Agenda item

(1)  by Councillor Ian Selby

“That this Council amends the allocation policy so that it does not pursue a policy of housing young homeless people next to elderly residents and that an alternative housing provision is found instead for the young homeless.

Proposed by Councillor Ian Selby, Isaac Newton Ward

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Angeline Percival, Glen Eden Ward”

(2)  by Councillor Bob Sandall

“The Council supports the motion that no one individual should have the authority to sell any SKDC assets (e.g. land or buildings) without first consulting and taking account of the majority vote from a full Council meeting.  No matter what the value of the asset is.  (This does not apply to Council houses because of the right to buy.)”

(1)  Councillor Ian Selby

DECISION: To not support the motion proposed by Councillor Selby.

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor Selby:

“That this Council amends the allocation policy so that it does not pursue a policy of housing young homeless people next to elderly residents and that an alternative housing provision is found instead for the young homeless.

Proposed by Councillor Ian Selby, Isaac Newton Ward

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Angeline Percival, Glen Eden Ward”

Councillor Selby stated that he had submitted this motion because urgent action needed to be taken as a result of confrontation and anti-social behaviour created in the community as a result of housing young homeless people next to elderly residents.  He expressed concern for the residents in and around Newton Court, Colsterworth if the Council was going to pursue its policy of putting young people near the elderly.  His concerns were based on the experiences reported to him by other Councillors and elderly residents in other areas.  Whilst acknowledging that not all young people behaved anti-socially, their lifestyles were often incompatible with the needs of the elderly who wished to live in a more tranquil environment.  He suggested that an alternative housing provision should be found for the young homeless and cited as an example the St. Mathew’s housing association which also provided support for these tenants, or through the planning gain process.  Councillor Selby’s motion was met with support from a considerable number of members of the public who had attended the meeting.  The motion was seconded.

The Leader sought advice from officers on the legal and financial implications of Councillor Selby’s motion.  The Monitoring Officer stated that his general advice to the Council was that caution should be exercised if it was considering amending its current housing allocation policy on a district wide basis.  The Council had a statutory duty to house the homeless and could not restrict this obligation to housing people of a certain age or in certain places.  Such restrictions imposed upon a statutory duty would be challengeable in Court.  He pointed out that Housing Services already worked within a sensitive housing allocation policy which was part of the Council’s housing responsibilities.  The Director of Finance & Strategic Resources added that if it did not use its own housing stock for those presenting themselves as homeless, the Council would have to turn to the use of bed and breakfast accommodation.  This would be considerably more expensive and housing benefit would only pay a small proportion of these costs.

 The motion stimulated considerable debate on the difficult issue of balancing the Council’s legal obligations to the homeless and the welfare of other tenants and residents.  Comments were made on the desirability of integrating different age groups within a community but within a mix of suitable accommodation.  The stereotypical view of a homeless person being a rowdy drug addict was challenged and the point made that during consultation, residents had supported the proposal to de-designate warden controlled accommodation.  It was suggested that hysteria had been whipped up by the local media and that the real issue for the Council was to have strategies in place for housing those on low incomes.

Some members spoke about incidents in their wards where anti-social behaviour by young people had caused concern and anxiety for the elderly.  Having regard to the advice given by the Monitoring Officer concerning the risk that the Council could be challenged on discriminatory policy were it to agree to Councillor Selby’s motion, it was suggested that the correct means of addressing this issue was to combine sensitive allocations with rigorous implementation of the Council’s enforcement policies regarding anti-social behaviour.  After Councillor Selby was given an opportunity to respond to the speakers a request for a recorded vote was made but not supported.  A vote was then taken on the motion which was lost.

(2)  Councillor Bob Sandall

DECISION: To not support the motion proposed by Councillor Sandall.

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor Sandall:

“The Council supports the motion that no one individual should have the authority to sell any SKDC assets (e.g. land or buildings) without first consulting and taking account of the majority vote from a full Council meeting.  No matter what the value of the asset is. (This does not apply to Council houses because of the right to buy.)”

Councillor Sandall explained that his motion had been prompted by the recent decision made by one member to put up a Council building for sale.  He considered that it was undemocratic for just one member of the Council to be able to make a decision on the disposal of the Council’s assets.  Although the Cabinet system would still enable a portfolio holder to make an individual decision, if his motion today was carried and any future decision had to come before the Council, he suggested it might encourage the individual decision maker to think long and hard about disposing of any other asset.

In seconding the motion, a member referred to the recent issue about the disposal of the toilets at Star Lane, Stamford prompting this motion.  She suggested that any capital receipt from the sale of this property would be negligible compared to the benefits which could be obtained for the local community.  This same issue would apply to all the district; the Council was seeking short term gain at the cost of long term provision of amenities for the local population.  Several other members expressed support for the motion although it was pointed out this decision making structure was imposed on the Council through the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000. 

So as not to delay matters, it was proposed and seconded as an amendment that a value of £10,000 be set as the level above which the sale of an asset should be referred to the Council.  A call was then made for the motion to be put under Council procedure rule 14.11(c) which was carried following a vote.

A vote was then taken on the amendment to set a threshold of a value of £10,000 for an asset’s disposal being put to the Council.  This resulted in an equality of votes.  The Chairman exercised his casting vote against the amendment which resulted in the amendment being lost.

A vote was taken on the original motion which was also lost.