It fell to Richard, as vice-chair of Sutton’s Housing, Economy and Business Committee, to make the case, when the Committee met on 18 June, for the scrutiny report prepared by the Committee on the Council’s procedures to deal with those about to become homeless.

Richard told the Committee that homelessness – being put in bed and breakfast accommodation often far from Sutton – is a terrible experience, especially for families. It can lead to people losing their jobs if they are too far away to travel back every day. It can lead to mental breakdown, marriage breakdown, and the disruption of the education of children. Our first priority is to avoid this, and it is not too much to ask landlords to wait a week or two in some cases before a property is vacated as a last effort is made to find somewhere else to live. 

The report commended the approach that the Council has traditionally used, and was implicitly critical of modifications to the procedure introduced in Feruary to respond to some criticisms of the approach that, the scrutiny report concluded, were not well founded.

This was the first scrutiny study undertaken by one of the Council’s subject committees established when governance arrangements were revised last year. The Committee studied a number of documents when it met on 19 March, and listened to a variety of views, from Council officers, from officers from a neighbouring authority (Croydon) and a landlord who voiced criticisms of the Council’s approach. It was evident from these documents that Sutton’s approach is identical to that of most, indeed almost all, London Boroughs.  

The report describes the procedures followed by the Council. To evict a tenant from a property a landlord has to go through a legal procedure with a number of steps commencing with a notice to quit and ending with the execution of a bailiff’s warrant.

 Richard, whose daughter works for the largest charity supporting the homeless in the West Midlands, commented:

“This is a procedure involving a private landlord and a private tenant, so it is worthwhile just reminding ourselves why the Council gets involved atall. This is because at the end of the procedure, if someone has no other accommodation and is homeless and in priority need, the obligation falls on the Council to find them accommodation. This usually means putting them in bed and breakfast accommodation, something that can be soul destroying for the family or individual concerned, and an expensive procedure involving costs that ultimately fall on our own Council tax payers.

So, the Council has a unit doing all in its power to assist those threatened with homelessness to find new accommodation. The report shows that in many cases they are successful, and that alternative accommodation is often found quite late in the eviction process. If they are not successful, at the end of the process the tenant will be put into bed and breakfast accommodation, but this is rightly regarded as a last resort to be undertaken when all else has failed. The process followed is described in Appendix A of the paper, and the first recommendation in the paper is to support the approach described, on the basis that this offers the best chance of minimising the numbers made homeless, thus minimising both the cost and human misery that homelessness involves, but correctly discharging the Council’s legal duties to those threatened with homelessness.

The criticisms of the approach, first voiced by Councillor Shields at a Council meeting, picked up by the local paper in the memorable but misleading headline “Council says wait till the bailiffs arrive”, and repeated by at least one landlord, appear to be that by waiting to the end of the process the Council runs the risk of upsetting landlords and thus discouraging landlords from working with the Council. It was also suggested that the tenants are disadvantaged by having a Court judgement against them. But the evidence in the paper (paragraphs 2.18 to 2.30) is that the Council maintains good relations with landlords, and that the Court judgement relates to possession of a property and does not affect the standing of the individual or family made homeless.

Officers told us, however, that for a period from February 2013 a modified approach was trialled, described in Appendix B, involving moving earlier to accept someone was homeless if it appeared that there was no realistic prospect of finding alternative accommodation. It is not often that, in assessing policy options, one can compare the outcome from two periods where different policies were tried. But the evidence in the paper (see paragraphs 2.16 and 3.8) is that the modified approach led to an increase in homelessness, as accommodation is often found for those threatened with homelessness quite late in the process.

So the recommendations support our continuing to follow the procedures described in Appendix A, but also call on officers to continue to work closely with landlords, keep the trends and statistics under review, and report back to us in due course.

Homelessness – being put in bed and breakfast accommodation often far from Sutton – is a terrible experience, especially for families. I know from my casework that it can lead to people losing their jobs if they are too far away to travel back every day, to mental breakdown, to marriage breakdown, and to the disruption of the education of children. Our first priority is to avoid this, and it is not too much to ask landlords to wait a further week or two in some cases before a property is vacated as a last effort is made to find somewhere else to live.”

Sutton parents need to ensure their children are immunised, as for many childhood immunisation programmes the figures for Sutton and Merton are the lowest in the country.

Care Minister Norman Lamb MP with Heather, launching Sutton South Hello!

The South Sutton, Cheam and Belmont Local Committee devoted half its meeting on 23 May, held at Christchurch in Christchurch Park, to discussing the “South Sutton Hello!” project and social isolation in the area. There were a number of presentations and themes for discussion, after an introduction by Heather as Chair of the Steering Group.

Heather reminded us that South Sutton Hello is an initiative to combat loneliness and isolation, supported by major local charities like AgeUK, Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Sutton Mental Health Foundation, and local residents’ Associations such as SSNA and the HRA. It is a non-political initiative with support from all political parties. 

It was aunched at Christchurch on 9 May by the Care Minister, Norman Lamb MP and is intended to be a pilot for similar initiatives elsewhere. Sutton South Ward chosen as on the basis Campaign to End Social Isolation toolkit, it is a ward where the risk of social isolation is particularly high:

–         the Ward has the highest proportion of over 65’s of any Ward in Sutton

–         the proportion over 85 is double the Sutton and national average

–         there are a large number of people living in sheltered accommodation for the elderly or in single occupancy flats

–         over three quarters of residents live in purpose-built blocks of flats

–         almost half of all households are single person households

–         but a quarter of residents in the Ward say they regularly volunteer in some capacity, so there is a high level of community activism.

The project has drawn together a listing of the various community initiatives in Sutton South, particularly those run by the churches and AgeUK. It has produced a first newsletter and will follow this up with more. There are a number of specific activities it has promoted:

–         the Wednesday “Hello Club” at Christchurch run by SCILL (Sutton Centre for Independent Living and Learning)

–         Chair based exercise classes organised by AgeUK for the Sutton and Surrey Senior Citizens Club

–         The “Second Saturday” social club for older people at the Friends’ Meeting House, where attendance has increased five fold since the project started promoting it.

AgeUK say there has been a 106% increase in callers from our Ward to its Information and Advice service since the project started promoting it. The project is seeking volunteers, particularly as befrienders. These are organised by the Sutton Centre for Independent Living and Learning. There is a phone number 0208 770 4065, or email information@scill.org.uk.

At its meeting, following the discussion, the Committee agreed the extension of controlled parking to Eastleigh Close, a project Richard has championed on behalf of the residents there, who have voted for it in successive consultation exercises.

The Commmittee also agreed to a proposal Richard made for additional “20mph” roundels in the road in the Sutton South 20mph area, to combat speeding.

Heather, Richard and Mary Burstow on the bench they donated to Richard Sharples Court

May the 20th. was the date Sutton Council held its “annual” Council meeting that elects the new Mayor and allocates Councillors to the various Council Committees. Richard and Heather are both continuing with the responsibilities they have had since last year – Heather as vice-chair of the Adult Social Services and Health Committee, Richard as vice-chair of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee.

Both have a variety of other appointments, many related to these main responsibilities. Heather is a member of the South West London Joint Health Scrutiny Committee and the Merton, Sutton and Surrey Joint Health Scrutiny Committee. She is also a member of the committee responsible for appointments of senior officers. Richard continues to chair the Sutton Joint Health and Safety Committee (“joint” with recognised trade unions) and is a member of the Standards Committee, the Scrutiny Committee and the Sutton Town Centre Partnership.

Sutton Council’s Development Control Committee strongly supported an appeal by Richard, at its meeting on 22 May, for stronger powers to be available to planning authorities to enforce planning decisions.

The Committee held a general discussion of the planning history of St. Jude’s nursing home in Mayfield Road, triggered by the latest planning application.

Richard pointed out to the Committee that there had been a succession of structures built in the small garden of the nursing home without the owner bothering to observe the requirements to apply in advance for planning permission. Some were still not in compliance with the planning permission obtained.

He argued that the basic problem was that planning law is weak in terms of the tools for enforcement provided to the authority, in contrast to the field he used to work in, health and safety, where enforcement can be direct and immediate. As a result it seems to residents that the developer acts with impunity and nothing is done. Enforcement is a slow process with numerous opportunities for appeals and delay available to the developer.

He mentioned to the Committee that, when elected in 2010, he arranged some meetings between the owner and local residents, which seemed to improve the atmosphere locally for a time. He was personally very disappointed that these had not sorted out the problems.

However, the Committee decided, with evident reluctance, that with regard to the particular small modification to an already extended building that was the subject of this particular application before them, there were no sound planning grounds to refuse it.