16/04/13…Councillor loses battle for review request of ‘bedroom tax’

A District Councillor, who was concerned about the effect of the government’s so-called ‘bedroom tax’ on particularly disabled people, has lost her bid for SODC to ask the government to review it.

Cllr Eleonor Hards put her motion to a recent meeting of the district council, asking that the council ‘by all means available’ make representations to the government to bring forward an early review of the tax which is to be brought in as part of the Welfare Reform Bill.

In putting forward her motion, Cllr Hards said: “It is becoming apparent that this under-occupation penalty will have a severe impact on members of our local communities particularly people with disabilities.?

According to the Minutes of the Council meeting held on February 21, a number of other councillors spoke in support of the motion saying that planned changes in allowances, which will reduce housing benefits for people who have a spare room, took no account of disabled people?s adapted homes and the possible need for a carer, of parents sharing custody who will lose the room for their child when visiting or of grandchildren visiting grandparents. Others pointed out that there was a shortage of smaller dwellings in the district to meet the demand.

Some councillors apparently felt that vulnerable residents would be forced to leave their neighbourhoods and support networks which could have the result of increasing the demand on the resources of social services. An early review would allow the unintended consequences of the proposal to be addressed.

According to the Minutes, those councillors opposing the motion spoke of the need to reform the current scheme to ensure a flexible and fair approach to the housing needs of residents. The housing benefit payable should reflect a person?s or family?s needs in terms of bedrooms required and not automatically cover the cost of the property. This system already operated within the private rental sector, it was said, and it was too early to undertake a review because the scheme was not yet in place.

It was explained that the government had allocated a