Memorandum by Carlisle City Council (HOM
04)
The press release sent out by the ODPM in relation
to the enquiry into Homelessness made specific reference to the
following issues:
— The overall level and nature of need
for housing for homelessness people.
— The success of policies meeting the
needs of homeless households.
— The adequacy of investment in housing
for homeless and the quality of accommodation available for them.
— Factors affecting the successful
Implementation of the Homelessness Act 2002.
— The location of provision for homeless
people relative to where they live.
— The balance of public investment
in housing for key workers and homeless people.
— Priority for the homeless within
the overall allocation of social housing.
— Whether the non-housing services
provided for homeless people are adequate and are co-ordinated
with housing provision.
— Whether public agencies are effective
in preventing people becoming homeless.
BACKGROUND
Carlisle City Council is a district authority
serving a population of 100,000 people. The Council transferred
its housing stock of 7,300 houses to Carlisle Housing Association
(CHA) on 9 December 2004. The council retained its statutory Homelessness
function and currently manages 60 units of temporary accommodation
for Homeless people.
The city of Carlisle is located in the County
of Cumbria close to the English/Scottish border. The local authority
district of Carlisle, which includes both the city of Carlisle
and the surrounding rural hinterland, covers some 618 square kilometres,
making it one of England's largest cities geographically. Although
in population terms, the district of Carlisle is predominately
urban—70% of the districts population of 100,750 (Census
2001) live in the city itself—in geographic terms the district
is largely rural—98% of 603 square kilometres of the district
is classified as rural.
Carlisle is situated adjacent to the M6 motorway
and close to the major East-West routes of the A69 and A66. The
railway station in the centre of the city is one of the stops
on the West Coast Main Line. Glasgow and Manchester, with their
international airports, are less than two hours away while Newcastle
airport is just over an hour away by road.
As one would expect in a major city, Carlisle
provides a full range of health services, including those provided
by the recently-built Cumberland Infirmary.
Carlisle has a modern, indoor shopping centre,
which attracts visitors from the whole of Cumbria and also south-west
Scotland. The pedestrianised shopping area is the scene for colourful
events and lively entertainment and the award winning Tullie House
museum and Carlisle Cathedral are also close by. The Sands Centre
is home to a large sports centre and leisure complex, also offering
a wide range of arts and cultural events. Sporting activities
are well catered for with several health clubs, a swimming pool,
golf course, racecourse and professional football club.
Carlisle is a relatively prosperous city with
an unemployment rate of 2.3 (claimant count average 2003) lower
than the Cumbrian and national rates. Of those employed, 63% are
in full time work and 37% in part time work (Annual Business Inquiry
2002) together with 78% of the jobs of the jobs being within the
service sector and 18% being within the manufacturing sector.
There are 3,900 businesses operating in the area of which 79%
employ 10 or less people and 1% employ 200 or more people (Annual
Business Inquiry 2002). Gross weekly earnings are £374 for
full time employees and £141 for part time employees, which
averages out at £301 (New Earnings Survey 2003).
The city has a number of secondary, further
and higher educational establishments. The city is proposing to
establish itself as a "Learning City" and is due to
experience a growth within the higher education sector with an
estimated 6,000 students in the city by 2010.
In 2001 the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease
affected Cumbria with 197 cases being within the Carlisle area—9.7%
of the UK total. The disease is estimated to have cost the Cumbria
economy £255 million and to have placed 15,500 jobs at risk
in the County.
HOMELESS: LEVEL
AND NATURE
Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, the
City Council made a total of 97 homelessness decisions, of these
39 were accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need
and were directly assisted to find secure permanent accommodation
by means of nomination to a Housing provider, while 58 who applied
for help were offered advice and assistance. For the year 1 April
2003 to 31 March 2004, the figures were 414 homelessness decisions,
of which 182 were accepted and 232 offered advice and assistance.
The number of people approaching the authority
and making homelessness declarations has increased by 427%. The
authority has seen the number of acceptances rise by 466% and
the number of applicants offered advice and assistance rise by
400%. Of the 182 acceptances between 1 April 2003 and 31 March
2004, 25 (14.5%) fall within the additional categories introduced
by the Homelessness Act 2002 as follows:
| 16-17 year old homeless applications
| 12 |
| 18-21 year old leaving care who are former relevant children
| 1 |
| A person who is vulnerable as a result of being looked after, accommodated or fostered
| 2 |
| A person who is vulnerable as a result of having been a member of Her Majesty's Forces
| 0 |
| A person who is vulnerable as a result of serving a custodial sentence
| 1 |
| A person who is vulnerable as a result of violence or threat of violence
| 9 |
| |
An analysis of the 182 acceptances shows that the three single
largest causes of homelessness in the district are parents no
longer willing to accommodate 26 (14%), violent breakdown of relationship
involving partners 22 (12%) and loss of private rented accommodation
37 (20%).
SUCCESS OF
POLICIES
Our policy is to offer temporary accommodation to those in
need with the duty to accommodate those in a "priority need"
taking precedence. Where possible we exercise our power to accommodate
those who are deemed "non-priority". Problems locally
are made worse by Housing Associations to (whom we are reliant
for nominating persons for permanent re-housing) either not turning
their empty properties into a ready to let state (due to funding
shortages) or choosing who they want to house. Social and private
sector landlords require references and look carefully at clients
records before offering housing. As a high percentage of our clients
have histories of rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and past
or continuing mental health issues or drug/alcohol problems.
Access to permanent housing and problems regarding the joining
up of support services between agencies are the main issues and
to date these appear to be increasing as the number of social
housing units reduces through the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme. Success
of policies on Homelessness can be measured against this increase.
INVESTMENT
There is a lack of accommodation for homeless people and
investment seems scant. Most new affordable housing within the
district is accessed through section 106 agreements but most Homeless
people do not have recourse to funding to access these properties.
The number of rented social housing units is reducing through
the RTB and access to public funding through Social Housing Grant
(SHG) for building new social housing no longer is available.
If lets are made to homeless nominations then they are likely
to be in a low demand area where the quality is sometimes poor.
As well as adequate levels of investment within housing stock,
support services need to be adequately funded and the loss of
social units through the RTB addressed.
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE HOMELESSNESS
ACT 2002
The Homelessness Act 2002 widened the number of categories
and has increased the pressure on local authorities to deal with
clients who have ever increasing support needs and complex histories.
Factors hindering success in dealing with these clients surround
the excessive referral by agencies of clients to us, inadequately
joined up and funded support provision, clients conditions which
render living in the community a difficult option to implement
and decreasing access to permanent housing.
LOCATION
Choice in the location of housing although a preferred option
to present to clients, the reality is that housing availability
is very restricted and the location is often not negotiable.
INVESTMENT
Comments as under Investment section above.
NON-HOUSING
SERVICES
As stated in some of the paragraphs above the lack of available
accommodation and support services linked to accommodation hampers
service delivery to a number of our clients. The support services
that have been funded under the Supporting people programme are
often underfunded and fragmented in their delivery. Contracts
mean that the flexibility to develop services is hindered as reconfigurated
services are seen as new services, which cannot be funded and
existing services could have their funding questioned.
PUBLIC AGENCIES
Often there are to many agencies offering advise but not
able to provide what the client needs which is accommodation or
finance. The preventative agenda often leads to Homelessness being
delayed as opposed to dealing with the real problems of to many
agencies involved and fragmented, under resourced services being
available. The taking of responsibility is not always shared by
organisations.
| 
