Agenda item

(A report by Emily Spicer, Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services)

The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Councillor John Baxter, presented a report by the Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services, supported by the Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services and the Housing, Homelessness and Wellbeing Service Manager who were in attendance, which sought approval of the revised Housing Allocations Policy for Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council. The report explained that the policy had been reviewed in response to recent changes in national legislation and statutory guidance relating to social housing allocations, and to ensure that the shared policy remained legally compliant, transparent and fit for purpose.

Members were advised that a key driver for the review was the introduction of the Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Victims of Domestic Abuse and Care Leavers) (England) Regulations 2025, which required local authorities to remove local connection and residency requirements for specified groups. The revised policy therefore incorporated changes to ensure that victims of domestic abuse who needed to relocate, and care leavers up to the age of 25, could not be excluded from the housing register on the basis of local connection.

The report outlined a number of further amendments designed to clarify and strengthen the policy, including refinements to banding and priority, additional preference categories, financial capacity thresholds, housing?related debt provisions, and clearer guidance on sensitive and direct lettings. Members were advised that the review had taken a comprehensive approach rather than making isolated amendments, and had been informed by legal advice, consultation with the Portfolio Holder and engagement with internal and external stakeholders.

It was further noted that the revised policy had been considered by Overview and Scrutiny and that an Equality Impact Assessment had been undertaken as part of the review process.

The revised policy was welcomed, and the significant amount of work undertaken was acknowledged by the Portfolio Holder and officers to produce a clear, robust and legally compliant document. The complexity of balancing statutory requirements with local priorities and housing pressures was recognised, particularly given the high demand for social housing across both districts.

Members supported the changes required to comply with national legislation, noting the importance of ensuring that vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic abuse and care leavers, were not disadvantaged by local connection criteria. The introduction of clearer banding rules, additional preference categories and defined financial and debt thresholds was welcomed as a means of improving transparency and consistency in decision?making.

The discussion noted that the revised policy would provide clearer information for applicants and officers alike, helping to manage expectations while ensuring that housing need continued to be prioritised appropriately. Members also recognised that the policy would support more efficient assessment processes and improve the overall customer experience.

Members noted the importance of ongoing monitoring to ensure the policy operated as intended and continued to deliver fair outcomes, and welcomed the delegated authority for minor amendments to enable the policy to remain responsive to legislative or operational change.

Overall, Members agreed that the revised policy represented a balanced and thorough review, strengthening the framework for allocating social housing across Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council.

The recommendation was moved by Councillor John Baxter and seconded by Councillor Sandeep Ghosh.

Resolved:

1.    That the revised Housing Allocations Policy 2025 be approved; and

2.    That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder to make minor changes to the policy that would not require a consultation exercise as per legislation.