beta

You're viewing our new website - find out more

Publication - Research Publication

Consultation on a review of the Scottish Social Housing Charter: an analysis of responses

Published: 15 Nov 2016
Part of:
Housing, Research
ISBN:
9781786525833

Analysis of responses to the 2016 consultation on a review of the Scottish Social Housing Charter.

76 page PDF

649.5kB

76 page PDF

649.5kB

Contents
Consultation on a review of the Scottish Social Housing Charter: an analysis of responses
16. Other Customers: Gypsies/Travellers (Charter outcome 16)

76 page PDF

649.5kB

16. Other Customers: Gypsies/Travellers (Charter outcome 16)

GYPSIES/TRAVELLERS (Charter outcome 16)

Local councils and social landlords with responsibility for managing sites for Gypsies/Travellers should manage the sites so that sites are well maintained and managed.

Supporting Narrative

This outcome applies only to those councils and other social landlords that are responsible for managing these sites.

Question 15a): Would you keep this outcome exactly as it is or change it? Please explain your answer.

16.1 Of the 86 respondents who answered this question 58% considered that the outcome should remain exactly as it is; 28% thought it should change; and 14% did not know.

16.2 The largest categories of respondent had broadly similar views in their response to this question. Table 16.1 in Annex 2 provides a breakdown of views by category of respondent.

Views of those in favour of keeping the outcome as it is

16.3 Very few comments were made by those in favour of keeping the outcome as it is. A few respondents remarked that the outcome appeared to be reasonable and was clear and concise. One TRG stated that is was working well in their area.

Views of those in favour of changing the outcome

16.4 Several respondents questioned the need for this outcome at all, a few recommending that it be incorporated into the outcome on equalities, and others suggesting that gypsies/travellers could be addressed in the same way as other tenants across all of the outcomes. Clarity was requested on whether the other outcomes apply to this group.

16.5 Another recurring view was that the outcome is limited on detail and could be strengthened by referring to national standards for maintenance and management of such sites. Furthermore, the Scottish Human Rights Commission provided their view that the outcome appears to be comparatively weak in fulfilling the human rights of Gypsy/Traveller communities as it does not reflect the availability, accessibility or adequacy of sites for Gypsies/Travellers through maintenance or management.

16.6 Three respondents recommended that reference be made to the need to take into account the views of gypsies/travellers in the management of sites.

16.7 Three respondents argued for "safe" to be inserted to ensure health and safety considerations are covered.

16.8 Other comments are in Annex 3.

Question 15b): Please provide any suggestions on how we could improve the supporting narrative

16.9 Very little substantive comment was made on the supporting narrative. The most common view was that the narrative was relatively scant, and required more detail. A few respondents called for examples to be provided of what constitutes well maintained and managed. A local authority recommended expansion to refer to ensuring that gypsies/travellers are involved in planning site improvements and access to services. One view ( RSL) was that the narrative should be comparative in detail with that for other outcomes in order to demonstrate council and social landlord commitment.

16.10 A local authority requested a reference to satisfaction in the supporting narrative given that the associated indicator is based on this.


Contact