Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services, concerning the key recommendations from an independent review of the City of London’s Rough Sleeping services from Homeless Link.

The Committee received a presentation from Helen Lewis, Homeless Link, who provided the outcome of the independent review. The presentation provided an overview of overall findings, including service demand and service gaps; use of grant funding; partnerships and integration; and service impact. The presentation also covered the recommendations from the independent review.

Following the presentation, members of the Sub Committee asked questions and made comments, as follows:

A Member supported the need for immigration advice and highlighted his personal experience and challenges when attempting to gain tier 1 immigration advice for a rough sleeper, noting that City Advice - originally contracted to provide such support - no longer had the capacity or confidence to do so. The Member suggested reviewing the contract with Toynbee Hall to explore how the service could be reinstated and emphasised the urgency of addressing this issue, as many individuals with pre-settled status would see their leave expire in 2026. Officers acknowledged the critical importance and high demand for immigration advice across London as well as noting the significant lack of capacity. It was confirmed that officers were reviewing available funding to improve the services. City Advice were considering whether to strengthen existing service structures, highlighting the broader challenge of recruiting OISC-qualified advisers. Regarding the timing and urgency highlighted by the Member, the Officer confirmed that they will review the suggested deadlines and ensure that they are incorporated into the solutions.

A Member queried the suggestion that the demand for services might decrease and referred to the data from the NEL Regional Commissioning report which showed higher figures compared to other local authorities. Based on this, the Member referred to four areas highlighted within the recommendations: the Move On Team, a proposed 10-bed unit, immigration support and the use of healthcare data to inform service delivery. They also asked about collaboration with housing colleagues and whether homelessness and rough sleeping considerations could be integrated into upcoming regeneration and new build projects. The Member also asked about what priority rough sleepers receive on the housing waiting list, particularly in relation to allocations at Black Raven Court. Her final comment stressed the importance of engaging with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and urged that business should contribute financially to solutions regarding rough sleeping instead of just raising their concerns. The Officer agreed that issues such as the lack of staging posts and beds were recognised as weaknesses but noted that addressing them would depend on securing both revenue and capital funding, potentially through sub-regional collaboration. The Officer also highlighted the challenge of balancing outreach efforts between long-term rough sleepers and those passing through the City and suggested that greater impact could have been achieved by focusing on those consistently rough sleeping in the Square Mile.

The Member responded by emphasising that talks with developers during the early stages of new build projects presented a key opportunity to secure community contributions, such as through Section 106 funding or the provision of community space. They stressed that these considerations should be explored and embedded during the developmental stage, and not when plans are submitted. The Officer confirmed that he would discuss the suggestions with colleagues and relevant teams. 

A Member asked for more data regarding the proportion of rough sleepers who had been accepted by a statutory housing duty in recent years. The Officer agreed to provide this information and clarified that whilst the City Corporation had a duty to take homelessness applications, that this did not always result in a housing duty. They reassured Members that the statutory homelessness team was being temporarily expanded to increase capacity.

RESOLVED: - That the report be received and its contents noted.