Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Monthly calendar > Election results by party > Agenda and minutes > Issue
This item was
chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones
Public Questions
A member of the public (representing ‘It Takes a City (Cambridge)’)
asked a question as set out below.
i.
Supported the strategy as it would help rough sleepers.
ii.
Asked the council to consider some additions to the Homelessness and
Rough Sleeper Strategy:
a.
Reduce rough sleeping target to zero.
b.
Collaborate with the public, private and third sectors.
c.
Could all partners jointly own the Strategy and share actions.
The Executive Councillor said he would be
happy to follow up with officers on how to develop the Strategy going forward.
Councillor Bick, speaking as a Ward Councillor raised the following
points:
i.
Welcomed the report and Strategy.
ii.
Was seeking a joined up approach to address issues.
iii.
The adoption of the street to home approach would
be of particular help to entrenched rough sleepers through support for
individuals by a link worker.
iv.
There was concern that the County Council would
close hostels, but they had stepped back from this. The County Council were
looking to work with the City Council to ensure a strategy was in place before
funding was withdrawn.
v.
The ambition was to reduce rough sleeping numbers,
but this would involve dealing with people with complicated issues who were
sometimes hard to engage.
vi.
The city was a magnet that attracted people to get
money for substance addictions, which stopped them getting homes and jobs. This
needed to be addressed to get to zero rough sleepers.
vii.
Members of the public wanted to help the homeless
community, but did not always know how to. Queried how to educate them and show
links to voluntary groups.
The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Signposted priorities in the Homelessness and Rough
Sleeper Strategy to address rough sleeping and the complicated issues
associated with it such as begging.
ii.
The Strategy was looking at advice, support and
enforcement actions that could be undertaken with partner organisations such as
the Police.
iii.
The public made enquiries about how to help people
seen begging:
a.
Ways to give education information (eg webpages)
were being reviewed.
b.
A future Communication Strategy was being
considered (with partner organisations) on how to do this.
The Committee gave a formal vote of thanks from to the
Housing Services Manager and colleagues for their work to tackle homelessness.
Matter for
Decision
The Council is required by law to produce a
Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. This requirement is provided for in
the Homelessness Act 2002 (as amended).
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the Homelessness and
Rough Sleeping Strategy (2021-26) and the year one and two action plan as
appended to the officer’s report
ii.
Delegated authority to the Head of
Housing to approve annual reiterations of the strategy action plans at years
3,4 and 5 of the strategy in consultation with the Executive Councillor
iii.
Agreed than an update on progress
made in delivering objectives outlined in this strategy was brought to Housing
Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Housing Services Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Many homeless women were ‘hidden’ as they sofa
surfed instead of living on the streets.
ii.
80% of rough sleepers were men and 20% were women,
so services were geared towards men.
iii.
Women were often homeless due to domestic abuse, so
were a vulnerable group, which should be reflected in the Strategy.
iv.
Separate male and female accommodation should be
provided in homeless accommodation.
v.
Queried how the LGBT community were affected by
homelessness.
vi.
There were people who resisted coming off the
street. Different solutions were needed to get people off the street and
address anti-social behaviour such as campfires and drug abuse.
vii.
The pods were a good idea. Queried if they could be
set up in all city wards. Asked Ward Councillors to recommend areas where pods
could be built.
The Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
There were many reasons why homeless figures
fluctuated such as inward migration. A target to achieve zero homeless people
could be set, but it would be hard to achieve.
ii.
Jimmy’s Homeless Shelter would provide an exceptions
report to show the rate of homelessness to the County Council who were
responsible for monitoring it.
iii.
The City Council would support people moving from
hostels to private rented or local authority housing.
iv.
One pod will be allocated specifically for a LGBT
person’s use. Officers would look at LGBT needs separately, this did not
require a change to the Officer’s recommendation.
v.
Homelessness was a wider issue than just rough
sleeping.
Councillor
Martinelli requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report :
This was amended by Councillor Sheil (with Councillor Martinelli
agreement) to:
2.3 Agree that an update on progress made
in delivering objectives outlined in this strategy is brought to Housing
Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.
The Committee unanimously
approved this additional recommendation.
The Committee resolved
unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations
as amended.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.