Agenda and minutes

Approximately 25 members of the public were in attendance.

Pursuant to Minute No. 166 of 28^th February, 2005, further consideration was given to the report produced by Curtins Consulting Engineers and their structural assessment of the non-traditional Tarran houses in Maltby.  The Head of Neighbourhood Development drew attention to the consultants’ conclusions and the 4 options, together with associated costs, open to the Council.

The residents presented a reported prepared by themselves which queried the Council’s obligations and responsibilities.  They asked that the Council show no bias towards demolition and recommended that work be undertaken on 1 of the schemes presented by the independent consultants.  The majority of tenants  had stressed their desire to remain in their property  through the 1 to 1 consultation undertaken in Spring, 2004.  The Council had a duty to be open and honest as well as an obligation to ensure the current residents of the estate were treated in a fair and respectful manner.

The Chair invited Tarran residents to ask questions.  The following points were raised/clarified:-

§                     A decision could be made as to the future of the estate whilst the figures were being investigated by the Audit Commission.  If the Commission found that they were incorrect, a report would be submitted to the Cabinet Member.

§                     The Home Loss and Disturbance payments had been costed in accordance with advice from the Home Office.  The Legislation set out a discretionary range that local authorities could choose to pay and it had been costed at the current level Rotherham had chosen.

§                     The valuations undertaken were based on the open market value and not land as per the Audit Commission.

§                     The Council had requested the independent consultants to cost all 4 options to enable proper consideration to be given to the resources required.

§                     The Government Office had been asked if there would be any financial assistance available through the Regional Housing Board to assist with the properties.  No funds were currently available for this type of work.

§                     If agreement could not be reached with a tenant to end their tenancy action would be taken under the Housing Act to repossess the tenancy on grounds that the Council had made a decision for the future use of that property that did not involve the future use of tenancy.  However, there was a great deal of 1 to 1 negotiation.

§                     The report listed the properties that had been surveyed which provided a broad representative sample.

§                     When tenants left their property they could either take with them privately installed parts or be compensated for any improvements they had made.

§                     There was nothing in the proposals that contravened the tenants’ human rights.

§                     The Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder was limited to certain geographical areas of the Borough of which Maltby was not part.  The areas had been defined by a Central Government formula and part of a wider South Yorkshire Programme. 

In summing up, the Chair stated that she had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

- note the progress made

The Performance Champion submitted the Programme Area’s performance monitoring report for the 3^rd quarter of 2004/05.

At the end of the quarter 40 (89%) Key Performance Indicators were achieving their control target with action in place to ensure all the year end targets were achieved.  5 (11%) were not achieving their quarterly control targets.  At the same stage last year, 76% of the Indicators were on target.

The latest 2003/04 quartile data was released by the Audit Commission in January, 2005, which provided a more reliable picture of how performance compared with the best authorities.  Performance across the country was continually improving and encouraging that the Programme Area was maintaining pace with the top 25%.  When compared to the new All England figures, 6 Indicators were in the top quartile, compared to 5 in the last quarter.  The Indicator relating to rent collection had moved into the top quartile.

The area of significant improvement in the 3^rd quarter related to Neighbourhoods’ Local Public Service Agreement targets.  2 performance clinics during the quarter had been held to ensure that all the repairs Indicators were improved and were now back on target.

A comprehensive Learning and Development Plan had been developed to ensure that the ALMO made a positive contribution to the Council’s priorities from day 1. As such, the Plan had a key role to play in terms of risk management and providing sufficient insurance against potential dips in performance.

Discussion ensued on the performance measure for Anti-Social Behaviour and the need for it to be improved.  The Performance Champion stated that a suite of Key Performance Indicators had been developed in response to a Home Office report, Housing Inspection Recommendations and using the Audit Commission’s Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs).  Following consultation with customers, the KPIs developed reflected qualitative and outcome focused performance measures.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report and progress made be noted.

(2)  That the proposed measures for Anti-Social Behaviour be incorporated into the Key Performance Indicator Suite for 2005/06.

- to note the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th January, 2005

The minutes of the meeting of the above Group held on 4^th January, 2005 attended by Councillors Wyatt (in the Chair); Atkin, Austen Ellis and Littleboy were noted.

- to approve the increase in fees effective from 1^st April, 2005

The Manager and Registrar, Crematorium, submitted proposed fees and charges for cemeteries and the crematorium for 2005/06 in line with the budget setting process carried out by the Programme Area.

The proposed fees and charges shown at Appendix 1 of the report submitted represented an overall increase of 13.5% with the exception of cremation fees which had risen by 11.75%.  Currently Rotherham’s cremation fees were 2.5% below its benchmarked group and in line with neighbouring authorities.  Rotherham’s burial fees were 1.7% below its benchmarked group and in line with neighbouring authorities.

It was hoped to have completed the soft market testing exercise by 31^st March.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the fees, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report submitted, be approved and effective as from 1^st April, 2005.

(2)  That a report on the outcome of the soft market testing exercise be submitted to the Cabinet Member in April.

(The Chair authorised consideration of the following 2 items to enable the matters to be processed.)

- to consider the introduction of a Choice-Based Lettings Scheme from 4^th April, 2005

In accordance with Minute No. 43 of 30^th July, 2004, the Community Services Manager submitted a further report on the above.

It was proposed that both the Choice-Based Lettings scheme and the Property Shop be known as “Key Choices” which would operate from Norfolk House reception until suitable town centre premises were secured and fitted out.

The report outlined the work undertaken prior to its implementation which included:-

§                     Customer and stakeholder consultation exercises

§                     Branding and promotion of the scheme

§                     Policy and procedure guides

§                     Informing applicants how to access the service

§                     Addressing the needs of vulnerable and hard to reach applicants

§                     Aligning the service with the Corporate Access Strategy for the provision of customer services

§                     Customer involvement, staff training and partnership arrangements.

In addition to the “Key Choices” staffing arrangements who would support customers through the letting process, it was also possible to offer additional services.  There was a proposal that a Home Improvement Agency Service be established, to be known as “Rotherham Stay Put”, which would be an expansion of the services currently provided by Yorkshire Housing Foundation and Yorkshire Housing Group in Sheffield and Barnsley.  It was envisaged that it would either be based alongside “Key Choices” or drop-in sessions held throughout the week.

A consultation programme had started in July, 2004, and had included a timetable of awareness raising sessions including roadshows, presentations to support agencies and local newspaper articles.  Customer feedback had been positive and both customer and staff had shown an interest in the new scheme. The main concern highlighted by agencies and staff was the need to ensure that vulnerable and hard to reach groups were not excluded and that mechanisms were in place to support customers who may require help accessing the service.  To protect the interest of vulnerable people, Section 5 in the “Key Choices” lettings policy was dedicated to a support approach. 

Prior to the commencement of “Key Choices”, existing applicants would be automatically transferred to the scheme.  Communication regarding the change and an explanation as to how the new system worked would be sent out in advance of the commencement date.  A telephone help line would be operated to assist customers with queries regarding how to access the scheme.  The aim was for the Council, Housing Associations and private landlords who had homes to rent in Rotherham to work together to deliver the letting scheme.

The principles of the scheme included commitment to simplicity and transparency of processes.  It was imperative that in offering choice there was no negative impact on performance and to avoid this, the property advertisement cycle must commence during the 4 week notice period.  Applicants could register a preference for the property they were interested in.  To ensure there was a balance between need (Priority band) and choice (General band), a 50/50 approach allocation had to be undertaken.  This meant that every available home would be offered alternatively to priority and general applicants.  A full “Key Choices”  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

- to consider attendance

Resolved:-  That the Cabinet Member, Senior Adviser and a representative from the Environment Scrutiny Panel be authorised to attend the CIWM Annual International Conference and Exhibition to be held in Paignton on 14^th-17^th June, 2005.

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (business affairs of someone except the Council).

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of the Act of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (business affairs of someone except the Council).

The Head of Neighbourhood Development submit a report outlining the process taken in establishing the Board of Directors for 2010 Rotherham Ltd.

The Board would comprise 15 people with equal representation i.e. 5 tenants and/or leaseholders, 5 Council representatives and 5 independent community representatives.

The tenant representatives were selected following a process carried out by the Council Housing futures Group working with their Independent Tenant Advisor.  They were:-

Liz Booth, Clive Hartley, Anita Heaton, Keith Stringer and Harry Tooley

The Council representatives had been chosen by the Council.  They were:-

Councillors Austen, Burke, Dodson, License and Robinson

The independent representatives had been appointed following a national and local press campaign.  It was noted that Independent Board Members must be recommended by the Board to the Council for appointment.  The recommendations were:-

Delroy Beverley

Anthony Billingham

Robert Bloomer

Christopher Brown

Heather Jones

Resolved;-  (1)  That the progress made in establishing the Board of Directors for 2010 Rotherham Ltd be noted.

(2)  That the Cabinet be asked to recommend to Council the endorsement of the Shadow Board of 2010 Rotherham Ltd. recommendation on the appointment of Independent Members.