Housing Allocations Policy
Why we are consulting
We are currently conducting our scheduled review of the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy, and as part of this, the Council has a legal duty to consult with people affected by potential changes.
The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy is a document that sets out who is given priority for Council housing, and how the Council decide who to offer homes to. A brief overview of our current policy can be found on the Council’s website.
The review of our policy has been carried out with the Stirling Tenant’s Assembly, and has identified several potential changes to the Housing Allocation Policy that will help to make sure we’re able to meet our legal duties to support homeless households, as well as prevent homelessness where we can.
You can download our current policy, a summary of the key proposed changes to the policy and a copy of our most recent lettings analysis below.
We are running this survey to find out affected groups' views on potential changes, to help inform the decision we will make on changing the rules. Our aims and objectives with this consultation survey are:
- To inform people affected by the change of the evidence base for potential decisions, and to allow their views to be considered as part of the review process.
- To ensure that people affected by any potential changes have the opportunity to give their views on our changes.
- To meet our legal requirements when amending our Policy.
- To ensure that any decisions meet the requirements set out within the Equality Act.
Your feedback on our proposed changes will help us to make our final decision.
Phases
Results
We would like to thank everyone who took the time to contribute to this survey.
It received 368 responses from a range of parties including current tenants, those with open applications for housing, those accepted as homeless by the council and awaiting permanent rehousing, residents who are not directly affected by the housing policy, and organisations representing the interests of those affected by the policy.
Overall, the majority of respondents answered ‘yes’ to all questions except whether those on the strategic needs list should have to choose enough areas to give them a reasonable prospect of being rehoused. This question had a high level of non-response, and so interpretation of the findings from this question should be taken with care.
The only question that saw significant divergence in answer by group was whether, in relation to homeless applicants, the council make only one reasonable offer of housing to each household. 78% of respondents who had been accepted as homeless by the council but were awaiting permanent rehousing disagreed, while 70-81% of the other respondent groups agreed with the proposal.
The comment-based responses generally indicate that what the council considers reasonable needs to align with what applicants consider reasonable if ‘one reasonable offer’ is the route chosen. This includes taking into consideration factors including whether an area is considered safe for applicants in relation to issues like violence and risk of abuse; whether an area enables applicants to remain close to support networks (including family and friends), employment, and transport; and whether a property is of a high enough standard, including in relation to accessibility features and quality of furnishing. A number of comments related to ensuring that applicants accepted as homeless were treated with the same dignity as those receiving housing via other routes. This included giving these applicants a level of freedom of choice.