Tracy Hendren, Housing Services Manager, Emma Congerton, Senior Housing Needs Officer and representatives from Housing Solutions to be present at the Forum to discuss this item.

Jill Caress, Housing Solutions, explained that Housing Solutions bought the housing stock in Maidenhead from the Council and had just over 3,000 properties in their portfolio. Some had been adapted, and in the last 20 years or so they had been building new homes which were a combination of adapted houses for various disabilities and specific units for older people. Newer housing, where Housing Solutions had some control, was being built for lifetime needs but some units were acquired from developers so some new stock had suitable access for disabled visitors but not all. Jill Caress acknowledged that Housing Solutions tries to adapt their housing stock and applies for grants or funds up to £10,000 for adaptations themselves. They have adapted a lot of housing stock into wheelchair accessible units.

Jill Caress confirmed that Housing Solutions does not have inhouse occupational therapists and so work with the council’s therapists or private occupational therapists if they are employed by the resident directly. The reason for this is because Housing Solutions works across several local authorities and some of those LAs did not accept recommendations from the inhouse occupational therapists, and so whilst having that inhouse resource had been useful they have discontinued it and the process is quite long as a result. Some of the new-build housing is disabled-friendly, however the communal areas were not and parking is an issue.

The Chairman said it appeared that disabled access seemed to be an afterthought. Jill Caress said there was a need for casual parking for carers and medical staff, and that needed addressing. The Chairman asked who kept the list of people requiring adapted housing. Shaqila Ahmed, Housing Solutions, confirmed they kept their own list for transferring tenants, however if a homeless person was referred by the council then the council would hold that list.

Charlie Baker, RBWM Housing Services, confirmed that the council held the list for those over the age of 18 years. The council also received referrals from Optalis and then a joint assessment was carried out. The service was going online and so that would help to find suitable properties where adaptations were needed. The Housing Team also worked with Achieving for Children to support care-leavers. The council received applications from individuals as well as referrals and the Team would be made aware of someone requiring housing through referring agents. The council was always open to adapting and improving the process for a system that made it better. Robin Pemberton enquired if disability adaptation grants were still available and Charlie Baker confirmed the council still dealt with those.

Jill Caress acknowledged that the issue was when a property, previously adapted for use by a disabled tenant, became vacant but there was no one at the time on the housing list who could make use of the adaptations. In these instances the property had to then be allocated to someone without those particular needs.

Jill Caress explained that they were unable to house mobility-restricted people on upper floors in flats or apartments in case there was a fire or the lifts were out of service. She also had to ensure the whole building was user-friendly, not just the flat. Jill Caress stated they always tried to house people on the ground floor, particularly if there was only one lift. The Chairman commented that the whole of the Nicholson’s site was to be retail on the ground floor so that would prevent disabled people from being housed there. Jill Caress responded there would need to be an evacuation plan for disabled people before it could be considered.

Shaqila Ahmed, Housing Solutions, acknowledged that communal doors were heavy so some disabled people were unable to use them, so even a ground floor flat may not be suitable. The Chairman asked if there was any way that the Housing Solutions team could meet with the council’s Planning team to try and overcome some of the issues. Jill Caress responded that with developer-led schemes they already had planning consent, meaning that Housing Solutions had very little influence. A lot was done when Housing Solutions developed their own schemes but they were very happy to work with the council to try and improve things. Housing Solutions had just received planning consent for Harrow Lane and that would be built to lifetime homes standard and would be 23 flats in two blocks. Regarding private-led developments, the Chairman queried if there was a way council Planning services could influence what was provided by the development. Councillor Coppinger confirmed they could only make developers do what planning law dictates. The council could influence as much as it could and some developers were more approachable than others. The Chairman stated that the fundamental problem was ensuring facilities allowed carers and medical staff access to their clients. Jill Caress agreed and added it was a very difficult area, especially in the Town Centre.

Councillor Coppinger acknowledged that the work Housing Solutions had done with families on the Brill House development made the scheme work. The scheme was designed so that people who wanted to stay together could live on the ground floor together, and upstairs there were five self-contained flats for people with learning difficulties. Two shared-ownership units were also on the site. By the time the people had moved in they knew the place quite well and it was what they wanted.