Policy consultation outcomes

Impacted and consulted group

We invited all residents that had moved into an Arun District Council property in the six months prior to the survey, along with all residents that expressed a particular interest in taking part in policy consultation. We sent the invitation to approximately 90 residents.

Method

Residents were sent a survey comprising 8 questions, as well as a draft Void Management policy via email.

Response

We received 11 responses, which represents approximately a 12% response rate from the identified potential participants.

Key outcomes

• 72% of respondents said the policy is easy to understand
• 100% of respondents said it was clear what the policy is about. 
• We received 5 free text responses, mostly commenting on our current performance

Suggestions made and our response

• Residents requested we consider if any specific requirements should be added to consider the needs of sheltered housing residents, for example, retaining the installation of medical aids.
• Residents suggested including a timetable of void stages.

Both suggestions were not adopted in the final policy. Any specific requirement for sheltered housing residents would need to be considered on a individual case basis and potentially supported by a medical report. Further, a timetable of void stages is an internal procedural document.

Impacted and consulted group

We consulted all residents that had reported damp and mould to Arun District Council in the past 6 months, as well as all our involved residents and resident readers.

Method

Residents were sent a survey comprising 7 questions relating to a draft policy. 61 residents were sent a link to the survey via email as well as a copy of the draft policy. 

Response

16 residents responded, representing a 26% response rate.

Key outcomes

Over 80% of respondents said that the policy was easy to understand, with the remaining respondents being neutral. 100% of respondents said that it was clear what the policy was about.

Suggestions made and our response 

• To consider further examples of major and minor works. 

Further examples were not included as the list was not exhaustive and the most common examples were already included within the policy.

• To include information on clothes drying within properties

Information on damp and mould prevention is now available on our website: Damp, mould and condensation.

Impacted and consulted group

All residents could be affected both directly and indirectly by changes to this policy. This policy will not only effect pet owners, but also residents neighbouring pet owners.

Method

A survey was sent to all residents via both text and email. This was not a new policy, but a review of an existing policy, therefore we were able to also provide the existing document and seek views on this.

Response

We received 435 responses, which represents approximately a 12% response rate.

Key outcomes

• A promising 75% of respondents said that the policy was either easy or extremely easy to understand, with a further 19% answering neutrally. 
• 69% of our residents agree with the policy as it stands. 
• 71% of residents believe we should not allow large pets in flats and a similar amount (69%) believe large pets should only be allowed if there is a private garden.
• 58% of residents were unaware that a specialist cleaning company was required for pet waste.

Suggestions made and our response

We had a variety of suggestions and feedback from residents. Common themes included:

• There should be a limit to the number of pets allowed.
• Residents should demonstrate they are able to maintain their tenancy prior to being allowed a pet.
• Dogs should not necessarily be permitted in first floor flats or higher.
• Many believe pets should be automatically allowed due to the benefits for health and permission only revoked if they are unable to demonstrate responsible ownership.

We have amended our Pets Policy to state that permission for pet ownership will not be unreasonably withheld. We have outlined the conditions for when we will usually give permission and the number of pets we consider to be suitable. We also detail when we would withdraw permission for pet ownership. We are producing a Pet Ownership leaflet, that will be a useful guide and will answer frequently asked questions.

Impacted and consulted group

All residents will be affected by either Arun's team or their contractors needing to access their home at some point throughout their tenancy.

Method

A survey was sent to all residents via both text and email. We had written a proposed draft policy, and residents were given a link to this.

Response

We received 220 responses, which represents approximately 6% of our residents.

Key outcomes: 

• 76% of respondents said that the policy was either easy or extremely easy to understand, with a further 16% answering neutrally.
• 89% of respondents agreed that the policy is clear
• 88% of respondents agreed that the examples of time frames and when we'd need to access a property for welfare purposes were sufficient. 
• Overall, the policy scored a 4.72/6. (A scale of 1-6 is used, so that respondents that are in the middle of the scale are encouraged to answer either more positively or more negatively, rather than choosing a neutral middle option.)
• A score of 4.82 was attained for the statement "This policy provides reassurance to residents regarding when their landlord will need to access the resident's homes", with 54% of respondents giving it the top score of 6/6.

Suggestions made and our response

• Some residents felt the policy was quite lengthy.
• Some residents struggled to access the draft policy.
• To address concerns about the policy's length and complexity, we will develop a concise crib sheet that will summarise the key points of the policy on a single page for easier understanding and transparency for residents. 
• Additionally, we have launched a dedicated policy page on our website, ensuring residents can easily access all relevant policies. 
• We have committed to reviewing our standard letters to ensure they are fully aligned with the access policy and effectively communicate the necessary information to residents.  

Impacted and consulted group

All residents on introductory and secure tenancies. 

Method

The aforementioned group were invited to participate via both text and email.

Response

229 residents responded.

Key outcomes

• Residents thought the policy was largely easy to understand, with only 8% of respondents answering that it was quite difficult or extremely difficult. 
• 91% of residents agree with the policy and these figures are replicated across several of the questions.

Suggestions made and our response

• We learned that we could improve the information provided about the specific property and contents, particularly gifted items. We have incorporated a more detailed explanation of what gifted items are and how items will be handed over as part of the mutual exchange.  

Impacted and consulted group

Although many residents will not be affected or impacted; in order to limit the number of different communications residents receive, we decided to send the invitation to review this policy consultation along with another consultation. Therefore, all residents with an email address or mobile number were invited to participate.

Method

Residents were sent a survey comprising 17 questions, as well as a draft mobility scooter policy which was published on our website.

Response

We received 69 responses, which represents approximately 2% response from households. We also received an additional 3 responses through the corporate website feedback form.

Key outcomes

• 72% of respondents said the policy is easy to understand
• 91% of respondents said it was clear what the policy is about. 
• We received a considerable amount of free text comments to analyse, which was extremely helpful when revisiting the policy.

Suggestions made and our response

We have taken on board the concerns raised regarding storage and charging facilities, and have asked our Technical Services Manager to review the available storage at all age restricted blocks within our housing stock. Once we have that assessment in place, we will then review what upgrades or additional facilities are required for mobility vehicle storage use.

Concerns that were raised about mandated servicing and maintenance requirements have been downgraded to recommendations that align with gov.uk requirements.

Concerns regarding mandated insurance requirements have also been downgraded as a recommendation to any resident that has a mobility scooter.  This aligns with the guidance on the gov.uk website.  

Instead of mandating that permission is granted for every mobility scooter, this has been downgraded to asking residents to inform us of a mobility scooter within the household, as we will need to assess where you will be able to store and charge your vehicle to minimise any fire risks, for example making sure that escape routes aren't blocked and ensuring that where your vehicle is charged helps to contain any fires should there be a problem with batteries for example.

Instead of mandating training for mobility scooter use and maintenance, this has also been downgraded to a recommendation.

All of the above addresses the concerns raised regarding affordability of owning a mobility scooter. In addition, we will also be training our housing staff to assess where is best placed for storage and charging if vehicle stores are not available at the time of request. This will also help us to identify need in each residential block. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the input you gave us, as it has led to a significant rewrite of our policy.