Agenda and minutes

There was 1 Declaration of Interest made at the meeting:-

Councillor Ellis             Robond

                                    Chair and Trustee

There were no members of the public and press present at the meeting.

The Chair welcomed Jenny Andrews and George Skinner, new co-optees to the Panel for 2010/11.

A reminder was also given that all mobile telephone must be switched off during the meeting unless exceptional circumstances applied.

The Chair welcomed back Jack Carr, Derek Corkell and Andrew Roddison.

It was noted that representative(s) of the Older Person’s Forum would be invited to the Scrutiny Panel as and when there was an issue they would be interested in.

Consideration was given to the nominations to various bodies as set out in the report submitted.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Cabinet Member for Housing and Neighbourhoods be advised of the following nominations to outside bodies:-

Resolved:-  That the following nominations be made to the bodies set out below for the 2010/11 Municipal Year:-

Councillor P. A. Russell                       Health, Welfare and Safety Panel

Substitute – Councillor Nightingale

Councillor Atkin                                   Recycling Group

Councillors McNeely and                   Members Sustainable Development Action

Walker                                                Group

Councillor McNeely                            Churches Together

The Scrutiny Adviser submitted an Outline Work Programme for 2010/11 which set out issues identified for future consideration by this Scrutiny Panel during the forthcoming Municipal Year.

It was not possible to be too specific at the present time on the precise nature of some issues for scrutiny and, therefore, the forward work programme would, to some extent, evolve during the course of the year.  As the public sector in general and local government in particular were required to make very large savings in the next 3-5 years, the Panel may wish to scrutinise closely any proposals coming from Service Areas in the next few months.

Panel Members and officers had been contacted for their views on issues to be discussed over the Municipal Year.  An outline programme had been formulated reflecting those comments and incorporating issues previously requested at Panel meetings. 

Issues identified for future scrutiny reviews included:-

-              Role of Private Sector Housing in Rotherham

-              Housing Market Renewal – moving on

-              Sheltered Housing Warden and Care Enabler Service

-              Developing work with Rother Fed

-              Future of Rotherham 2010 Ltd.

-              Adaptations and Improvements

-              Neighbourhood Services and Democracy

The following were also suggested:-

-              Role of the Pollution Council

-              Council New Build

-              1 Town 1 Community

Discussion ensued on the report including reference to:-

-              Housing Allocations Policy

-              Bereavement Service

-              Repairs and Maintenance Service

-              Waste Recycling Plant

Resolved:- That the Scrutiny Adviser be requested to subject the possible Scrutiny Reviews to the Scrutiny checklist for suitability.

In accordance with Minute No. 9 of 3^rd June, 2010, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services submitted a review of the Stray Dog arrangements within Housing and Neighbourhood Services together with four options for the future based on projected costs of service provision as well as a benchmark of services within the sub-region.

The projected year end figures for the number of dogs seized by the Council in 2009/10 fell by 11% as well as a decrease in complaints by 13.5%.  There had been an increase of 5% in the projected numbers of dogs received out of hours up to 10.00 p.m. and taken to the contracted kennels. 

It was reported that in comparison with neighbouring authorities, Rotherham provided the most comprehensive stray dog out of hours service in South Yorkshire.  Doncaster provided a reception facility at its contracted kennels, Barnsley did not provide any service and Sheffield owned and operated its own stray and re-homing kennels as a business which operated outside office hours due to very large demand.

In 2008/09 there was an increase to the Stray Dog budget of £10,000 per year to cover the changes in Legislation.  This funded 7 additional spaces at the main contracted kennels and an out of hours transit kennel arrangement.  However, due to the Council’s approach to all dogs “seized” being received out of hours, there had been an increase in customer demand on the owner of the animal sanctuary where the transit kennel facility was sited.  Re-negotiation had taken place with regard to the arrangements for on-site customer service and which had resulted in the introduction of part year service fees for 2009/10 and increased annual leasing cost.

Due to increasing costs which were not sustainable in the budget as well as decreasing demand for the service, 4 assessed options were set out in the report:-

Details of the financial issues and projections for the four options, together with the risks and uncertainties, were set out in the submitted report.

It was noted that the situation was to be monitored and a further report to be submitted to the Cabinet Member in 12 months time.

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

(2)  That the follow-up report also be submitted to this Scrutiny Panel.

In accordance with Minute No. 9 of the meeting held on 3^rd June, 2010, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services presented the 2009/10 Neighbourhoods General Fund Revenue Account.

The final 2009/10 outturn position was a net overspend of £482,000 (+11.6%), an improvement on the previous forecasted outturn position (£610,000).

Detailed analysis of the overspend was set out in Appendix 1 of the report submitted.  The most significant area of overspend was in the Independent Support Service (Wardens) or Older People’s Housing Services which had been reported as a pressure throughout the year.  The costs in 2009/10 had been partially offset through management actions and savings across wider Neighbourhood Services.

The key details were:-

There had been £35,000 spend on agency staff but no spend on consultancy within Neighbourhoods.

Discussion ensued on the report with particular reference to:-

-        Independent Support Service (Wardens)

-        Moratorium on supplies

-        Agency staff

Resolved:-  That the report be noted.

(2)  That the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee be asked to request a report on the numbers of agency staff employed for over 6 months across the Council with this Scrutiny Panel being informed of the outcome.

In accordance with Minute No. 9 of 3^rd June, 2010, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services presented the final outturn position for the 2009/10 Housing Investment Programme (HIP).

The Programme’s outturn position was £77,860M, an underspend of £910,000 (1.15%).  Within the overall underspend it was noted that schemes managed by 2010 Rotherham Ltd. (£62,283M) had underspent by £1.090M and £15,532M on schemes managed by the Council.

The report set out a scheme by scheme analysis of spend against the approved Programme with explanations for any significant variances.

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

-        Decent Homes Environmental Works

-        Windows Replacement Programme

-        Regional Housing Grant

-        Non-Traditional Investment

Resolved:-  That the report be noted.

Training Session

Members of the Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel have been invited for this item at approximately 10.30 a.m.

Steve Clarke, Legal Officer, and Jenny Swales, Anti-Social Behaviour Officer, attended the meeting in order to give Members an overview of the Introductory Tenancy Review Panels.

Steve gave the following powerpoint presentation:-

Types of Tenancies

-        Introductory Tenancies

-        Secure Tenancies

-        Most RMBC Tenancies are secure

-        “Secure” because if the tenant complies with the terms of the Tenancy Agreement s/he can keep the tenancy for as long as s/he wishes

Introductory Tenancies

-        Introduced as a tool to tackle anti-social behaviour (but could be used for any breach of tenancy) e.g.

o       Selling drugs/drug abuse

o       Threats/use of violence

o       Verbal abuse/harassment/racial abuse

o       Loud music

o       Arguing/door slamming

o       Threats/damage to others property

-        Adopted by Rotherham from October, 2003

-        All new tenants must be Introductory Tenants (unless immediately before the start of the tenancy they were a secure tenant of another local authority or assured tenant of a Housing Association)

-        12 months ‘trial period’

-        If no breaches of Tenancy Agreement, tenant automatically became secure tenant after 12 months

-        No security, no Right to Buy

-        To end the tenancy, RMBC must serve the tenant with a Notice of Proceedings for Possession (NPP)

-        Inform the tenant that s/he has the right to request a review of the decision to seek a Possession Order and the time in which the request must be made i.e. 14 days from date tenant served with the NPP

-        Inform the tenant that if s/he needs help or advice about the NPP, s/he should take it immediately to CAB/Housing Aid Centre/Law Centre/Solicitor

-        Personal service or post through letter box

-        Review – if tenant wants an oral hearing s/he has to request it within 14 days of receipt of NPP.  NB request need not be in writing

-        Oral hearing conducted by Elected Members

-        Tenant has to be given at least 5 days notice of the date of the review hearing – if less than 5 days notice given, hearing can only proceed with consent of tenant/representative

-        Prior to the hearing, tenants will be supplied with the written evidence relied on by RMBC.  This may include:-

o       Chronology of events

o       Witness statements from officers (which may include hearsay from unidentified complainants)

o       Witness statements from identified complainants

-        Members of the Review Panel follow the procedure but can deviate from this in order to ensure a tenant has a fair hearing as long as the following principles are maintained:-

o       Tenant can be heard and hear evidence against them

o       Be accompanied and/or represented by another person (professionally qualified or not) – a representative has the same rights as the tenant

o       Call persons to give evidence

o       Put questions to any person who gives evidence at the Review Panel (but not witnesses who have not attended but have statements)

o       Make representations in writing

-        Guidance suggests reviews should be conducted as far as practicable as an ‘inquisitorial’ hearing rather than as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

- minutes of meetings held on 21^st June, 2010

The Panel noted the decisions made under delegated powers by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Neighbourhoods held on 21^st June, 2010.

- minutes of meeting held on 3^rd June, 2010

The minutes of the meeting held on 3rd June, 2009, were agreed.

- minutes of meeting held on 11^th June, 2010

The minutes of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee held on 21^st June, 2010.