Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
AGREED: that the draft Committee Pages of the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25 be agreed.
Apologies were received from Cllr Boes.
Cllr Littlechild declared a personal interest in item 4 as he was working on a project with Cadwyn Housing Association.
The minutes of the 17th March meeting were approved and signed by the Chair.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were advised that the report provided background information to aid their understanding of Welsh legislation regarding Housing Allocations and the current practice in Cardiff. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Jane Thomas Director, Housing & Communities Helen Evans Assistant Director, Housing & Communities Katie McAndrew Allocations and Rehousing Manager The Cabinet Member was invited to give a statement, in which she acknowledged the huge pressure on the waiting list and highlighted the number of homeless families and single people, as well as the long waits faced by large families. Officers gave a presentation outlining how the process worked, noting that the council used a Common Housing Allocation Scheme and had a joint waiting list with their seven housing association landlords. One waiting list was in place to allocate vacant social housing stock and to ensure consistency. People facing serious challenges such as homelessness, overcrowding or medical issues were prioritised first. The process was consistently audited and monitored to ensure accountability and consistency, and the waiting list was used to inform housing demand and the planning of new housing developments to meet need. Officers explained that anybody over the age of 16 could apply, either online, by post or by home visit. All applicants were asked to come in for an appointment where they were interviewed by a Housing Solutions Officer and informed about their options. The officer was able to make referrals to other departments and agencies depending on need, and all applications were assessed and referred to the Allocations & Rehousing Unit. Officers added that the waiting list was split into a number of sub-lists depending on the level of need: immediate, homeless, general and beneficial. The immediate list was for exceptional and significant housing circumstances, while the homeless list was for those who were homeless and living in temporary accommodation. The general list covered various housing circumstances, such as medical issues or overcrowding, while the beneficial list was for tenants in social housing who needed or wanted to downsize, making best use of limited resources. A banding system was in place to further prioritise individual cases, taking into account circumstances like homelessness; health and mobility issues; domestic violence; antisocial behaviour; poor living conditions and overcrowding, as well as the applicant’s local connection, which was defined as living in Cardiff continuously for more than two years. The Allocations and Rehousing Manager gave an update on the current state of the list, which had 9,862 applicants in total. 91 were on the immediate needs list, with 997 on the homeless list and 284 on the beneficial transfer list. The general waiting list was broken down further, with 315 classed as urgent need, 1,976 as high need and 2,949 as medium need. A further 625 applicants were classed as with housing need but no local connection, while 2,445 were considered to have no housing need. In total, there were 8,310 cases on the general waiting list. Officers summarised that there were almost 1,000 homeless applicants living in temporary accommodation and waiting to be offered permanent homes. 284 tenants were under-occupying, and waiting to move to smaller homes. The majority of applicants were on the general waiting list, with 3,095 families reporting overcrowding. 75% of all people on the waiting list had a housing need while 25% did not. Further information was provided about the banding system used. Band A (urgent need) concerned serious or critical housing issues, medical and mobility issues, domestic violence and antisocial behaviour or the condition of the current property – for example, someone living on an upper floor who was unable to get out of their property because of mobility issues and needed adapted accommodation. Band B was split into two layers for high and medium need, allowing the service to distinguish between families who were having significant or moderate housing issues. Bands C and D reflected similar housing issues but concerned those with no local connection to Cardiff, where the duty lay with their local authority. Bands E and F were for those with no housing need. Officers also added that more than half of people on the waiting list (5,721) needed two or more bedrooms, while 70% of families were moderately overcrowded and 31% were very overcrowded. They noted that there were 94 applicants who required six-bed properties, which was generally not a need that the Housing Allocation Scheme was able to meet. 691 family properties had become available to let between 1st April 2024 and February 2025, with 543 for single people becoming available in the same time. When a property became available, the waiting list was used to identify who needed it. Shortlists were run to match people to properties, considering various factors like the sub-list and priority, the type, size and location of the property, and any other criteria like age designation or adaptation. People in the highest bands who had been waiting the longest showed up at the top of the list. Allocation quotas were used to decide what proportion of properties were allocated to the different lists, allowing for prioritisation of those with the most urgent needs, like safeguarding issues. A high percentage of quotas were designated for homeless people, normally 80%. The homeless quota was currently set at 100% for homeless families and 80% for single homeless people. Officers added that they were able to deviate away from general allocation guidance using Local Lettings Initiatives and Management Lets, for example when there was a new housing development, in order to create a mixed and balanced community with a range of different properties and tenants. This could also include age-specific housing schemes like Community Living. Social landlords were allowed to make some lets to resolve issues in their housing stock, but this was carefully monitored and limited to 10%. In total, 1,461 properties had been let through the waiting list between April 2024 and February 2025. This included 691 lets of family accommodation (2 or more bedrooms, 543 of one bedroom properties for single people, and 227 for age-designated properties for those aged over 40. This was an overall increase of 17% compared to last year, and 23% were new build developments. Officers noted that while there was a good supply of housing, it was not enough to meet the demand, and there were challenges to address in order to increase the availability of social housing. Finally, officers explained that the Rehousing Solutions Team helped older people to downside, helping those in need of adapted accommodation find suitable social housing, and providing support for those with challenging housing needs. Dedicated officers provided tailored practical and financial support, and the team included a specialist Occupational Therapist and nurse practitioner to comprehensively assess housing needs, living conditions and necessary adaptations. They worked closely with local housing associations, health services and social care providers. The Allocations Policy would be reviewed this year, in particular focusing on how overcrowding was assessed, introducing a new Specialist Accommodation Gateway to ensure specialist housing needs were easily identified, and allocation into new managed blocks, supporting vulnerable people to live more independently. A public and stakeholder consultation would be carried out, and a Cabinet report would come later in the year to flesh out the proposals. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members noted the proportion of those on the waiting list who were deemed not to be in need of housing or lacking a local connection, and asked how often the list was reviewed to identify changes of circumstances. Officers explained that this was a regular process, and it was not uncommon for people to move between bands. While those low on the list were very unlikely to get accommodation, it would be worse to remove them from the list. They also noted that those without urgent housing need could be renting within the private sector, and might not feel personally or financially secure despite having adequate housing for the time being. Members asked whether individuals could be on multiple lists in different areas, and heard that there was no restriction on being on several waiting lists, though the majority of landlords applied the same policy regarding a local connection. The Cabinet Member added that there were probably plenty of people on both the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan lists, and this was helpful as other authorities’ waiting lists could be significantly shorter than Cardiff’s. Members asked about the definition of reasonable refusal and heard that offers were based on the information provided by applicants, focusing on suitability and affordability. Applicants were able to specify the area they wanted to live in, although this had an impact on availability, and the service worked with people to make them aware of the availability of the type of accommodation they wanted in certain areas. There was an independent review process within the Housing Review and Complaints team that dealt with reviews, appeals and general complaints, and people could appeal their banding if they didn’t feel it was accurate. Members suggested that it would helpful to see some of the records of this process. Members queried the process for people with serious medical conditions, and heard that a medical officer was in place to assess these cases and ensure that changes in circumstances were reviewed quickly. Individuals with medical issues often required accessible or adapted accommodation, the need for which was greater than the authority’s supply. Members discussed the private rental market’s response to recent changes in legislation, and heard that landlords were coming back into the market, although the Welsh government could likely provide clearer data on this. The Cabinet Member noted the affordability of rents as a key issue. Members asked about the progress of the Ending Homelessness High Level Action Plan for 2021-26, and heard that the Welsh government had provided significant funding since Covid to address homelessness. The immediate need was still significant but they were moving away from reliance on hotels. Members asked how long the average person with urgent housing need had to wait to receive accommodation, and heard that it was longer than officers wanted. The Cabinet Member noted that they wanted to avoid people feeling that they had to demonstrate greater need in order to go higher on the list, when this could affect the authority’s ability to meet that specific need and lead to them waiting even longer. Members noted that 6% of those on the waiting list had been on it for more than ten years, and asked whether there was a risk of individuals moving towards homelessness in order to get prioritised. The Cabinet Member suggested that especially long waits were dependent on circumstances, such as those who had a low level of need or a very large family, since the service would not house anyone in a way that overcrowded them. Members noted cases of large intergenerational families living under one roof and asked how large the properties on offer were. Officers explained that council properties were generally limited to four or five bedrooms, but they were working on a project to make houses better adapted for large families. Overcrowding could be alleviated with extensions and loft conversions, and the council worked with families offering transitional support to help older children move out. The Cabinet Member added that they were constantly looking at how to improve their stock, and the James Street development was something of an experiment in providing accommodation for intergenerational living by joining together larger and smaller flats. Members discussed new developments and heard that quota allocations for these were based around the development itself and the assessment of local need, with ward members consulted regarding lettings initiatives. The council had more control over new developments than existing stock, and could use them to resolve complex overcrowding cases. Members welcomed the delivery of new developments but noted that only half as many lets had been provided as names that had joined the waiting list since last year. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the scale of demand and emphasised that even if they had all the funding they needed right now, it would still take years to develop the necessary sites. The broader issue was decades of governments and councils selling off council houses and failing to build more. Members asked about support for those buying homes and heard that council developments included shared ownership schemes, such as those where people could buy 70% of the property, while the Welsh government had its own Help to Buy scheme. It was important that the council did as much as it could to help first time buyers, as people were working longer and getting shorter mortgages nowadays. Developers also had some specific schemes for first time buyers, such as deposit support, but purchasing a home remained incredibly expensive. Members queried the disproportionately high number of women on the waiting list and asked whether the statistics related to all members of the household or just the lead applicant. Officers clarified that while they required information on all members of the household, the figures provided regarding age, ethnicity and gender only concerned the main applicant. Members noted the high proportion of ethnic minority people in overcrowded, high-priority situations, and heard that this was related to socioeconomic status and their distribution across the city, as well as cultural factors around intergenerational living and larger families. The Cabinet Member stressed that no priority was given any particular ethnic background, only that it was recorded to provide a full picture of the data. Members asked whether people could be removed from the list and heard that they could be suspended, but could then come back on when they demonstrated improved behaviour, for example that they had been paying their rent. Refusals were more common on the beneficial and general waiting lists than on the homeless list, due to the authority’s statutory homeless duty. Officers were unable to provide an exact figure of how many people had been suspended, which the Committee requested a breakdown of. Members also advocated remaining in close contact with those who dropped off the list, ensuring consistent communication and access to translators where needed. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the draft Committee Pages of the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25 be agreed.
The Principal Scrutiny Officer advised that this report gave an update on the development of the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25, with the draft Committee Pages supplied at Appendix A. The Committee was asked to consider, if necessary amend, and approve the draft pages, and to suggest topics for future scrutiny. Members queried the review of progress of direct payments and heard that this was a progress update following an item some time ago, in particular looking at the service’s monitoring of how needs were being met. Members discussed the number of meetings cancelled during the municipal year and heard that there were a variety of reasons for this. The Chair suggested that the report should focus on the positives, and that they would seek to avoid this reoccurring in the future. AGREED: that the draft Committee Pages of the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25 be agreed.
There were none.
Monday 12th May at 4:30pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.