Thanet council plans to spend £38,762,000, across the financial years 2025/26 and 2026/27 to provide up to 170 new homes for households living out of area in temporary accommodation.
The aim is to bring families back to the isle to relieve the ‘enormous social, emotional, and financial strain of being placed out of area,’ says the council’s deputy leader and portfolio holder for housing Cllr Helen Whitehead.
The council has already bought, or is in the process of buying, new properties specifically for people in need of temporary homes in a bid to keep down costs to third-party providers and reduce the need to send people out of district.
These include Foy House in Margate, open since January 2023, a former guesthouse in Truro Road, Ramsgate which is undergoing works; 11 homes from developer Vistry at Westwood Point which are four two-bedroom properties and seven three-bedroom properties and six flats in Margate Road, Ramsgate.
The 170 proposed properties would be in addition to these and will be specifically for households that are currently living out of the area in temporary accommodation.
Temporary accommodation on and off the isle
At present, 303 households are living in temporary accommodation, 146 in Thanet and a further 157 out of the area, with some based as far away as Medway.
Since 1 April 2024, Thanet District Council has prevented 192 households from becoming homeless but there are still many that are in need.
The demand for temporary accommodation has increased consistently since 2012 and this is replicated on a national level. There has been a 30% increase in the number of households accepted as homeless by TDC since 2020.
The cost of temporary accommodation has also steadily increased in recent years, prompted by the shortage of affordable housing and the rising number of households finding themselves homeless.
Homes plan
Thanet council says the new scheme would result in an immediate initial annual saving of £114,000 and more than £1,000,000 per year saved by year 10.
The homes will be a mix of one, two and three bedroom properties. The council has not yet identified or approved the specific homes and projects for this programme, although officers do have a number of potential options to investigate.
Once the programme and funding are approved, detailed work on individual projects and acquisitions will be move forward.
The homes will be let at a social rent plus service charge rate and this will be covered by the Local Housing Allowance for those on housing benefits.
The proposed rent and service charges per week range from £115.84 for a one bed to £159.57 for a three-bed.
Cllr Whitehead, said: “The social, emotional, and financial strain for Thanet residents of being placed out of area is enormous. It is damaging for families and individuals, places strain on education placements and the management of health conditions, and this is why I have long argued for investment in in-house, local temporary accommodation.
“This was our priority before we became the administration; now we are in a position to ensure that we provide this level of support for residents, and do everything possible to grow our in-house provision, to ensure social and financial stability.
“The costs of out of area and external placements are financial as well as social, as demonstrated by the fact that an investment of this scale would stand to save £114,000 in the first year alone, with over £1,000,000 per year saved by year ten.
“In 2023/24, the council’s general fund incurred a £1.2 million net overspend due to the costs of temporary accommodation. Predicting the 2024/25 net overspend is challenging due to the fact that the need for temporary accommodation is based on demand; however, with the need for temporary accommodation consistently growing, here and across the country, we hope to improve the lives of our residents and reduce the costs of temporary accommodation through these planned acquisitions.
“The aim is to build on the success of the ambitious redevelopment of Foy House on Margate High Street and the potential of our new temporary accommodation acquisitions in Ramsgate and Broadstairs to reduce costs and improve outcomes for residents.
“If approved, this approach has the potential to reduce temporary accommodation costs in future years as a result of borrowing costs being fixed, whereas the cost of using third party, temporary accommodation providers would likely rise.
“People from Thanet need to be able to stay in Thanet. Creating temporary accommodation that ensures that people facing homelessness can stay in the district is vital to them being able to maintain work, school and family connections at a time when they’re most needed. “This embodies our ambitious and innovative approach to addressing housing need. Should it be approved, it will provide the council with a pathway to address a long-standing issue.”
The properties will be managed by the same Tenant and Leaseholder teams that look after the council’s social housing. There would also be a dedicated Temporary Accommodation Co-ordinator to support tenants while they remain in temporary accommodation and to help them move on to permanent housing.
The proposals will be considered by Cabinet at a meeting on Thursday 19 December.
Nationally there are now 117,450 households in temporary accommodation, including 145,800 children. This is a 12% increase from the same period last year.
Limited good news but this should have been done by previous Tory and Ukip councils, who didn’t give a stuff for homeless and destitute people. The numbers of homeless can now be reduced but it will take years to achieve and the councillors need to hold their nerves to bring this about.
No mention as to where the money comes from, in similar articles there’s usually a breakdown of grant, borrowing or council funding, anything in this instance ? Is specifically keeping these homes for emergency housing due to funding constraints or some other reason?
There is reference to social rents and service charge, which will be covered by LHA for those on benefits, will all the rents inc service charges ( for similar property types) be the same or are tenants not in receipt of benefits going to be paying more?
Is there not a risk of moral hazard if people can look to be effectively moving into social housing and avoiding the current waiting list? So encouraging people to seek ways in which to be in need of temporary housing , this negating any savings to the council.
I hope this government brings in legislation to prevent council / social housing being sold. The problems we have now are due to so much council housing having been sold at below market values. Time to stop that. Council rents are already far lower than market rents so there is no reason why those who rent should then be allowed to purchase at a discount. They already have the benefit of a “home for life”. If they want to own their own home do what the rest of us have done – work hard, save hard and buy your own.
It’s ok for you though jane, you own your home…yes.. the rest of us arnt that lucky…we do work hard and unfortunately won’t ever get to be on the property ladder
The deputy PM is taking steps to address this situation.
The maximum discount will be reduced from £102,000 to £16,000, for example.
Not before time.
An estimated 40% of Local Authority houses sold under the Right to Buy scheme are now being rented out by private landlords.
Scotland and Wales scrapped RtB years ago.
England should follow suit.
Does that 40% include the ginger rent a gob.
What a rude person Doris is.
You may think so, but many others would see it as an apt description.
Apt or not, it’s still rude. There are other, less coarse words which could have been used.
I love you,as well,darling
Doris sounds just like Peter Checksfield. I am far, far from even liking either of them.
You’re mistaken. As so often.
No.
Andrew – I wonder if our delightful deputy Prime Minister will repay her profit from selling her former council owned home! No of course not, nose deeply in trough as all politicians do.
You may think so, but many others would see it as an apt description.
Apologies, my device and the forum software seem to be at odds, 2nd time a post has gone in twice in different places.
And I detest Peter Checksfield.
I envy you. I wish my life was so empty and boring that I’d feel the to try to pick arguments online at 11:25 at night, but sadly I’ve far more pressing things to do. What a shame you don’t use that time a little more positively though, to – even occasionally – post comments of encouragement and praise to others.
Have a nice day.
I don’t think Peter and I will be losing any sleep,or have anxiety attacks,over you detesting us.In fact,I would feel nauseous,if you did like us.Which word do you find coarse ,by the way,Martha…ginger?
I didn’t.
But the current incumbents of TDC don’t care their blind political ideology triumphs over all, they’ll fall back on the council tax payer or central government emergency funding. ( think birmingham and the exceptional funding for the compensation over unfair pay, plus it was announced this week that scotland have given their councils the right to raise council tax as they see fit)
Rather looks as though central and local government are going to work to pauper us all if there’s any errors in their projections ( and we all know that tdc and financial decision making are not historically particularly good).
Their current love affair with work from home is causing a few issues, staff absences these days can’t be easily covered by bringing in temps etc as there’s little central office based working and so no oversight.
People witter on endlessly about the numbers of ex btl that are now with private landlords. This has only occurred because the original tenants who benefitted under rtb then decided to sell and found that their homes were not popular with people looking for a home of their own, ( which stems from the poor reputation of council homes/ estates) as a result the value of those homes was determined by the market which resulted in the best price being obtained from btl landlords. Whether anyone believes it was right in policy terms has nothing to do with market forces, but at least the owners could sell and move on in life.
As for the discounts , they merely reflected the actual value of a property with a lifetime tenant, that many of those properties didn’t achieve the expected full market value after may suggest that the discount wasn’t actually as big is it maybe should have been especially in respect of flats.
I too hope that the current government will end the “Right-to buy”.
All good and well spending all that money on more temporary homes for people on the waiting list and those who become homeless, but how about increasing the council homes portfolio so those in the temporary housing can move into permanent homes. I know people sent out of the area into poor quality flats who have been waiting years bidding on properties back in Thanet all to no avail.
Re-read the article and you will see that this is precisely what is being done. TDC buying 170 homes to bring people in temporary accommodation back to the area.
I 💖 Helen Whitehead
One of the few politicians who is both likeable and trustworthy.
Of course all the projected savings are entirely based on the scenario where the current or future Government doesn’t change the subsidy rules relating to Benefit payments on temporary accommodation cases.
Given the issues Councils are experiencing up and down the country with temporary accommodation costs I would think this is a huge project risk to TDC who could be left with a multi million pound debt and no ongoing savings to claw it back from.
I’m sure this has all been considered.
But the current incumbents of TDC don’t care their blind political ideology triumphs over all, they’ll fall back on the council tax payer or central government emergency funding. ( think birmingham and the exceptional funding for the compensation over unfair pay, plus it was announced this week that scotland have given their councils the right to raise council tax as they see fit)
Rather looks as though central and local government are going to work to pauper us all if there’s any errors in their projections ( and we all know that tdc and financial decision making are not historically particularly good).
Their current love affair with work from home is causing a few issues, staff absences these days can’t be easily covered by bringing in temps etc as there’s little central office based working and so no oversight.
Even if the rules change, TDC will still own the houses/flats it buys, which if necessary it can sell, rent at market or sub-market rates to local people through a housing company or if viable move into the HRA as permanent council homes, again attracting rent.
So… The aim is to bring families back to the isle?
TDC have been placing families from Thanet outside the area? All this whilst filling Thanet up with ‘Dross from London’ like it’s going out of fashion.
‘Useless’ Whitehead self-promoting again.
Far from useless Alex Peters, Cllr Whitehead has worked wonders along with officers to improve the situation for hundreds of local people desperate for affordable homes. This is local government at its best which does tend to upset certain political opponents or online trolls.
Sad but a true – oh dear. Local government at its best! I dread to think of Council Tax rise for 2025 that these local councillors will heap upon us to fund these schemes.
The scheme is cheaper than what TDC already has to pay out so it won’t lead to any increase in council tax. In any event TDC is limited to increasing council tax by 3%, which is about £7.90 per year extra for a band D property, or 15p a week. Most of your council tax is decided and received by KCC, who can and will add £80.50 to the same bill. TDC has no say in that, or the PCC, fire and rescue, or parish precepts which make up the rest of the bill.
Rick Everitt – council tax limited to 3%? I understood this limit was being or has been removed by the robbers currently masquerading as a government.
Are those that make these decisions going to make themselves personally liable if in the fullness of time there are overspends that have to be met and the savings vanish?
Do these purchases attract any grant funding? Or is the general fund effectively providing an alternative source of grant ? You say the properties could be sold if things go wrong on what sort of tenancies will the occupiers be and is there provision in law to evict them to sell the properties if needed?
“Dross from London”?!
MM Rees – and your point? London Boroughs will not be bothered in the slightest who they place in these homes. I will guarantee amongst these people will be undesirables seen through others eyes. Not everybody views our world via pink glasses and sees no wrong.
If there is more social housing this will also reduce housing benefit because social rents are lower than market rents.
Therefore building or in extremis buying houses for social rent makes economic sense.
Right to buy was always a political policy designed to make tory voters within red wall areas.
In the last 14 years other parts of the UK have either stopped or suspended rtb.England increased the discounts, even in the face of a housing crisis.
Rtb houses are often the best of the housing stock, and instead of being able to purchase replacement housing, councils have to pay down debt instead on the housing account.
Council tax will go up anyway, but not especially because of the housing account.
I welcome the positive posts about Ms Whitehead, who on the evidence of the last 18mths is at least addressing the problem of insufficient social housing in Thanet.
Err i think you’ve got your numbers a bit mixed up. Whilst older social housing stock may well be rented below local housing allowance rates and so offers a notional saving ( but in reality is no such thing when you factor in additional funding from central government for the likes of the decent homes standard).
The new housing the council is proposing is to be let at local housing allowance rates , so that the council gains the maximum from the benefit system in terms of rent. However within the temporary housing budget which falls undernthe general fund it isn’t clear if the general fund is picking up some of the bill as well, other than the overall cost there’s little detail, but seemingly the general fund will still be coughing up to fund these properties, no memtion of the general fund being refunded anything going forward, rather looks like a bit of creative accounting to boost the councils overall housing stock through the back door.
Those I find annoying are the people who live in the old council houses , who earn really good wages , can afford to buy their own property but choose to stay and collect handouts from the council and ( us) like new front doors , windows, kitchens and house maintenance. The people should be moved to allow those on the waiting list to move in.