SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (COMMUNITY WELLBEING AND SAFETY)

 

MINUTES of an Extraordinary meeting held on 7th December, 2006.

 

Present: Councillor R.F. Curtis (Vice-Chairman); Councillors R.J. Bertin, Ms. R.M. Birch, Mrs. J.E. Charles, P. Church, J. Clifford, S.C. Egan, C.L. Osborne, Mrs. A.J. Preston, Mrs. M. Randall, A.J. Readman, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe, K.R. Stockdale, W.C. Vaughan, Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson and C.J. Williams.

 

Also present: Councillor J.W. Thomas.

 

 

631            APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE -

 

This was received from Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch (Chairman).

 

 

632            DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

633            HOUSING INVESTMENT (DCS) -

 

Councillor R.F. Curtis had requested that the item be called-in in order to allow the Scrutiny Committee an opportunity to examine the policy change.  A Housing Investment Risk Appraisal and Implementation Plan in respect of Housing Investment had been considered by Cabinet on 8th November, 2006.  Members of the Housing Sub-committee had also received the report and considered the report in conjunction with the recommendations of Cabinet as detailed below: 

 

“(1)      T H A T a stock retention strategy to enable the Council to meet the WHQS by 2012 be supported, that resolution to be dependent upon the Council agreeing to the following key issues to be agreed in 2006/07 and implemented from April, 2007:

 

            ·        re-allocation of estimated costs to the Council General Fund in 2006/07 for

                     the following services:

 

                     Ø      Grounds Maintenance Contract estimated at £80,375.

                     Ø      Renewal of rubbish and cleansing of properties estimated at £5,000.

                     Ø      Waste clearance and abandoned cars estimated at  £15,000.

                     Ø      Housing Strategy estimated at £100,000.

 

            ·        cyclical and responsive repairs based on benchmark figures ensuring

                     efficiency savings in the Building Maintenance DSO, estimated at £632,000

                     per year, to be achieved in the first instance by March, 2008.

 

            ·        1% efficiency savings in housing management services from 2007/08 for 5

                     years and reported back to Cabinet on 31st January, 2007 on the measures

                     proposed to achieve the efficiency.

 

            ·        reducing revenue repairs by 10% after the WHQS had been achieved in

                     2012.

 

            ·        utilise the housing capital receipt from the sale of Penarth Heights.

 

            ·        introduce service charges totalling £126,835 per year during 2007.

 

            ·        successful negotiations with the WAG regarding the projected

                     Management and Maintenance allowances, ensuring that future M and M

                     allowances were at 2% plus RPI.

 

            ·        restrict repair and maintenance costs to RPI from 2007/08.

 

(2)       T H A T HRA Sensitivities 8, 10, 12 and 13 be further analysed and that the Director of Community Services submit a further report to Cabinet on 31st January, 2007.

 

(3)       T H A T the use of prudential borrowing be not approved until resolutions (1) and (2) above had been agreed and successfully implemented.

 

(4)       T H A T a stock transfer strategy be endorsed should the key issues highlighted in resolutions (1) and (2) above be not agreed and achieved by March 2008 (it being noted that a decision to support a stock transfer strategy would rest with full Council).

 

(5)       T H A T the report as amended at the meeting be forwarded to WAG for information as to the Council’s current position.

 

(6)       T H A T the Director of Community Services notify all Council tenants of the Council’s current position and the key issues that needed to be considered together with their implications through, for example, the distribution of a newsletter.”

 

At the Housing Sub-Committee meeting, the Director of Community Services had indicated that there were certain actions and results that had to be achieved if the Council was to retain its housing stock.  The report provided Members with options on what needed to be addressed and the required timescale.  Members noted that the Business Plan and recommendations that were set out by Cabinet were unlikely to be successful without the support of all Members and Officers involved in the service.  After due consideration, the Housing Sub-Committee recommended:

 

“T H A T the Housing Sub-Committee support the recommendations of Cabinet as set out above and request all party support from Members to assist in the process of producing a viable Business Plan to support the Stock Retention Strategy.”

 

The Scrutiny Committee was advised that further analysis of the HRA Sensitives 8,10, 12 and 13 would be undertaken by an external verifier and a report was to be presented by the Director of Community Services in December 2006.

 

Discussion also took place around the introduction of service charges but this would need to be closely considered together with consideration of identifying housing that was owned by the Council that could be put up for sale.

 

The Scrutiny Committee having considered the call-in and the recommendations of the Housing Sub-Committee

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the recommendations by the Cabinet and the Housing Sub-Committee as above be endorsed.

 

 

634            ALLOCATION OF DISABLED PARKING BAYS (DEER) -

 

Councillor R.F. Curtis had requested that a report on the matter be brought before the Scrutiny Committee to consider the most appropriate mechanism that should be used to allocate disabled parking bays.  It was Councillor Curtis’ belief that they should be allocated on a greatest need basis.

 

The report before Committee identified the issues relating to individual disabled persons parking spaces (IDPPSs) and to confirm the current policy and procedure.  The Committee was also advised that the matter was being considered by the Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment) Task and Finish Group.  The report highlighted that in January 2004, Cabinet had received a report which had sough confirmation of the policies and procedures used in dealing with issues in respect of the provision of IDPPSs in residential areas and as a result, had resolved:

 

“T H A T consideration be deferred for a further joint report from the Directors of Community Services and Environmental and Economic Regeneration.”

 

The Committee was advised that lengthy discussions between officers from the Directorates had taken place but no appropriate mechanism for assessing need and prioritising applications had been determined for this discretionary function.  The Council, as the Highway Authority, had discretionary powers to provide parking bays for disabled persons, however, the report was concerned with the provision of IDPPSs in residential areas.  It further highlighted that whilst the bays may be provided in residential areas in response to a request from a specific individual, that individual did not have exclusive rights over the use of the bay.  The Council had received requests for IDPPSs which were mostly for the terraced streets in Barry and Penarth where houses did not have off-street parking provision and on-street parking provision was at a premium.  The council had no specific policy in relation to provision of IDPPSs although Appendix A to the report identified how the Council currently carried out its procedures which had been transferred to the Council on Local Government Reorganisation in 1996.

 

It was also important to note that the demand for IDPPSs exceeded the Council’s budget and to date, about ten IDPPSs had been installed in the financial year, the figure having been increased from six fairly recently in an effort to address the backlog of requests.  The officer advised that there were currently thirty two outstanding applications waiting to be processed as at 27th November, 2006.  As a result of the many emotive and complex issues which arose in respect of IDPPSs, officers in the Engineering Design and Procurement Division did not attempt to prioritise varying applicant’s needs and as such, applications were processed in order of receipt.  It was also important to note that IDPPSs were provided for disabled drivers only and were not provided for able bodied carers or relatives on behalf of disabled persons (or children).

 

It was further reported that an extensive survey had been undertaken into the experience and policies of the other Welsh Unitary Authorities and of the nineteen respondents, twelve authorities had a policy in relation to IDPPSs but seven made no provision.  The survey had highlighted the complexity of issues that local authorities faced.  The main concerns in relation to any change to the existing process it was reported would relate to:

 

      ·         The funding required to provide a service top assess need (either in house or

                via an external agency);

      ·         The complications introduced in the process where someone deemed to have

                greater need would be placed on the list at a higher point than those already

                on the list who had already been identified as having a legitimate need.  It was

                suggested that there may be a requirement to review the list on a regular

                basis with all applicants being reassessed to ensure that the needs

                requirements remained current.

 

The procedure attached at Appendix A to the report, had been operated by the Traffic Management Team since Local Government Reorganisation in 1996.  It was however, accepted that the matter was being considered by the Scrutiny Committee and the Economy and Environment Task and Finish Group and on conclusion of the Task and Finish Group work, a report would be presented to Cabinet seeking an appropriate resolution.

 

Members also considered that it was a difficult issue to consider and suggested that in view of the complex issues in relation to need that a representative of the Scrutiny Committee (Community Wellbeing and Safety) be nominated to be a Member of the Task and Finish Group.

 

Having considered the report, the Scrutiny Committee


RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (Community Wellbeing and Safety) be nominated to attend meetings of the Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment) Task and Finish Group and the recommendation be referred to the Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment).

 

(2)       T H A T Miles Punter be thanked for his report which would also considered by the Task and Finish Group.

 

 

635            QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING -

 

Children and Family Services

 

The second quarter Performance Monitoring report was presented to the Committee.

 

It was noted that some actions had slipped due to lack of resources and IT delays.  The officer also recommended that three actions be withdrawn for a number of reasons but Committee considered it relevant to detail them and reconsider their withdrawal at the year end.  Members also queried the availability of the Joint Review report and were advised that the Department was waiting for it to be published by the SSIW.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the report be noted and the actions suggested to be withdrawn be reconsidered at the year end.

 

Community Care and Health

 

Reference was made to Delayed Transfers of Care and Members were advised that recent figures had shown 12 clients (DToC) for social care reasons and the Department’s target was 9.  Members were pleased to note the progress were reported in this area.  The Director also advised that no resolution had to date been received in respect of the arbitration learning in respect of the private sector and residential care homes in the Vale. 

 

Concern in relation to EMI provision was expressed within the Vale and Members consideration will need to be given in the future to this type of provision.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the report be noted.

 

Housing and Community Safety

 

The officer presented the second quarter monitoring report to Committee.

Members raised concern in relation to the limited number of annual caravan inspections undertaken to date. The officer advised that the contributory factor  related to staffing issues but that he was looking at the matter and hoped that the issues would be addressed shortly. Expenditure on the MRA was also raised and the Director advised that a report would be presented by the end of December  to Cabinet and to WAG.

 

RECOMMENDED – T H A T the report be noted.

 

Strategy Performance Management and Commissioning

 

It was noted that the Joint Commissioning Group was not currently meeting but that discussions would be entered into in the near future regarding resurrecting the Group.

 

In respect of Performance Indicators, the officer advised that no national indicators existed at present and that baseline figures had yet to be established for local indicators.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the report be noted.