Report attached

It was stated that Havering Council’s use of hotel and nightly charged accommodation has created enormous pressure on the Council’s housing general fund budget. The average cost of emergency temporary accommodation had risen since 2021/22, from £73 per night to £81 per night. The increase in the average cost is not because of the use of hotels, but because of the use of a nightly charged property. This is an ordinary home in Havering or another part of London.

It was shown that the council has 230 households in hotel and nightly charged accommodation. The council successfully navigated exiting families out of chain hotels where a maximum stay is 2 weeks. The council has reduced the numbers of families with children in bed and breakfast hotels over 6 weeks (a statutory obligation) from 76 households to 15.

Attention was drawn to table 1, showing the number of households directly placed into temporary accommodation over the last four years (between 2020/21 and 2023/24). The number of households in hotels has risen from 123 to 485. The number in private sector leases has fallen from 23 to 2. The number in short-life accommodation has fallen from 23 to 1. The number in hostels has fallen from 147 to 15.

It was stated that London boroughs now spend more than £90 million per month on TA, up nearly 40% from a year earlier. It was said that increases in TA costs are being driven by four broad factors: increased demand, reduced supply, increased costs and insufficient funding.

It was shown that the number of properties on private sector lease contracts over the last four years has fallen from 840 in 2019/20 to 484 in 2024/25. This is partly due to landlords asking for their properties back. It was reported that the council is currently working through 71 outstanding handbacks.

It was stated that the three main reasons for homelessness are family and friends eviction, private rented eviction, and domestic abuse. Attention was drawn to the figures in table 6, showing the numbers of homeless approaches. Domestic abuse was increasing as a reason for homelessness, up to a total of 319 domestic abuse approaches in 2023/24. 

It was shown that the performance of the Find Your Own (rent deposit) Scheme has been decreasing since 2020/21.

It was reported that the cost of temporary accommodation is being affected by the lack of supply.

Without creating a pipeline to exit residents out of the current 230 hotel and nightly charged accommodation places, it was predicted that the number of emergency forms of accommodation required will rise from 293 in 2024/25 to 940 in 2026/27. With a pipeline, it would rise from 251 in 2024/24 to 253 in 2026/27.

It was reported that the council is currently in the process of securing a supply of 562 units and it is anticipated that the council will need another 700 properties to avoid facing the high profile risks identified in the report. These plans may include the following initiatives: private equity finance, office to residential conversions, pension fund property investments and new development opportunities for temporary accommodation.

Attention was drawn to table 13, showing the temporary accommodation pipelines planned, including the property Purchasing Scheme at Chalkhill (150 units), the Mother and Baby Unit, an open and fully occupied Royal Jubilee Court, a Family Welcome Centre, Notting Hill Genesis Joint Venture, and modular units.

A question was asked regarding the levers available to cooperate with other boroughs to make sure their placing of residents in Havering’s temporary accommodation doesn’t drive up the council’s costs. It was replied that IBAA arrangements regulate the rates boroughs should be paying when placing residents in another borough’s temporary accommodation. The IBAA framework has some flaws (eg. landlords playing boroughs off against each other). Collaborative conversations with other boroughs has led to the agreement of rates. Section 208 allows boroughs to communicate regarding the placement of residents. Havering has also participated in conversations at London Council meetings, at a pan-London level.

A question was asked regarding the impact of illegal migration, and whether the council or central government foots the bill for accommodating illegal immigrants. It was replied that the Home Office has a substantial estate across London. The issue doesn’t impact Havering directly, but it does indirectly, for example when support is provided to immigrants for health and education.

In response to a question about requirements for hotels to apply for a HMO licence if they have provided a certain amount of emergency temporary accommodation, it was stated that boroughs including Havering have tried and failed to make a hotel into a HMO. The law is complex on this issue. Chain hotels don’t want HMO status and don’t provide emergency temporary accommodation for more than two weeks. It was stated that Havering is a member of Setting the Standard, a London-wide inspection regime which inspects hotels to make sure they meet standards, and where they don’t, the council has the ability to coordinate activity to jointly not place in those hotels.

It was observed that as well as increasing and diversifying temporary accommodation, the council also needs to increase housing stock.

In response to a question about the support in place for residents in unsuitable accommodation, it was observed that Havering offers a trauma-informed service and has received funding to create psychologically-informed environments.

A question was asked regarding the number of households who are under-occupying their property, and what is being done about it. It was stated that about 110 households are registered as under-occupying their properties. One challenge is moving them into new properties further from their support networks. That 110 includes only those who’ve expressed an interest in moving, which is very small percentage of under-occupiers. The true number is probably over 1000, but the council doesn’t hold exact numbers on this. It was stated that every year, the council phone tenants over 70 and ask if they’ve considered downsizing. The council provide incentives and support to enable downsizing. The new allocation policy provides them with additional priority. Residents’ aversion to change can be an obstacle. It was observed that the council needs more 2/4/6 bed properties.

A question was asked regarding the development of accommodation for over-55s. It was replied that one such project has recently been finished, but there isn’t currently another in the pipeline. The council’s main demand is for family units (3 or 4 beds).

In response to a question about properties given back to owners where living standards have fallen short of letting standards, it was replied that the council does carry out work on such properties unless it is prohibited by cost.

A question was asked regarding the difficulty some residents have in finding a guarantor when seeking a property in the private sector, and whether the council can assist with this. It was replied that guarantors are generally with more established agents, who have their own vetting processes. But many agents and landlords accept residents without a guarantor. It was stated that the council also offers other incentives to landlords.

A question was asked about the reasons for seeking temporary accommodation, other than the main three included in the report. It was replied that other reasons include release from prison, hospitals, relationship breakdown, or undisclosed reasons.

The Director of Living Well agreed that these figures will be supplied to Councillor Stanton at a later date.

It was agreed that the sub-committee would arrange another opportunity for Darren Alexander to respond to any further questions.

The sub-committee made no recommendations on this first report under agenda item 6.

The second report under agenda item 6 concerns Temporary Modular Homes on Waterloo and Queen Street, and was delivered by Mark Butler.

It was stated that the modular housing proposal presents an opportunity to provide up to 18 families with stable homes, reducing the need for temporary hotel accommodation. This report set out the outline of the scheme, projected costs and delivery programme.

It was reported that the Council is proposing to introduce a scheme of 18 modular homes on part of the cleared site at Waterloo and Queen Street, on land scheduled for permanent development in approximately 5 to 7 years.

It was stated that the proposed development will consist of 14 two-bedroom homes and 4 three-bedroom homes, all fully equipped to accommodate families. The scheme will include some landscaping that enhances the development and improves the visual appeal of the area. There will also be five standard car-parking spaces.

It was reported that these modular homes are designed with a lifespan of up to 60 years and can be relocated up to five times if necessary, whilst retaining the supplier warranty.

It was stated that each unit is supplied at a cost of £200,000. Additional expenditure is required to provide the necessary site infrastructure, in addition to which it is proposed to apply cladding. It was said that faster construction reduces interim housing costs, and off-site manufacturing lowers per-unit expenses.

It was reported that the modular homes will provide modern, well-equipped spaces that are energy efficient and well insulated. Each unit can be relocated to smaller sites as required, and stacked up to three storeys, although it was only proposed to stack up to two storeys, and only on part of the site.

It was reported that positive feedback was received following meetings with planning officers during pre-application discussions. A specialist company, Better Delivery, was appointed by the Joint Venture to conduct extensive market testing.

It was reported that modular homes offer sustainability in the construction phase, by minimising waste and reducing carbon emissions. It was also said that they offer sustainability in use, including green technologies such as air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels. It was reported that there will also be built-in sprinkler systems.

It was envisaged that the modular units will be available for occupation in Autumn 2025.

A question was asked as to why this is being proposed when the cost of each home, including the additional costs, is similar to those on the open market. It was replied that some of that expenditure will be recovered through the avoidance of spending money on hotels, and some will be recovered in the remaining life of the unit.

In response to a question about whether an assessment exists to justify spending this money on modular homes because those on the open market are unaffordable, it was replied that these modular homes will be supplementary to, not instead of homes on the open market. It was described as an opportunity to use an under-utilised site.

A recommendation that the duration of the sub-committee meetings should not be limited by the facilities team was agreed.

The chair declared the meeting closed at 21:16.