Purpose

On 12 May 2026, Cabinet approved a report (report no. 26/2026). This sets out a number of proposed changes to the Housing Allocation [lettings] Policy, in response to revised Government guidance and local operational requirements. The justification for the consultation draft is set out in the May report. Minute 6(b), “AUTHORISED the Strategic Director for Places, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for Adults and Health, to approve any changes that may be required to the revised Housing Allocation Policy as a result of consultation.” The public consultation (including consultation with Registered Providers of social housing) has now taken place between 1 June 2026 and 13 July 2026 involving an online questionnaire. The two representations received (one using the questionnaire) and Officer responses to these representations are set out in Appendix A of this Director Decision report. Recommended changes to the consultation draft of the Housing Allocation Policy are incorporated within Appendix B of this Director Decision report.

The reasons for the decision – i.e. the changes following consultation listed in Appendix A – are to make the most efficient and appropriate use of affordable housing for rent in Rutland and to bring our policy on local connection broadly in line with our neighbouring Leicestershire housing authorities in the run-up to local government reorganisation.

Decision

To approve the draft Housing Allocation Policy at Appendix B for the reasons outlined in the report.

Alternative options considered

The alternative options relevant to the consultation draft and the reasons why they were rejected are in report no. 26/2026. This Director Decision report contains the alternative options arising from the consultation responses received, with further information on this in Appendix A.

The alternative considered to the decision to adopt a two year headline qualification period for residence would have been to retain a one year qualification period. This, however, would not have made best use of the housing stock to meet primarily local housing need, nor would it have brought RCC policy closer to neighbouring Leicestershire authorities in the run-up to local government reorganisation.

The alternative to the decision to retain a one year headline qualification period for employment would have been to adopt a two year qualification period. However, this would not have been consistent with the consultation responses nor would it have brought RCC policy closer to neighbouring Leicestershire authorities in the run-up to local government reorganisation.