Agenda item

The Cabinet Member for Housing presented the report.

 

As previously reported, SKDC’s Rough Sleeper initiative is delivered via the Change 4 Lincs (C4L) team which covers four local authority areas: South Kesteven District Council, North Kesteven District Council, West Lindsey District Council and South Holland District Council

 

The team is hosted by South Kesteven District Council and was created by each district council contributing their Rough Sleeper Initiative funding.

 

As of the 4th June 2025, South Kesteven District Council had 27 open cases and 4 individuals in temporary accommodation.

 

It was highlighted that rough sleeping had been more visible in Grantham more recently, with tents in public areas. It was confirmed that all individuals were known to the Council, though many had complex needs and had exhausted formal housing options.

 

·       Number of active Homelessness cases had risen to 304 in April 2025, from 294 in March 2025.

·       Numbers in temporary accommodation reduced to 59 in April 2025, from 73 in March 2025.

·       Numbers of nightly paid placements increased to 17 in April 2025, from 15 in March 2025.

 

To support the reduction of nightly paid placements, the Council had secured access to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in Grantham through a partner agency. This accommodation is now being fully utilised and has proven effective in helping meet temporary housing needs for individuals for whom other options are unsuitable.

 

Since the closure of the night shelter in Grantham on 28th February 2025 , discussions had continued with partner organisations to explore the option of operating the shelter on a year-round basis.

 

At the time of closure, demand for the shelter was low. However, with the recent increase in visible rough sleeping, there is a renewed sense that reinstating this provision may now be necessary. That said, many of those currently rough sleeping have either previously accessed the night shelter and been asked to leave due to their behaviours or declined the night shelter, raising uncertainty about whether reopening the facility would provide an effective solution to the current challenges.

 

The Council continued to support refugee resettlement through 31 properties, managed by SECRO. This includes 2 self-contained properties and 29 Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), collectively providing 128 bedspaces, 85 of which are currently occupied.

 

Councillor Matthew Bailey submitted the following questions:

 

1.How long does it take on average to assess if someone is Priority Needs after they identify themselves to the Council? I understand some of it is dependent on how long it takes someone to return evidence/paperwork, but do we have a ballpark number for how many days it generally takes? Could we look into any service improvements we could make to speed up this time?

 

2.SKDC had a successful partnership for a night shelter with the Ark over the winter which came to an end in February as outlined in the report. As the number of homeless has now increased by 50%, could we look at re-opening the facility either directly or with Ark? Has the SKDC property used for the night shelter been vacant since it closed in February?

 

In response to question 1, the Cabinet Member for Housing confirmed it takes 1 working day to make an assessment on an individual and determine whether they are Priority Needs.

 

The Head of Service (Housing) highlighted the initial assessment would request answers which could provide information on whether the Officer had reason to believe they were in priority need. If an individual was in priority need, they would fall into a certain category which would dictate what duties were owed to them, for example, children, pregnancy, victims of domestic abuse or vulnerability.

 

As part of the assessment, the Officer’s would assess whether the individual would be significantly more vulnerable than an ‘ordinary’ person if they were to become street homeless.

 

In response to question 2, the Council and the Ark had a positive working relationship. The Ark closed due to the winter coming to an end, meaning the facility was not being utilised, due to warmer weather. The Council were liaising with the Ark on re-opening of the facility.

 

The flats originally used as a night shelter were occupied and the community hall was used on an ad-hoc basis by residents, as it was prior to the night shelter opening. The night shelter would have to be manned by security at a cost alongside visits from Officer’s every morning and evening. It was felt that this would become a big expense, if only 2 individuals required the night shelter.

 

The Head of Service (Housing) clarified the Council had met with the Ark and discussions were ongoing based on cost. It was confirmed, a night shelter may be trialled to envisage the possible uptake of use.

 

One Member noted most parks in Grantham had a rough sleeper in a tent. Concern was raised on some behaviours of the rough sleepers, that was negatively impacting residents within proximity to the areas, especially The Paddock and Dysart Park in Grantham. The concerns raised from residents was around noise, anti-social behaviour, substance misuse and threats of violence.

 

A joint meeting was due to take place with the Police on 23 June 2025, to establish how the Council can legally and safely deal with the situation.

 

It was queried whether there could be a specialist scheme established for homeless individuals who may or may not want assistance from the Council.

 

The Council did not have the same responsibilities and legal powers as social services or the Police.  

 

The Committee were reassured of the Council’s homelessness team and Change4Lincs. A colleague was available on a daily basis on the Customer Service Desk for any homeless individuals to engage and communicate with the Council.

 

The Director of Housing confirmed that Officers were regularly visiting the parks in an attempt to ensure the homeless individuals were keeping the area safe and clean.

 

The Council’s Neighbourhood Team had offered to engage with the affected nearby residents on this matter and request clear reports of incidents and behaviours taking place.

 

A query was raised on whether Officer’s were able to identify any homeless individual that was a veteran, and whether they would be signposted to agencies under the covenant.

 

The Head of Service (Housing) confirmed a veteran would be established under an initial assessment, then signposted to the relevant agency.

 

It was queried as to how many beds and homeless individuals the Ark could hold when operational.

 

The Community Hall could previously hold 12 ‘pop-up’ beds comfortably.

 

In term of the priority needs assessment, it was questioned whether evidence would need to be in place prior to the completion of the assessment or retrospectively.

 

It was confirmed the information could be provided retrospectively. A vulnerability questionnaire would also be asked of an individual where a priority need may be identified and further evidence would be requested.

 

One Member raised whether the homeless individuals had access to other services such as Doctors, Dentists and use of electricity to charge a phone.

 

The Head of Service (Housing) confirmed the individuals may be accessing local services and charities to use electricity to charge a phone. The majority of individuals were registered at a Doctors or Dentist if they need to be, and the outreach would check this at first instance.

 

The Council’s duties and responsibilities were discussed, and it was hoped they could work in partnership with social services and the Police. One Member felt that following feedback from residents affected, in residents’ opinion it seemed as if the Council were doing little to combat the problem.

 

Members stated that they were informing residents affected by the matter, that the Council were doing all they could in exploring all options on such a complex matter of individuals with all types of needs.

 

A query was raised on complaints on anti-social behaviour and whether the Council felt they were receiving sufficient support from the Police.

 

The Head of Service (Public Protection) confirmed the Council were being supported by the Police, as a multi-agency approach. It was clarified that any noise related complaints should be dealt with by the Council’s Neighbourhood and Environmental Health team. Joint-patrols had taken place alongside Safer Streets.

 

A question was raised on whether the Council could solve the long-terms problem, during the winter months.

 

The Head of Service (Housing) clarified this would depend on engagement with the individuals and whether they wish to accept the help. The Council would continue to offer services available during winter months.  

 

The Committee noted the latest position of the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper services