Item 8 - Appendix 1
West Dunbartonshire Council · 12 August 2026
Back to Housing & Communities Committee — 12 August 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Housing Services Consultation Summary Housing and Employability, Housing Development Person responsible: Kathryn Irvine, Senior Housing Development Officer Consultation Start date: Oct 2025 – January 2026 1. The name of consultation / participation exercise? Allocations Policy Review Consultation 2. Its aims and objectives? Our Housing Allocations Policy was reviewed and updated in 2022. It continues to largely reflects good practice and aims to meet demand within the constraints of a limited supply. We have however made a commitment made to carry out a review of the policy every 3 year, we are slightly overdue with this review therefore but that is in part due to the launch of the Shared Application Form with our RSL partners. The review provides the opportunity to improve the existing policy where possible so that it more adequately meets the needs of those in housing need, aligns with our Housing Solutions Strategy and takes into account of the Housing Scotland 2025 Act. 3. Who did you invite/include? (e.g. all tenants, tenant from the interested tenants register, RTOs, staff) • Tenants and Residents Groups and the WDTRO • All West Dunbartonshire Council tenants • Waiting list applicants • Local RSL’s • The West Dunbartonshire Equalities Forum • Housing Solutions Partnership Members • Elected Members. 4. What methods did you use to Text to all waiting list applicants with link to online survey. ITEM 8 - APPENDIX 1
Page 2
2 promote/invite stakeholders to get involved? (e.g. letters, posters, website) The Councils website and housing news were used to advertise the consultation. Survey link sent directly to the WDTRO, TRAs, Equalities Forum & Community Planning and the Housing Solutions Partnership members to encourage their participation. Paper copies were available from lead officer if needed. Attend Both WDTRO and Housing Solutions Partnership meetings to discuss and receive feedback. 5. Who actually took part? (Number of individuals and or number of tenant organisations represented) • Survey link text to all applicants • 1060 responses to survey • Elected members • WDTRO • Housing Solutions Partnership 6. What method(s) did you use to obtain their views? (e.g. focus/working group, newsletter, survey) Why did you choose this method(s)? • Online survey to gather views on specific proposals. Method chosen as seen as the best way to capture the views of as many respondents as possible • Method chosen as seen as the best way to capture the views of as many respondents as possible • Along with attending several in person meetings 7. What good practice or minimum standards can you evidence as part of your consultation? The consultation was promoted several times in different editions of the housing news, both informing tenants that it was coming up so to look out for it, and again when it was live. The consultation period lasted for 10 weeks, which is longer than the recommended 8 weeks as it coincided with the Christmas break. Plain English was used and the survey was promoted by text and online to make it as accessible as possible. Paper copies were also available.
Page 3
3 8. What was the outcome of the consultation? Feedback from the consultation showed that we had a good level of support for the majority of the proposed changes. The consultation results were as follows – Q1 - Which of the following best describes you. Reducing Reasonable Offers from 3 to 2. The first proposal was to reduce the number of reasonable offers permitted from 3 to 2. The benefits from this would be a reduction in voids times, rent loss and less time spent on abortive offers for staff. Q2 – 59% 35% 3% 2.5% 0.5% I live in West Dunbartonshire I am an applicant on West Dunbartonshire Councils Housing Waiting List I work for West Dunbartonshire Council Other I work for a partner organisation Which of the following best describes you 46%54% Were you aware of the current policy on the number of reasonable offers before this survey? No Yes
Page 4
4 Q3 - Suspending Offers to applicants with Medical A points if they have rent arrears. The second proposal was to suspend offers to applicants with Med A points if they have rent arrears. The benefits from this would mean the policy was fairer to all applicants who apply with this medical need and do not have arrears. 12% 20% 23% 22% 23% STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNSURE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Do you agree with the proposal to reduce the number of reasonable offers from 3 to 2 within a 12-month period?
Page 5
5 Q4 - Q5 - Encouraging tenants who are currently under occupying to downsize. The third proposal was to encourage tenants who are currently under occupying to downsize. Encouraging more of our own tenants to downsize will help free up much needed larger homes for families on our list who are overcrowded. 83% 17% Were you aware that Med A applicants with arrears could still receive offers before this survey? No Yes 18% 30% 27% 13% 12% STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNSURE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Do you agree with the suspending offers of housing to Medical A applicants with rent arrears and no repayment arrangement in place
Page 6
6 Q6 – Q7 - 179 196 281 651 101 Worry about packing up belongings Financial worries Loss of a garden / outside space All of the above Other What do you believe are the barriers to moving for those who are under occupying? 67%8% 25% Do you think we should prioritise our own existing tenants wishing to downsize with higher under occupation points Yes No Not Sure
Page 7
7 Allocating Properties to Homeowners on a Short Scottish Secure Tenancy (SSST). The fourth proposal was to only allocate properties to homeowners on a Short SST until they can safely access their owned property. The benefits for this are that it would align with other RSL partners in the area and ensure our policy is based on housing needs. Q8 – Q9 - 23% 42% 35% Do you think homeowners who can safely access their own home should still be eligible for permanent housing with the Council with a secure tenancy Yes No Not Sure 16% 40% 31% 8% 5% Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree Do you agree that homeowners who cannot access their own home safely should be allocated social housing temporarily on a Short Scottish Secure Tenancy
Page 8
8 Q10 - Changing the age limit for children of the same sex sharing a bedroom from 10 to 16. The fifth proposal was to change the age limit for children of the same sex sharing a bedroom from 10 to 16. The benefits of this would again align our policy with the DWP and partnering RSL’s in the area. Q11 - 73% 10% 17% Do you think if homeowners are allocated social housing on a permanent secure tenancy they should be required to sell their owned property Yes No Not Sure 7% 15% 12% 24% 42% Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree Do you agree with increasing the age at which children of the same sex are expected to share a bedroom from 10 to 16
Page 9
9 Q12 – Allowing only one additional bedroom for applicants with access agreements for children. The final proposal was to allow only one additional bedroom for applicants with access agreements for children. The benefits of this are to make best use of limited housing stock and avoid people living in homes that are predominantly underoccupied when we have large numbers of families on our lists who are overcrowded. Q13 - 14% 73% 13% Would this change affect your current or future housing needs Yes No Not Sure 18% 40% 25% 10% 7% Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree Do you agree with allowing only one additional bedroom for applicants who have formal access agreements for their children but whose children do not live with them permanently
Page 10
10 Q14 – 9. How did you feedback to participants the outcome? Following the Housing and Community Committee meeting we will highlight the outcome of the consultation and subsequent policy changes to tenants in a Housing News article and letters to waiting list applicants. 10. How did tenant involvement influence your consultation? Paper going to HAAC outlines the consultation results and the final Allocations Policy is based on the views of tenants, applicants and staff. Based on the participant feedback some proposals were not taken forward and some however, due to needing to maximize use of available stock we felt necessary still to proceed with. 11. Are you able to demonstrate this? Yes 12. How have you demonstrated to tenants that involvement made a difference? Yes, feedback from the consultation on the proposed changes fed into the draft policy that was developed. 13. Did you check with participants that they were happy with the opportunities given to make their views During attendance with the WDTRO the opportunities to be involved were covered and no feedback was received to indicate not happy so by default accepted as being happy as representatives of tenants. 11% 79% 10% Do you currently have an access agreement in place for your children Yes No Prefer not to say
Page 11
11 known and that they felt that we listened and acted upon them? What worked well, what didn’t work well – or any other comments you have. ..……………………………………………………………………………………………