Agenda item

To consider WBC’s initial and ongoing business, economic and operational housing response to the Covid-19 pandemic

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 9 to 18, which gave an update on the Council’s Business, Economic, and Operational Housing Response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Nigel Bailey attended the meeting to answer any Member queries.

The report outlined that Wokingham Borough Council’s business and economic (WBC’s) response had so far been very reactive, as when advice from the Government had been released suitable responses needed to be quickly and effectively implemented. WBC was part of the Berkshire recovery group, who were developing a strategic recovery plan across the Berkshire area. This would allow for a more pro-active approach to be carried out across the Berkshire area. WBC had engaged in a range of dialogue streams with its partners, which would be maintained and expanded going forwards. In addition, a business taskforce had been set up to work alongside businesses within the Borough.

Regarding operational housing, the report outlined that 13 additional properties had been taken over during the pandemic, and a number of hotels had been used as emergency accommodation. 28 rough sleepers, or those at risk of becoming rough sleepers, had been housed within 48 hours of WBC becoming aware of their situation. 4 individuals had lost contact with WBC, but there was no indication of harm and it was assumed that these individuals had moved on from the Borough. 2 rough sleepers had not taken up WBC’s offer of accommodation and WBC officers were in contact with these individuals to try and meet their needs and maintain a dialogue. The ‘Housing first’ strategy was starting imminently, which would help with WBC’s long term policy on addressing rough sleeping within the Borough.

During the ensuing discussion Members raised the following points and queries:

·           What work was being done to financially support the three Town Council’s within the Wokingham Borough? Response given – The officer in attendance had not been involved in this aspect of the pandemic response, and would ask that the relevant officers look into this issue. The wider action plan would incorporate the effects felt by Town and Parish Councils, and this would be shared with Members.

·           What response had been received thus far to the ‘Business Health Check’ offer? Response given – 159 responses had been received, to which 80 had received a direct follow up from WBC officers. The low response rate could be due to a number of reasons, including a fatigue of survey completion considering how many surveys were in circulation for businesses to complete. WBC had seen a similar response rate to neighbouring authorities, and the main group of businesses responding were within the retail and hospitality sector.

·           Why was Wokingham predicted to have a higher unemployment rate than other neighbouring authorities? Response given – It was predicted that there would be higher levels of unemployment across the Berkshire area due to several major business redundancy programmes. WBC was working alongside the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to ascertain why unemployment was predicted to be higher in these areas. Officers were watching closely as the furlough scheme came to a close over the coming months and would look to see what factors were driving unemployment in the area.

·           The Committee praised Nigel Bailey, his officers, and the wider finance team for getting the business and discretionary grants paid so quickly and efficiently.

·           What support was available to businesses to assist them with digital transformation? Response given – The business growth hub offered one to one conversations with businesses to cover a range of needs and requirements. Enabling businesses to embrace technology was a priority for both WBC and the LEP. Many businesses within the Borough now had a strong social media presence.

·           Why was Wokingham predicted to face a substantial hit to its GDP compared to other areas? Response given – This would need to be properly researched and assessed. New data from the LEP was expected shortly, which would give a greater insight into this issue.

·           What was the average business size that received a discretionary business grant? Response given – Data regarding this would be gathered and shared.

·           Was there sufficient funding to keep the rough sleeping strategy going? Response given – Relationships had been built up to allow a more coordinated response, such as meeting the needs of the rough sleepers in terms of their mental and physical wellbeing Funding was available for the next 2 to 3 years minimum.

·           How much grant funding was available for rough sleepers within the Borough? Response given – Officers would seek this information and feed back to the Committee Members.

·           Had more rough sleepers appeared in the Borough as a result of the pandemic? Response given – The strategy covered a wider group of people, including ‘sofa surfers’ and those at risk of becoming rough sleepers. True rough sleepers were a proportion of the full number of individuals in contact with WBC in order to provide support and housing.

·           With a potential rise in evictions expected once landlords were permitted to do so again, what steps were WBC taking to help support those effected? Response given – The team were gearing up to provide support to those who would require it. It was difficult to assess potential numbers until eviction notices were actually served, however WBC was working closely with landlords to gather information as soon as possible.

·           Would those in Council accommodation be at risk of eviction? Response given – Although Council housing could not be commented on, WBC’s housing companies were not looking to evict any tenants unless it was a last resort. The support network in place meant that there were relatively few evictions in Wokingham.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Nigel bailey be thanked for attending the Committee;

2)     The appropriate officers be liaised with regarding financial support for Town and parish Councils;

3)     The wider action plan be shared with Committee Members when available, and include a section on the impact faced by Town and parish Councils;

4)     Officers monitor unemployment within the Borough after the cessation of the furlough scheme, and assess what was driving the predicted high percentage of unemployment within the Borough;

5)     Officers assess why Wokingham’s GDP was predicted to suffer substantially, in conjunction with the LEP;

6)     Details on the average size of businesses that have received discretionary grant be shared with the Committee Members;

7)     Figures regarding the amount of grant funding made available for rough sleepers be provided to Committee Members;

8)     Officers liaise with housing companies to alleviate the risk of evictions after the August date for evictions passes, and update the Committee with any concerns regarding an influx of at risk persons as a result of eviction from private or Local Authority housing.