Agenda and minutes

Robin Walker, Performance Management Officer, presented the submitted report which outlined the Key Performance Indicator results and efficiency projections for the third quarter of 2008/09.

At the end of the quarter, 13 (72%) Key Performance Indicators were currently on track to achieve their year end targets.  This was a deterioration from 90% last year.  The 5 Indicators currently not on target were:-

2010 Rotherham Ltd.

-           BV212 Empty property relet times

-           NM72 Urgent repairs completed in time

-           BV211a Programmed/Responsive repairs

Neighbourhoods

-           NI156 Number of households in temporary accommodation

-           NI160 Overall satisfaction with the landlord service

The Council’s financial management system was identifying rent lost as a result of voids of £948,000.  Based on current performance, the Housing Revenue Account was forecasting a loss of income of £1.26M compared to £1.1M at the end of the last quarter.

Discussion ensued on the report with the following issues highlighted:-

o             100 void properties were now going through the Decent Homes Programmes reducing the total to 300

o             Contributory factors to the deterioration in the letting of voids included improvements in quality and customer care

o             2010’s Performance Committee monitored void performance

o             A voids performance recovery plan was in place with performance having consecutively improved since

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

(2)  That 2010 Rotherham Ltd. submit to the next meeting a report on the remedial action taken on the Indicators that had deteriorated.

Nisar Ahmed, Interim Finance Manager, Neighbourhoods, submitted a report setting out details of the progress on the 2008/09 Housing Investment Programme (HIP) for the period to 15^th January 2009, which totalled £56.422m (71.40%) of the approved Programme.

The Programme was divided into 2 sections, those schemes managed by 2010 Rotherham Ltd. (£66.863M) and those managed by the Council (£12.156M).

2010 Rotherham Ltd Managed Schemes

To date, 2010 managed schemes had incurred expenditure of £51.413M (76.89%).

They had indicated there was a potential risk of an additional £216,000 expenditure on the windows budget due to an increase in the number of windows that needed to be fitted.  They would seek to minimise the potential financial risk and manage spending within the overall programme to offset any impact.

Flood costs had been finalised at £0.149M and was contained within the overall budget managed by 2010 Rotherham Ltd.

RMBC Managed Schemes

To date, £5.009m (41.21%) of the Programme had been spent.

Several of the larger schemes had had little or no expenditure as yet, but most were projecting to be on target by the end of the year. 

To support the Approved Programme, resources totally £79.011M were originally identified. Receipts from Right to buy contributed to the total with a total of 22 sales to the end of October, 2008.  There was a risk that if there were no more Right to Buy sales, there could be a £0.906M shortfall in resources.

Discussion ensued on the ringfenced Capital Receipts from sale of HRA land.  It was noted that £1.4M had already been used for the non-traditional properties at Chesterhill Avenue with still a considerable number of such properties throughout the Borough.

Work was required on how the current Programmes could be contained within the current budget with 2010 having to carry out a similar exercise and prioritise their Capital spend.

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

(2)  That the Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods instruct 2010 Rotherham Ltd. to reprioritise their spending in the Housing Investment Programme to bring the budget in line.

(3)  That proposals to bring spending in line with the budget available be submitted to a future meeting.

Further to Minute No. 84 of 29^th September, 2008, the Director of Independent Living reported on the outcomes of the consultation that had taken place on proposals to discontinue the provision of guest bedrooms, increase the cost of using the laundry and to introduce a protocol for charges and use of the centres by tenants, residents and other stakeholders.

Consultation had commenced in November 2008 and was delivered by the Neighbourhood Centre Manager. A letter explaining what the consultation process would involve was sent to every tenant in sheltered accommodation with on-site communal facilities together with 49 consultation meetings held in Neighbourhood Centres to offer tenants the opportunity to express their opinions. The response to the questionnaire was positive with 746 questionnaires returned. Overall attendance at the meetings was good, enabling lively discussions around the future use of the Neighbourhood Centres.

Overall, the response to the proposed changes was extremely encouraging. The vast majority of respondents agreed to the following proposals:

·              the centres being hired to other groups at times where there is no regular tenant activity.

·              allowing the centre activities to involve the wider community with sensitivity to be taken into account in relation to activities such as grandchildren’s parties and activities involving young people.

·              non-residents should be allowed to join in the regular activities as many tenants felt that activities would cease without their involvement.

However, concerns raised included:-

-              Increased use of the centres may lead to more noise, parking problems and security issues

-              Charging non-residents for the use of the centres, either by a regular weekly charge, or on a “pay as you go” basis

-              Mixed response to the conversion of guest bedroom.  Some felt it was an important part of their Tenancy Agreement and, if a tenant was ill, family could stay.  However, usage did not reflect this

-              Although 51% were in favour of an increase in laundry charges, some felt that the proposed rise from 10p to £1 was too large in 1 step.

Based on the above, it was proposed that:

• The protocol in Appendix 1 be introduced from 6^th April 2009. The Neighbourhood Centre Manager should work with the Wardens on every single scheme and establish where the pay-as-you-go approach should be introduced, and how the income collected would be safely deposited and accounted for. This included identifying those non-residents who would be willing to pay the weekly charge for full use of the buildings and making appropriate payment arrangements.

• That laundry charges be increased from 6^th April 2009 from 10p per wash and 10p per dry to 50p, and from April 2010, this should be increased to £1 per wash and £1 per dry.

• That any decision about the longer term use of the guest bedrooms be deferred until the broader review had taken place.

It was also proposed that all tenants were contacted and given feedback from the consultation and details of what had been agreed. This should take place immediately to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

Further to Minute No. 92 of 13^th October, 2008, the Director of Independent Living submitted a report giving an overview of the number of adaptations undertaken during 2007/08 and the current year to 31^st January, 2009, an estimate of the likely costs over the next 3 years of adaptations and the implication on the budget together with an analysis of the significant changes in the number of adaptations undertaken recently.

For 2008/09, in line with Cabinet Minute No. 75 of 7^th September, 2005, the Council had maintained an additional contribution to the Disabled Facilities Grant (the grant provided by CLG to all Councils to use to meet their statutory obligations to provide adaptations in private sector accommodation).  The total available for private sector adaptations was £1,404,000, of which £832,000 was comprised of the DFG.  The Housing Investment Programme also prioritised resources for public sector adaptations and the budget approved by the Cabinet Member for 2007/08 was £1.7M – higher than that anticipated in 2005.  However, due to the reduced amounts of Capital Receipts from Council house sales within the year, the resources available for the public sector had not reached the anticipated budget.

Based on the 2007 Strategic Housing Market Assessment, there was an estimated 18,471 households in Rotherham with 1 or more members in an identified support needs group, higher than the national average.  22% had a long term limiting illness; the figure for children with a limiting long term illness was identified in the 2001 census as 5.02%, 16% above the national average. 

A strategy to manage the increases in cases in 2008/09 had been implemented by the Adaptations Team to deal with increases in referrals.  Based on the budget set at the start of the year, should all the backlog cases up to January, 2009, and the normal throughput of referrals (currently at a rate of 60 per month at an average cost of £4,000 per adaptation), be processed, the budget would be overspent.  To ensure that the remaining funding available for adaptations for 2008/09 remained within budget, the Housing Access Manager had strengthened the internal process for agreeing work with each case heavily scrutinised before being considered for approval.  As at 30^th January, 2009, there were 282 cases outstanding that had not been processed as yet due to the potential financial impact on the available resources.  The total backlog of cases would increase by the end of the financial year to 402 cases should referrals continue at the anticipated rate.  The impacts of the increase on overspend were set out in the report submitted.

It was proposed that a bid be made to the Corporate Capital Programme to increase the amounts available from 2010/11.  Assuming the Occupational Therapy backlog was reduced by April, 2009, and the demand for adaptations through the normal route did not exceed more than 20%, it was proposed that funding should be increased by 6% for each year from 2010/11.  This would mean increasing funding by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Richard Walker, Assistant Director Neighbourhoods, 2010 Rotherham Ltd., presented a report containing a number of options for consideration on the de-pooling of service charges.

During the recent inspection of 2010, the Audit Commission had highlighted that some of the specialist services could potentially be de-pooled to make the charging structure equitable and fair for all tenants. De-pooling in this context related to a situation whereby the tenant would only pay for the services that they received.

The Inspectors highlighted that the costs of cleaning communal areas and those associated with the provision of an estate caretaker were currently pooled.

Discussion ensued on the report.  It was felt that value for money would not be achieved be such actions.

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

(2)  That it be noted that de-pooling of the caretaking service was not felt to be value for money due to relatively few of the services being applicable.

(3)  That the de-pooling of the communal cleaning service be considered alongside the review already underway with regard to leaseholder charges.

The Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods submitted a report detailing the consultation process undertaken to develop the 2009/2010 Area Plans and identified key local issues, including details of consultation activities, number of residents consulted and activities undertaken to ensure inclusion of hard to reach groups involving 3,200 people.

The consultation process to identify the priorities of local citizens in each area was spread over a 3 month period from October to December, 2008.    The Area Assemblies utilised an on-line survey format to enable consistency across all areas and the ability to compare responses and priorities.  The survey was completed either electronically on-line, during face-to-face targeted consultations or at other local community or focus groups within the volunteer/community sector and partners, street surgeries and walkabouts, visioning events and young people’s conferences.

The Neighbourhood Partnership Team had developed a consultation plan and, then within that plan, each Area Assembly Team was asked to develop their own localised plan for their consultation ensuring that it included all the relevant groups, ages, gender and ethnicity etc.  Questions were identified which could be clearly to the themes within the Sustainable Communities Strategy across all areas which would reflect previously identified priorities, a ‘reality check’ approach to what was identified in last year’s plans.

The top 10 priorities were identified for each Area Assembly.  Whilst the numbers of consultation samples was inconsistent, the results could be seen to be reflective of the community as they reflected the outcomes of other consultations undertaken by partners in the statutory and voluntary/community sector.  The top 3 priorities were anti-social behaviour, fear of crime and street scene issues (clean streets/roads and pavements).

Area Plan priorities will be included in Service planning across Directorates via the Council’s Service Planning checklist.  The priorities would also be linked into the Proud Board where dissemination across Rotherham’s Theme Boards would be agreed.  The priorities would be presented to Co-ordinating Groups throughout January and area plan actions developed.  They would inform projects submitted under the Area Assemblies Devolved Budgeting Process to be implemented from April, 2009.

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

The following items are likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under those paragraphs listed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs indicated below of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act - information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person (including the Council))

The Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods submitted an update on the regeneration programme delivered to date in Canklow together with 3 options for regeneration activity.

The 3 options were as follows:-

-              Investment and improvement management

-              Partial demolition and redevelopment

-              Phased demolition and redevelopment

The Canklow community and key stakeholders had been engaged in comprehensive consultation.  A Project Management Group had been established consisting of Ward Members, residents and key stakeholders and given the remit of developing the briefs, appointing the consultants for the surveys, supporting and overseeing the management of the surveys, development of options and consultation and involvement of the community.  The Group had also managed the consultation process with the tenants, landlords, owner occupiers and local businesses.

Resolved:-  (1)  That option 3 be approved.

(2)  That a process of acquisitions and demolition of properties identified in Phase 1 be approved and, subject to securing further funding, acquire and demolish properties in Phase 2.

(3)  That the payment of Homeless and Disturbance payments to affected households be approved.

(4)  That a progress report be submitted in 6 months.

(5)  That the excellent manner in which officers had consulted with the community, local businesses and the 3 Ward Members be used as a template for future consultation.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act - (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person (including the Council))

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act - information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person (including the Council))

Further to Minute No. B77 of 7^th September, 2005, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods submitted a report requesting approval for the re-housing of the remaining residents at Cliffe Bank, Swinton, as a matter of special priority.

The relocation of residents from the decommissioned Cliffe Bank sheltered housing scheme was now well advanced and phased demolition would commence on site shortly.  Very few residents now remained and, for a number of reasons, it was important that they be re-housed as swiftly as possible.  Available alternative accommodation was at a premium and access to available accommodation was it arose was key to satisfying identified re-housing needs and aspirations and the successful completion of the redevelopment programme.

Resolved:-  (1)  That resident A be granted sheltered housing requirement status.

(2)  That re-housing be approved for all 4 remaining residents on the basis of special priority.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act - information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person (including the Council)).