Agenda and minutes

There were no members of the public and press present.

Councillor Burke declared a personal interest in Minute No. 149 (Member of the ALMO Board).

- report by Brian Marsh, Housing Strategy Manager

The Housing Strategy Manager submitted Rotherham’s Housing Strategy 2004-2007 which had been assessed by Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber and confirmed that it met the “Fit for Purpose” standard.  This achievement would contribute positively to the Council’s CPA score at the next assessment.

Production of a “Fit for Purpose” Housing Strategy must reach the Government’s defined standard by demonstrating that it met the needs of Rotherham whilst at the same time addressing regional and national priorities.  There were 10 specified criteria that must be met with a maximum score of 30 achieved in the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber’s assessment by scoring 3 for each element.  The 10 specified criteria that must be met are:-

§                     Demonstrates a corporate context

§                     Contributes to wider priorities

§                     Evidence of partnership working

§                     Based on Needs analysis

§                     Resources identified and allocated

§                     Priorities identified

§                     Options considered

§                     Action Plan produced to deliver

§                     Information on previous progress

§                     Accessibility to a wider audience.

In addition, 3 key national, regional and local documents formed the background to shaping the Housing Strategy:-

§                     Sustainable Communities:  Building for the Future

§                     Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Housing Strategy

§                     Rotherham’s Community Strategy

These, together with the South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder and the successful bid for ALMO status to achieve the Decent Homes target, had led to the setting of priorities and the development of the Housing Strategy.

Discussion ensued on the Strategy with the following points/issues raised:-

§                     As part of the process to achieve a 2* rating, the Excellence Plan had been updated to take account of the 2 separate assessments undertaken by the Audit Commission.  At the end of the year, the audited Performance Indicators showed that approximately 94% had been achieved.

§                     The purpose of the Strategy was to try and set down what the needs were for the future and look at the availability of the current types of houses. There needed to be a greater range of choice and diversity in the type of housing and one that reflected the changing population of Rotherham.  The Authority had an aging population and housing needs were changing in that area. 

§                     The money that would be drawn down from the ALMO when the 2* status was achieved, would not only bring properties up to the Decent Homes Standard but improve the environment around the properties. 

§                     The Decent Homes standard adopted by the Authority was higher than the standard set by Central Government.  The standard set in the Investment Plan for the ALMO would be higher again.

§                     The Audit Commission would only assess an ALMO when it had been operational for a minimum of 6 months in order for a proper judgement to be given on its management capabilities, delivery and overall governance arrangements.

§                     The Programme Area had a total Capital Programme in excess of £43M for improving homes not just in the public sector.  Part of that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

- report of Andrew Balchin, Head of Neighbourhood Development

The Head of Neighbourhood Development submitted a report proposing the model for performance monitoring and reporting arrangements to the Council by 2010 Rotherham Ltd.

A thorough benchmarking exercise had been undertaken involving a number of rounds 1 and 2 ALMOs whose performance reporting arrangements had matured over time and were considered by the Audit Commission to be effective.

The most recent ALMO Audit Commission Inspection Reports had been reviewed to ascertain current Housing Inspectorate thinking.  The inspection methodology had changed since the first 3 rounds of ALMO inspections and had seen the launch of Key Lines of Enquiry .  A detailed review of recent inspection reports had been undertaking including Sheffield Homes, Barnet Homes, Golden Gates – Warrington and Gateshead Housing Company. 

Following benchmarking, 3 reporting models had been drawn up as follows:-

Model 1

(a)        The ALMO reports performance to the ALMO Board and Area Boards

(b)        Cabinet Member is involved in decision making by scrutinising the ALMO’s performance at quarterly Cabinet Member meetings through reports from the ALMO’s Chief Executive

(c)        Scrutiny Panel scrutinise decisions made by the ALMO Board and Council Officers (including Cabinet Member).  Potentially overriding decisions already made by the ALMO Board.

Model 2

(a)        The ALMO reports performance to the ALMO Board and Area Boards.

(b)        Cabinet Member scrutinises performance of the ALMO at quarterly Cabinet meetings

(c)        Scrutiny not involved within the process and receives the performance report for information only.  Neighbourhood’s Audit Commission Relationship Manager suggests that there was a Scrutiny role as the ALMO was set up to deliver the Council’s housing objectives – the approach needed to be seamless in that it should follow on from the ALMO Board’s role in managing performance.

Model 3

(a)        The ALMO reports performance to the ALMO Board and Area Boards.]

(b)        Head of Neighbourhood Development and Cabinet Member are involved in assessing the performance of the ALMO, issuing written notices to the ALMO for compliance.  This is to be done through quarterly performance and financial reports from the ALMO’s Chief Executive.

(c)        Scrutiny Panel scrutinises Council Officers (including Cabinet Member) over the performance of the ALMO (CPA issues only) and other retained housing functions.  Scrutiny recommend actions to the ALMO  - Council Officers were accountable for improving performance overall.

Model 3 combined the best aspects of both reporting models and was similar to the model used in Sheffield (3 Stars) and Gateshead (excellent CPA rating for performance management).  Following discussion with other ALMOs, it had been identified as the preferred Model as it demonstrated arms-length.  There was clearly defined and structured accountability with the ALMO Board in charge of performance and the Council’s Scrutiny Panel adding value to the process by making recommendations for improvement.  This Model also appeared to fit the Council’s shared neighbourhood objectives thus ensuring that the ALMO was accountable to the Council through its contribution to the neighbourhood agenda.  The Model would have a positive impact on both Council and ALMO inspection ratings.

Discussion ensued on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

In accordance with Minute No. 194 of 21^st March, 2005, the Waste Strategy Manager submitted proposed revised prices for the collection and disposal of bulky items and special collections from households.

This was the first review of charges made for bulky items and special collections since 1^st May, 2003.  The effects of inflation and the Government increasing Landfill Tax from £14 per tonne to £18 per tonne during the 2 year period also demanded a review of the pricing structure.

It was proposed that the price charged to the customer for the collection of a standard bulky item, including refrigerators, be increased by £2.00 to £10.00.  This price meant that a standard bulky item collection was subsidised by the Council by £9.49 (52% of the cost).

A discounted price would be offered to Rothercard holders of 50% of the normal rate.

It was also proposed that the prices charged for the collection of larger orders and DIY items be increased in line with movement in inflation and Landfill Tax since the last review (Appendix 1 of the report submitted).

Discussion ensued on the report with the following comments made:-

§                     Those that were going to flytip would do so regardless of the charge.

§                     The charge was consistent with other authorities.

§                     The price increase should be publicised as well as the discount for Rothercard holders.

§                     Concern that flytipping had increased because of the charges for bulky item collection.

§                     Was collected flytipping segregated or taken straight to landfill?

Resolved:-  That the above comments be passed to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Environmental Services.

- minutes of meetings held on 14^th and 21^st March, 2005 (attached)

The Panel noted the decisions made under delegated powers by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Environmental Services held on 14^th and 21^st March, 2005.

LGA Fly Tipping Enforcement Conference held on 2^nd March, 2005

The Scrutiny Adviser submitted a report on the LGA Fly Tipping Enforcement Conference, held on 2^nd March, 2005, attended by Councillors McNeely (representing the Scrutiny Panel) and Swift (representing the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel).

The aim of the conference was to gather nationwide support for robust action against flytipping and looked at existing enforcement powers and the new powers proposed in Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

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

(2)  That a themed meeting be held on the subject of Fly Tipping Enforcement.

- visit to be held on 9^th May, 2005

The Scrutiny Adviser informed the Panel that arrangements had been made for interested Members to visit the Asylum Team on 9^th May, 2005.

- minutes of meeting held on 24^th March, 2005 (attached)

The minutes of the meeting held on 24^th March, 2005, were noted.

It was noted that the first meeting was to be held of the Anti-Social Behaviour Clients Review on 28^th April, 2005 (Minute No. 141 refers).

- minutes of meeting held on 11^th March, 2005 (attached)

The minutes of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee held on 11^th March, 2005, were noted.

Resolved:-  That the Head of Neighbourhood Development ascertain when an update would be submitted to the Panel on the development of the CPA framework particularly with regard to key lines of enquiry.

- minutes of meeting held on 30^th March, 2005

The Panel noted the minutes of the Asylum Seekers Working party held on 30^th March, 2005, attended by Councillors Sharman (in the Chair), Boyes and Ellis.

It was noted that the draft report would be issued to officers for their comments.

In response to a question raised by a Member, the Head of Housing Services reported that the decision to have a water meter fitted in a property was one for the tenant.    It was a decision for the Council as to whether the utility company was allowed to install them in all properties.