Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to a report, which sought to provide Members with an annual update in relation to the Selective Licensing Scheme within the Gainsborough South West Ward.

In presenting the report, Officers outlined the current position including the financial position and the approach to Enforcement.  The report also contained information on how the scheme was dealing with anti-social behaviour and, how compliance was being ensured    Future timescales associated with the project and the associated work being undertaken to reduce anti-social behaviour and ensure compliance were also shared with Members.

Debate ensued and Councillor Young as Ward Member was first to address the Committee and wished to re-iterate the comments he had made at the Overview and Scrutiny Meeting in November.

Councillor Young had advocated a Licensing Scheme in the area, he outlined the research he had undertaken and the other schemes visited.  He considered there were different ways of introducing such Schemes, some being tenant focused, some being housing standards focused.   Schemes in other areas, were by Year 2, reporting a difference with positive feedback from both residents and businesses.  The South West Ward Scheme was in Year 3 and it did not feel different, if anything he considered the area had further declined.  He circulated images from the area. Whilst he acknowledged the housing standards issues the scheme had identified were very important and the results the authority had had were excellent, the Scheme in its current form was lacking in tenant management.

The Scheme did not currently generate any surplus, surplus income could assist in paying for additional staffing resources, so that Officers could work outside of Officers hours as was the case in other areas with such Schemes.  The Ward Member considered dedicated resources were needed in the area for this type of enforcement.  He was of the view that over the next 12 months the scheme should be re-aligned with a shift from housing standards work to community enforcement.

In response Officers advised the Scheme was not permitted to generate a surplus, the legislation only permitted it to cover the cost of the licensing process. It was accepted that wider work could be looked at. The Executive Director Resources reminded members of the emerging Housing and Well-being agenda noting this work would assist in addressing the issues being raised by the Ward Councillors.

Councillor Rainsforth, as the other Ward Member, concurred with the view that anti-social behaviour within the area was getting worse, decent residents were suffering and we should no longer be accepting this.

Councillors acknowledged the significant amount of work Officers had undertaken and the positive benefits which had been realised.  Making use of the local Ward Member knowledge was encouraged and could not be ignored.

Clarification was sought and provided around the intention of recommendation 3.

Members were also mindful that the scheme needed to be considered in the wider regeneration context.  There was a need to engender civic pride and all of the issues reported in area were not directly as a result of housing.

Ward Members again addressed Committee and outlined the transient nature of the difficult elements of the community.  These residents did not originate from Gainsborough and had usually exhausted all of their housing options.  They were permitted to move from one property to the next causing the same issues.  Ward Members urged that the Authority start to collect tenant data not just landlord data.

In response to Members’ questions, Officers outlined what the review referred to in recommendation (d) would entail, noting the designation was until July 2021 and legislative requirements meant that the lead in time for any further designation was lengthy.  Responding to comments regarding tenant management, Officers were clear that from a housing perspective there were limited tools they could use to address the issues.  The Scheme to date had allowed for a considerable amount of enforcement action and work to be undertaken.  Officers were clear to Members when stating that three quarters less formal enforcement action would have taken place in the absence of the Scheme.  Furthermore, it was not the Council who were permitting this repeated behaviour.  These properties were private lease properties, not in the management of the Council.  The Council therefore had no control over the tenant selection.  If landlords continued to let properties, without being licensed, without the relevant references, without bonds etc, this was a business risk they were taking.  Ensuring compliance was therefore critical and landlords had to act responsibly.

The Ward Member suggested that schemes in other areas had acted as gate keepers for tenants.  Officers indicated they would welcome this information being shared as they were not aware of such Schemes.

The Executive Director of Resources again re-iterated the other projects which were under investigation in the area and would bring about some level of tenant management.

Following much discussion it was RESOLVED that:

(a)         the information contained within the report be noted;

(b)         the ongoing work being undertaken by the Selective Licensing Scheme be supported;

(c)          the Committee are assured that the Selective Licensing Scheme is operating effectively and as intended; and

(d)         Officers be commissioned to review the Scheme and consider future options available to the Council in respect of this matter.

Note:         Councillor Mandy Snee and Councillor Trevor Young requested their abstention against the above decision be recorded.

                   Councillor Tom Regis declared a personal interest in the above item of business as he was landlord of a property subject to a licence in another Authority’s area.