Agenda and minutes

There were no questions from the member of public.

The Panel considered the possibility of “calling in” the decision of the Cabinet held on 25^th August (Minute No. 37 refers).  However, under the terms of the Constitution, a recommendation to the Council could not be called in.  A report on the restructuring of the Programme Area was to be submitted to the September meeting of this Scrutiny Panel where further consultation would take place on the renaming of the Programme Area.

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

- report of Head of Housing Services

The Executive Director of Housing and Environmental Services submitted a progress report on the Tenants’ Home Content Insurance Scheme.

The Scheme had commenced in July, 2002, with the appointment of AON as the broker and Norwich Union as the Scheme’s underwriter, to meet the need for a reasonably priced affordable policy that did not discriminate against tenants living in high risk areas. 

There were currently 1,299 tenants who held insurance through the Scheme – 6% of all tenants.  The Scheme offered a flat rate across the Borough irrespective of postcode with two different policies; the standard policy and the accidental damage policy.  There was a different rate for those over the age of 60.

The benefits of the Scheme were actively publicised by advertising on the rent card, repairs slip, in Open House and by mail shots.  Negotiations were ongoing with Rotherham Connect to have them telephone canvass potential new customers and the possibility of widening the Scheme to include those tenants who had exercised the Right to Buy was to be explored with AON.

Discussion ensued on the Scheme with the following points made:-

·                    Housing Benefit Regulations did not cover the cost of tenants’ contents insurance

·                    It was contents insurance only and not the building with the same level of cover provided for those over the age of 60

·                    Leaflets advertising the Scheme were included in the Introduction Packs

·                    Adverts were to be included on the plasma screens in Council reception areas.

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

(2)  That the project plan be submitted to this Scrutiny Panel when appropriate.

(3)  That copies of the leaflets advertising the Scheme be supplied to Members of the Scrutiny Panel.

(4)  That the Scrutiny Panel’s best wishes for the Scheme’s future success be noted.

- report of Head of Environmental Health

The Head of Environmental Health reported that, in accordance with the Environment Act 1995, the Council was to declare new Air Quality Management Areas in areas of poor air quality identified along Fitzwilliam Road, Wellgate and Wortley Road in Kimberworth before 31^st August, 2004.

The Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs had recently accepted the Council’s findings of the Detailed Assessment of Air Quality which was completed by the deadline of 30^th April, 2004.  A three month consultation was then allowed for determining the most appropriate boundaries.  The Planning and Transportation Service was consulted as road traffic on Local Authority controlled roads was the major source of pollution.

Further monitoring was to be carried out and an action plan produced as to what the Local Authority and local communities could do to reduce the particular pollutants.

Discussion took place with the following points made:-

·                    The Air Quality Management Area did not give the Authority any additional powers.  The Authority had powers to stop and test vehicles and such exercises were conducted in conjunction with the Police and Inspectors. 

·                    There was close working between Environmental Health and Planning.

·                    The Declaration was the start of the process of raising the public’s perception.

·                    It was a balance between regeneration/social regeneration and the environment.

·                    Extensive work still took place between Rotherham and Sheffield with regard to migratory pollution.

It was noted that the action plan would be submitted in 12 months’ time.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the declaration of 4 Air Quality Management Areas be noted.

(2)  That an update report be submitted to a future meeting on the effect of the Decent Homes Programme on sulphur dioxide emissions in Brampton.

- report of the Review Group presented by Councillor Hall

Councillor Hall presented the final report of the Scrutiny Review Group set up to review fly tipping following concerns that fly tipping was having a negative impact on the quality of life for residents and tenants across the Borough.

The review looked at the current arrangements within the Council for reporting fly tipping and the response to such reports, how responsibilities were shared across the Council and whether resources were adequate to meet demand.  Representations were taken from the Environment Agency, EnCams, the Cabinet Members for Housing and Environmental Services and Economic and Development Services as well as officers from the 2 Programme Areas and Green Spaces in Education, Culture and Leisure.

The report had been issued to Audit Commission’s Inspectors on 11^th August.

A summary of the Review Group’s findings and recommendations was set out in the report.

Discussion took place on the Review Group’s investigation/findings with the following comments made:-

·                    The Bulky Items Collection Service charged £8 for 3 items, extra items such as window frames were charged at £22 for 3 items with a further £22 for each subsequent item.  Sheffield and Barnsley did not charge for such a service.  The Executive Director of Housing and Environmental Services undertook to investigate this issue.

·                    Explore the possibility of involving Rotherham Furniture Plus with regard to the recycling of white goods.

·                    The need to publicise the fact that members of the public could purchase vouchers for household recycling sites to enable them to use trailers.

·                    Almost all Regulations came from Europe.  If the Government failed to meets its direct target of “Diversion from Waste” it would be fined.  The Government had already indicated that the fine would be passed onto local authorities.

·                    A meeting should be set up with Magistrates to discuss the level of fines for the perpetrators of fly tipping.

The Executive Director reported that correspondence had recently been received from DEFRA praising the Authority on its approach to recycling.  Rotherham was one of the Authorities that had exceeded the 10% target and had been recognised nationally for its performance.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Review Group’s report and findings be received.

(2)  That the report be forwarded to the Corporate Management Team to identify the risk/benefits of implementing the proposals.

(3)  That the Corporate Management Team respond with their comments to the October meeting of this Scrutiny Panel for consideration.

- report of Head of Housing Services

The Executive Director of Housing and Environmental Services submitted a report on the options and implications for disinvestments in non-traditional and miscellaneous acquired dwellings owned and managed by the Council.

The average costs of refurbishment of such properties were 2.33 times higher than the cost of traditionally built properties which represented a major barrier to the Council’s objective of achieving the Decent Homes Standard for 100% of its housing stock by 2010.

There were several options available and the complexity of the stock would require more than one solution to ensure the best consideration for the Council was achieved where stock was disposed of or demolished whilst at the same time ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet demand.  The following may all have a role to play in achieving the long term disinvestments in stock:-

·                    Demolition

·                    Transfer to RSLs (trickle or total transfer)

·                    Disposal of vacant dwellings (RSL or open market)

·                    Incentives to existing occupiers to purchase (enhanced Right to Buy package)

There was a need for a clear policy to dispose of the miscellaneous properties to minimise rent loss.  Many of the properties fell within the Market Renewal Pathfinder Area and the potential to investigate support for the future refurbishment of miscellaneous properties.

An action plan and timetable had to be prepared setting out the best course of action for all sites by 2010.

Concern was expressed that when the Option Appraisal Group had met with the Cabinet Member, as part of the ALMO consultation, last year the recommendation for proceeding with the ALMO bid was “all stock”.  One of the options proposed was the transfer of properties to a RSL (trickle or total transfer).  

The Executive Director stated that the Authority had to submit a business plan to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to draw down funding.  Not only had the Council to demonstrate value for money, they would be asked what they wanted to leave as a legacy in terms of quality buildings for the future.  It was a sensitive issue that needed to be considered but mindful of the value for money issue.

The Programme Area had to go back to the Option Appraisal Group on the issues raised and sheltered provision but also around issues where it was thought very high costs may bring down the whole business plan for the ALMO.

Resolved:-  That the development of plans to disinvest in non-traditional and miscellaneous acquired stock be supported. H

The Panel noted the decisions made under delegated powers by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Environmental Services held on 30^th July and 6^th August, 2004.

Arising from Minute No. 38 (Repairs and Maintenance Service Improvement Plan) it was noted that the Excellence Plan was to be submitted to this Scrutiny Panel.

Arising from Minute No. 43 (Choice Based Lettings) it was noted that the report was to be submitted to this Scrutiny Panel.

Arising from Minute No. 54 (Restructuring of the Programme Area), the Scrutiny Panel required consultation on the issue of changing the Programme Area’s name to “Neighbourhoods”.  It was noted that a report was to be submitted to the Panel’s September meeting where further debate would take place on this issue.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29^th July, 2004, were noted.

The Chairman reported that a training session would be held for Scrutiny Panel Members on the performance report in September.  Members would be contacted in due course.