  However, demand from Council tenants for CSH has been falling.  Members considered that the Council should consider how it can further encourage older residents to downsize to free up much-needed larger properties.  It should also engage with RSLs on how they can encourage their older under occupying tenants to transfer to CSH where appropriate.

 

3.         What changes are needed (for the stock to better meet current and future demand and the council’s priorities) and how can they be made?  

 

(i)            The committee noted current residents’ views on CSH and stressed the importance of the Council understanding what older people want from CSH. 

 

(ii)          The committee considered that the Council should make better use of its powers as a planning authority to increase the provision of CSH in the city - either through bringing about its own developments or by obtaining, where appropriate, section 106 obligations on relevant planning applications.