Memorandum by Crewe and Nantwich Borough
Council (HOM 36)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Borough of Crewe and Nantwich is located
in South Cheshire. The two major towns within the Borough are
of differing character, Crewe being predominately a centre for
industry and commerce, and Nantwich a market town. The remainder
of the Borough is largely rural in character. A need for affordable
housing in Nantwich and rural areas of the Borough is already
recognised, and as property prices have continued to rise, it
is likely that this need now extends into the more urban areas
around Crewe. The Council transferred its housing stock to Wulvern
Housing in March 2003. Wulvern Housing manages the Council's waiting
list and homelessness services under the terms of an Agency Agreement.
2. OVERALL LEVEL
AND NATURE
OF NEED
FOR HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE
Overall, there is an increase in the number
of homelessness presentations for the Borough, but a large and
increasing proportion are found to be non-priority upon investigation.
In the last five quarters (commencing April 2003) there has been
a dramatic increase in homeless presentations from single males
and females under 25 years of age. A major cause of homelessness
in the Borough is loss of private sector accommodation when an
Assured Shorthold Tenancy comes to an end.
3. THE SUCCESS
OF POLICIES
MEETING THE
NEEDS OF
HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS
In general, the needs of families with dependent
children are recognised and addressed by Government policies and
homelessness legislation. Under the legislation, many single people
are not in priority need, so the assistance that can be offered
to them is limited, although the extension of priority need criteria
in the Homeless Act 2002 has enabled greater assistance to be
offered to specific groups of vulnerable single people. However,
homeless people within these groups often require appropriate
support as well as accommodation to enable them to access and
sustain long-term accommodation and avoid repeat homelessness.
Because of the current uncertainty of Supporting People funding
availability for new service development, it can be difficult
to develop support services to keep pace with this increased service
need. Where someone is found to be vulnerable and in priority
need, but intentionally homeless, the extent to which their needs
can be addressed is likely to be limited.
4. THE ADEQUACY
OF INVESTMENT
IN HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE AND
THE QUALITY
OF ACCOMMODATION
AVAILABLE FOR
THEM
The loss of properties through right to buy
has reduced social housing stock, and thus impacted upon the availability
and quality of housing available to homeless people. Locally,
some funds have been set aside for the development of affordable
housing and for improving temporary accommodation provision for
homeless households, but there is no specific investment programme
for homelessness. ODPM funding for tackling homelessness has proved
useful, but as this is awarded from year to year, it cannot be
counted on towards any long-term investment programme.
5. FACTORS AFFECTING
TO SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE HOMELESSNESS
ACT 2002
As I have indicated at 3 above, the present
limitations and uncertainties around Supporting People funding
have made it difficult to develop appropriately supported provision
to meet the needs of vulnerable homeless people as required by
the extended priority need criteria implemented in 2002
6. THE LOCATION
OF PROVISION
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE RELATIVE
TO WHERE
THEY LIVE
Every effort is made to house homeless people
close to their existing family, social and employment networks
wherever possible, but there are inevitable limitations imposed
by increasing housing demand and reduction of stock resulting
in part from right to buy. This is often most acute in rural areas.
There are pockets of low-demand housing within Crewe, but these
are not always suitable to the needs of homeless individuals.
Discussion with other agencies has indicated that there is also
an unmet need for appropriate accommodation for a small number
of homeless people who are very vulnerable or very challenging.
Specialist local provision for such small numbers is not viable,
but countywide or cross-authority provision is likely to be too
remote from the person's home area and support networks.
7. THE BALANCE
OF PUBLIC
INVESTMENT IN
HOUSING FOR
KEY WORKERS
AND HOMELESS
PEOPLE
It is difficult to comment on this issue, as
there is no key-worker scheme in operation locally at present.
8. PRIORITY FOR
THE HOMELESS
WITHIN THE
OVERALL ALLOCATION
OF SOCIAL
HOUSING
The local allocations policy gives a high points
allocation for homelessness, so effectively homeless households
have the greatest priority. Allocations are mainly made into LSVT
stock. Work is being undertaken with other Registered Social Landlords
(RSLs) to improve the nomination process and maximise access to
other social housing stock in the Borough.
9. ARE NON-HOUSING
SERVICES PROVIDED
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE ADEQUATE
AND CO
-ORDINATED WITH
HOUSING PROVISION
At a local level, this is patchy. While some
service providers in the area co-ordinate well with housing provision,
others have limited contact with housing providers and have proved
difficult to engage.
10. ARE PUBLIC
AGENCIES EFFECTIVE
IN PREVENTING
PEOPLE BECOMING
HOMELESS
At present, it appears that agencies concentrate
on the reactive use of the homelessness route to secure accommodation
for their clients, and the extent to which preventive work may
have been undertaken before this is unknown.
| 
