At yesterday’s cabinet meeting, the Homemove Action Group, representing a network of individuals and families struggling with housing insecurity, presented a powerful deputation. The group’s message was clear: Brighton and Hove’s Housing Allocations Policy needs urgent reform to address widespread issues in fairness, transparency, and responsiveness, particularly for young people, families, and those living with disabilities or neurodivergent conditions. With recent data revealing 36 homeless deaths in the city in 2023, the group emphasised the human cost of inaction.
The Homemove Action Group’s Deputation
The deputation, led by representatives from the Homemove Action Group, laid out a series of proposals and criticisms concerning the current state of housing policy in Brighton and Hove. The group’s concerns centred on three main areas:
1. Empathy and Urgency in Policy Reform:
The deputation highlighted the tragic findings from the Museum of Homelessness’ report, which revealed 36 homeless deaths in 2023, down slightly from 44 in 2022. They called for an empathetic and hopeful housing policy capable of delivering meaningful change for those struggling with housing insecurity. The group argued that the current approach is failing young people, care-experienced individuals, and families, who are disproportionately affected by the housing crisis.
2. Under-26-Year-Old Policy Proposal
The Homemove Action Group raised significant concerns about the impact of the housing crisis on young people, particularly those under 26. They argued that this age group faces unique barriers to accessing stable housing, such as high private rental costs, low disposable income, and a lack of affordable options. The deputation called for a policy change to grant automatic rights for all individuals under 26 to join the housing register, provided they meet the income, savings, and local connection requirements.
The rationale behind this proposal is that young people are disproportionately affected by housing insecurity, often resorting to sofa-surfing or staying in precarious living situations. The Homemove Action Group suggested that without a dedicated policy to support this demographic, the council would continue to fail the young residents of Brighton and Hove. The proposal included exploring flexible social housing solutions, such as co-living spaces, to accommodate young adults more effectively.
3. Living Room Exemptions for Families
Another key recommendation was the exemption of families with two or more children, as well as those with children living with physical, mental, or neurodivergent conditions, from the policy that allows living rooms to be used as bedrooms. The deputation argued that the current policy compromises the well-being and privacy of children, citing the Human Rights Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to support their stance. They emphasised that using living rooms as sleeping spaces should not be considered a long-term solution for overcrowding.
The Homemove Action Group proposed that the council accept medical documentation as sufficient proof to exempt families from this rule, streamlining the process and reducing bureaucratic delays. This approach would not only preserve the dignity of affected families but also ensure compliance with legal standards protecting children’s rights.
The deputation stressed that families with two or more children, and those with children living with physical, mental, or neurodivergent conditions, should be exempt from policies that permit living rooms to be used as bedrooms. They cited the Human Rights Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to argue that children’s well-being should be prioritised. They also called for a more nuanced approach to assessing non-physical mobility needs.
4. Transparency and Accountability:
The group demanded greater transparency in housing allocations, citing cases where properties seemingly disappeared from listings without explanation. They also criticised the consultation process as top-down and lacking adequate representation from the people most affected by housing issues. Proposals included the introduction of a Band A+ category for severe cases, reinstatement of Band A priority for families whose temporary accommodation is repossessed, and the creation of multi-agency review panels that include people with lived experience to oversee allocations decisions.
Councillor Williams’ Response
Councillor Williams, the council’s lead on housing, responded to the deputation with a series of points that aimed to address some of the group’s concerns but ultimately fell short of fully engaging with the specific proposals made:
Consultation Process and Engagement:
Williams noted that the council had undertaken a “meaningful consultation,” with 648 households participating. She acknowledged that the council extended the consultation period and held extra meetings to encourage engagement. However, the Homemove Action Group had criticised the consultation for not adequately representing younger residents and those facing homelessness, a concern that Williams did not directly address.
Legislative Constraints on Policy Flexibility:
Williams highlighted that the housing allocation policy is bound by statutory rules, which limit the council’s flexibility in making changes. While acknowledging that the policy does not solve the underlying issue of housing supply, she did not provide any specifics about plans to increase the number of available homes, a key demand from the deputation.
Incentives for Downsizing and Support for Non-Mobility Disabilities:
Williams pointed out that the new policy increases the incentives for downsizing and provides practical support to encourage people to free up larger family homes. She also mentioned that the policy accommodates non-mobility-related disabilities by allowing extra bedroom allocations based on medical evidence. However, this response did not address the deputation’s concerns about the lack of exemptions for families with children or the need for transparency around the medical assessment process.
Statutory Right to Review:
While Williams referred to the statutory right to review decisions under the Housing Act 1996, she did not respond to the suggestion for a multi-agency approach or the inclusion of people with lived experience in review panels. This omission left a significant gap in addressing the deputation’s call for a more humane and responsive policy.
Where Did the Council Fall Short?
Failed to respond to the Living Room Rules or Under 26 Year Old Policy.
1. Homeless Deaths and Empathetic Policy Reform
The Homemove Action Group’s appeal to recognise the 36 homeless deaths in 2023 as a sign of the urgent need for policy reform was a central point of the deputation. Yet, this was not substantively addressed by Williams. There was no acknowledgment of the connection between current policies and the fatalities, nor a commitment to investigate the root causes. The council’s failure to engage with this issue undermines the claim of being an “active listening council,” as it suggests a lack of empathy for the human impact of the housing crisis.
2. Consultation Process and Representation
Williams’ defence of the consultation process, citing the number of participants and the extra time allocated, did not address the group’s criticisms about the demographic makeup of respondents. The deputation had argued that the process lacked adequate input from those most affected, including young adults and homeless individuals. This was an opportunity for the council to commit to more inclusive consultation practices, but the response remained defensive rather than receptive.
3. Transparency in Housing Allocations
The deputation raised specific issues about the transparency of property listings and allocation decisions, such as disappearing properties and missing details in adverts. Williams’ response that the council aimed to make the system “as fair as we could” did not directly engage with these transparency concerns or commit to specific improvements, such as better public reporting of allocation outcomes or providing more comprehensive information in housing adverts.
4. Multi-Agency Review Panels and Lived Experience Inclusion
The call for multi-agency collaboration, inspired by the Serious Case Review for Oliver, aimed to prevent future tragedies and make the housing service more humane. Williams did not address this proposal or indicate any intention to involve people with lived experience in decision-making panels. This omission suggests a reluctance to embrace a more collaborative and inclusive approach to housing policy, contrary to the group’s recommendations.
5. Support for Families and Non-Physical Disabilities
The deputation’s call for exemptions for families with children and recognition of non-physical disabilities in mobility assessments was not fully addressed. While Williams acknowledged that the policy allows extra bedrooms for non-physical conditions based on medical evidence, she did not engage with the suggestion to exempt certain families from using living rooms as bedrooms or clarify the transparency of the assessment process.
The Path Forward: What Needs to Change?
For the council to live up to its “active listening” label, more comprehensive engagement with the Homemove Action Group’s recommendations is needed. This could include:
• A Clear Commitment to Policy Changes: The council should explicitly state whether it will consider adopting measures such as multi-agency review panels, Band A+ priority, and exemptions for families with children, with a timeline for implementing these changes.
• Addressing the Housing Supply Issue Head-On: While legislative constraints were cited, the council needs to provide a clear plan for increasing housing stock, including setting measurable targets for new builds, particularly family-sized homes.
• Improving Consultation Practices: Future consultations should actively seek the input of those most affected by housing policies, including young people and homeless individuals, to ensure the process reflects the experiences of all residents.
• Transparency and Accountability: The council should commit to publishing detailed data on housing allocations, property listings, and the outcomes of statutory reviews to build trust in the system.
Conclusion
Yesterday’s cabinet meeting was an important opportunity for the council to demonstrate a commitment to change in response to the Homemove Action Group’s well-documented concerns. However, the response from Councillor Williams largely failed to directly address many of the group’s key recommendations. If Brighton and Hove City Council truly aspires to be an “active listening council,” it must move beyond defending existing processes and demonstrate a willingness to engage with the difficult questions raised by residents who are living the reality of the housing crisis.
The path forward requires a shift from rhetoric to action, with policies that not only reflect empathy but also actively work to resolve the systemic issues that continue to leave many residents struggling.