Consultation Report on use of council-owned homes as Temporary Accommodation

2 April 2026

Most respondents identified as local residents of Brighton & Hove, with several also mentioning experience of homelessness, being on the housing register, or working with vulnerable or homeless families. There is a strong trend of concern about homelessness and housing insecurity, with many expressing personal or professional insight into the challenges faced by those needing temporary accommodation.

A number of responses highlight direct experience with the inadequacies of current temporary or emergency accommodation, including issues with unsuitable facilities for families and those with disabilities or additional needs. Several respondents also note the long waits for permanent housing, with one person stating they have been bidding for 12 years.

There is broad support for making use of empty council homes as temporary accommodation, with the underlying sentiment that more needs to be done to address homelessness and make better use of available housing stock. Some respondents bring a professional perspective, such as council workers or charity trustees, reinforcing the need for practical solutions and highlighting the impact on vulnerable groups.

Overall, the main themes are concern about homelessness, frustration with the current system, and support for utilising empty council properties to provide immediate relief for those in need.

Overcrowding and unsuitable accommodation are the most common issues raised, with many families reporting multiple children sharing bedrooms, lack of privacy, and significant impacts on mental health. Many respondents mention children with autism, ADHD, or other additional needs, and the negative impact of overcrowding and unsuitable housing on their wellbeing.

Medical needs and disabilities are frequently cited, including mobility issues, chronic pain, and properties unsuitable for those with health conditions. Several mention the presence of damp, mould, or lack of basic amenities such as water and heating.

Displacement due to demolition, eviction, or landlord selling is a recurring theme, with respondents facing forced moves and uncertainty. Some highlight the impact on children’s schooling and stability.

Mental health concerns are widespread, often linked to overcrowding, unsuitable accommodation, and stress from housing insecurity.

Other issues mentioned include risk of homelessness anti-social behaviour domestic abuse and financial difficulties such as spare bedroom tax.

Overall, the responses show a high level of urgent need, with overcrowding, medical and mental health needs, displacement, and unsuitable housing being the most frequently cited reasons. Many families are struggling with the impact of these issues on their children and overall wellbeing.

Most respondents highlighted significant difficulties accessing health services due to their current temporary accommodation. The most common issues were related to mobility and location: several people reported being placed far from Brighton or in areas with poor transport links, making it hard to attend hospital or GP appointments. Mobility challenges were exacerbated by being housed on upper floors without lifts, which impacted both physical and mental health.

Mental health concerns were frequently mentioned, with respondents describing worsening symptoms due to unsuitable accommodation, lack of support, and traumatic environments. Overcrowding, noise, and unsafe conditions (including intimidation and violence) were also cited as barriers to accessing health services and maintaining wellbeing.

Other issues included lack of cooking facilities, poor internet connectivity (hindering telemedicine and communication with healthcare providers), and minimum living conditions. Some respondents noted that home visits by health professionals were feasible only when accommodation was not overcrowded.

Overall, the responses indicate that temporary accommodation often fails to meet the needs of people with mobility issues, mental health concerns, and those requiring regular access to health services, with location, accessibility, and safety being the most frequently cited barriers.

Most respondents expressed concern that the interim scheme will make it harder and take longer for them to secure permanent council housing, as it reduces the number of properties available for bidding. Many feel they are being pushed further down the queue, especially those who have already waited years or are in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation.

A significant number highlighted that temporary accommodation is stressful, insecure, and detrimental to mental health and family wellbeing. Some described long periods in temporary accommodation, overcrowding, and lack of stability for children.

Concerns about anti-social behaviour and drug use among temporary tenants were raised, with some reporting negative experiences and feeling unsafe. There is a perception that troubled tenants require more support than the community can provide.

Some respondents feel the scheme is unfair, with comments about queue jumping, prioritisation, and the need for more transparency and fairness in allocations. Some believe permanent housing should be prioritised for those who have waited longest or are already in temporary accommodation.

A minority of responses were positive or neutral, seeing the scheme as beneficial for those in urgent need or as a sensible short-term measure, but most still stressed the need for more permanent social housing.

A number of respondents are facing block demolitions and are worried about their ability to find new homes, especially with fewer properties available.

A smaller group said the scheme would have no impact on them or were unsure.

Overall, the dominant themes are frustration at longer waiting times, overcrowding, lack of permanent housing, negative experiences with temporary tenants, and calls for more fairness and transparency in the allocation process. Some also highlighted the need for increased social housing supply as the real solution.

Many respondents expressed frustration and concern that the interim scheme using empty council homes as temporary accommodation is unfair to those who have been waiting on the housing register for years, often bidding repeatedly without success. Many feel that priority should be given to those who have been waiting longest, are overcrowded, or have medical and mobility needs. There is widespread concern that the scheme will prolong waiting times and worsen conditions for existing applicants, especially families and disabled people.

Several respondents questioned why council homes are empty at all when so many are waiting, and called for all vacant properties to be allocated to those on the register rather than used for temporary accommodation. Some suggested that temporary accommodation should be reduced, with families moved into permanent homes instead.

Fairness and transparency in allocation were recurring themes, with calls for equality across the register, clear criteria, and published data on the scheme’s impact. Some respondents worried about people abusing the system or loopholes to gain quicker access to housing. There were also concerns about community safety, especially regarding temporary tenants with addictions or criminal backgrounds.

A number of responses highlighted the need to address broader housing issues, such as the prevalence of HMOs and student accommodation, the lack of affordable homes, and the importance of supporting downsizing among older residents to free up larger properties for families. Some also mentioned the impact on schools and local communities.

There were a few comments about the need for suitability assessments and better conditions in temporary accommodation, as well as concerns about high rents and mistreatment by landlords. Some respondents called for a complete overhaul of the allocation system to make it more efficient and responsive.

A minority of responses raised issues around prioritising local, English, or Brighton residents over migrants or asylum seekers.

Overall, the strongest trends are dissatisfaction with the scheme’s fairness, concern for those waiting longest or with urgent needs, calls for greater transparency, and a desire for permanent rather than temporary solutions.