« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Current position
167. Local authorities consistently reported that the key issue in meeting 2012 is the availability and accessibility of permanent social lets. This issue was generally highlighted in the context of broader pressures on the supply of affordable housing in their areas. The main barriers to increasing supply are land availability and cost; planning and infrastructure constraints; and the effect of Right to Buy. Rural councils reported particular issues relating to the location of accommodation; higher construction costs; and the second homes market. These issues are discussed in further detail in the report of the 2012 Homelessness Support Project.
168. The Ministerial Statement on the Abolition of Priority Need, published by the then Scottish Executive, set out the factors which should be taken into account in assessing capacity to meet the target of abolishing the priority need distinction by 2012. The primary indicators were identified as: the impact on social lets; temporary accommodation; sustainability of solutions; and progress towards the Scottish Housing Quality Standard ( SHQS). Secondary indicators were: voids management; support needs; hidden homelessness; and preventative activity. Local authorities were asked to comment on their position against these indicators through the local outcome agreements and progress reports for 2006/07.
169. Local authorities have also been set interim targets for 2009, based on making a 50% reduction in the proportion of homeless households assessed as 'non-priority' from a baseline of 2003-04. The current position in terms of progress towards these targets is attached at Appendix B. This shows that:
- Three local authorities - Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire and Midlothian - have already met the interim target;
- Eight local authorities are moving in the opposite direction to the target, i.e. the proportion of homeless cases assessed as in priority need was less in 2006/7 than compared to the baseline year in 2003/4. It is of particular concern that 5 of these authorities have most to do to reach the 2009 target; and
- In order to meet the interim target by 31 March 2009:
- 12 local authorities would need to increase the proportion of homeless cases assessed as in priority need by up to five percentage points per annum;
- 15 local authorities would need to increase the proportion of homeless cases assessed as in priority need by between five and less than ten percentage points per annum; and
- Two local authorities - Orkney and Moray - need an annual uplift in excess of ten percentage points per annum.
170. Local authorities were given flexibility to devise a local approach to meeting the interim target. From the local outcome agreements and progress reports for 2006/7 there were 11 authorities who had yet to reach a clear decision as to how to progress towards the interim target or who had not stated the method in the report. Of these, 4 were clear that this is due to a desire to maintain good outcomes for those currently assessed as having a priority need in circumstances where access to appropriate accommodation and support is challenging. Others are considering options in conjunction with neighbouring authorities.
171. 13 local authorities reported that they will proceed, or were actively considering proceeding, on the basis of extending priority need to particular age groups or to particular age groups and other categories of applicant. Other categories include non-resident parents, people who have experienced marital breakdown, people with addictions and people leaving institutions. Four authorities were focussing on more sensitive assessments of vulnerability or relying on continuation of current trends to meet their interim target. Angus Council have opted for the 'big bang' approach and have removed the priority need test altogether.
172. Communities Scotland has begun to comment on local authorities' planning for 2012 as part of the inspection process. Inspectors have found that while some councils are planning strategically to help them achieve the targets for 2009 and 2012, others are not yet doing so. Inspectors recognised the real pressures for some authorities in terms of supply, and found evidence that this had impacted on the priority given to prevention work by some Councils. However, councils had not always factored in the likely impact of prevention work and the subsequent reductions in demand for accommodation into their planning assumptions.
« Previous | Contents | Next »