SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (HOUSING AND
PUBLIC PROTECTION)
MINUTES of a meeting held on 30th
June 2008.
Present: Councillor Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson
(Chairman); Councillors Mrs. S.M. Bagstaff, Ms. B.E.
Brooks, J. Clifford, S.C. Egan, J.F. Fraser,
J.W. Thomas, W.C. Vaughan, S.T. Wiliam, and
A.C. Williams.
Also present: Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch,
Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, M.R. Wilson and Councillor P. Church (Cabinet
Member).
81
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -
This was received from Councillor J.C.
Bird.
82
MINUTES -
RESOLVED - T H A T the minutes of the meetings
held on 14th April 2008 and 21st May 2008 be
approved as a correct record subject to it being noted that the
Head of Housing would be submitting a report on the review of the
Housing client function to the next meeting of this Committee.
83
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -
No declarations were received.
84
REVENUE AND CAPITAL MONITORING: 1ST APRIL 2008 -
31ST MAY 2008 (DFICTP) -
The current forecast for the Revenue Budget
for 2008/09 was showing a favourable variance of £84,000 in
relation to Public Sector Housing (Housing Revenue Account) and an
adverse variance of £15,000 in respect of Private Sector Housing /
Community Safety due to demands on the Homelessness Service.
However, it was anticipated that this budget would outturn on
target as every effort would be made to address these
pressures. With regard to Public Protection, it was
anticipated that this Division would outturn on target.
Details were also contained within the report on the financial
progress on the Capital Programme.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regard
to the 2008/09 Revenue and Capital Monitoring be noted.
Reason for recommendation
To apprise Members of the position with regard
to the 2008/09 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme.
85
PENARTH CENTRAL RENEWAL AREA: PROGRESS REPORT (DLPPHS) -
Members were apprised of the progress of the
Group Repair and Community and Environmental schemes ongoing with
the Penarth Central Renewal Area. Of particular noting, the
Head of Public Protection referred to the Old Penarth Community
Forum (OPCF), which was a group formed of local stakeholders which
had been established to ensure the participation of local people
living, visiting or working in the area. Those community and
environmental projects were presented to the OPCF for comments and
to the Renewal Area Steering Group for prioritisation and
allocation of funding. The Head of Public Protection
acknowledged the good work of the Forum in that they had been
extremely effective in recommending suitable funding for the
projects and the Steering Group had fully endorsed their
decisions. In addition the Forum had also raised funds to
match fund some of the schemes making the Council’s budget go
further. The Forum had also been consulted on matters
relating to the Penarth Heights Development.
Of the number of dwellings in the scheme,
which so far totalled 300, 81.5% had participated in the programme
with the total value of work carried out on properties amounting to
£6,684,645 with home owner contributions totalling
£1,273,780. Reference was also made to a satisfaction survey
that had been conducted on over 150 properties that had benefited
from the repair programme. Of the results received to date
98% said their renewal area was contributing to the improvement of
the locality, 94% said they thought the improvements would be long
lasting, 48% said they felt safer in the area, 26% said they felt
healthier and 70% said they were happier with the area.
In addition to the above, set out in the
report was the Environmental and Community Programme for the
Renewal Area which detailed schemes which had been completed and
schemes that had been identified and prioritised by the Old Penarth
Community Forum for the remainder of the life of the
Programme. Of the schemes approved by the Cabinet, a number
of questions were raised in respect of St. Paul’s Multi-Use
Community Facility and in particular the condition of the fabric of
the interior and exterior of the building and related availability
of funding to undertake the remedial work. Concern was also
raised regarding the availability of Section 106 Planning gain
funding and whether it would be used to fund the works to the St.
Paul’s project as opposed to funding youth projects within the
wider environs of Penarth. The Head of Public
Protection acknowledged the concerns raised by Members, however
given the availability of funding, the situation was
challenging.
Reference was also made to the ongoing
situation at Penarth Heights, in particular matters relating to
general safety and security of the site, and the Head of Housing
was asked what progress was being made to bring about a speedy
resolution to the ongoing delays in respect of the redevelopment of
the area. In response, the Head of Housing indicated that
officers were pursuing a number of routes to secure the tenancies
of the two properties including seeking consent from the Welsh
Assembly Government to obtain Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) for
the said properties. The Committee was reminded that such a
process was likely to delay progress in terms of securing the site
given that the two tenants concerned could appeal against the
CPO.
Councillor Church (Cabinet Member) alluded to
his attendance at the recent public meeting arranged to discuss
issues at Penarth Heights and acknowledged the wide concern of the
community regarding security of the said site. He indicated
that the Cabinet was looking at ways to secure the site however,
given the complexity of the issues concerned, an easy solution was
difficult. Councillor Thomas also referred to the potential
for claims to made against the Council in the event of an accident
occurring and suggested that appropriate fencing be erected to
protect the Council’s interest and that any costs incurred
associated with the fencing be recouped from the Capital Receipt
following the sale of the site. Discussion ensued regarding
other options for securing the site, for example engaging a greater
security presence on the site, however the Head of Housing
indicated that this was unlikely to resolve the problems in terms
of a deterrent and a report would be shortly submitted to the
Corporate Management Team to address issues.
Given the ongoing delay and in acknowledgement
of the potential for the tenants to appeal against the Compulsory
Purchase Orders, it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the Cabinet be requested
to give consideration to the installation of appropriate security
fencing at Penarth Heights.
Reason for recommendation
In the best interests of the residents of
Penarth.
(Note: Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch, P.
Church and M.R. Wilson spoke on the matter with the consent of the
Committee.)
86
PACT MEETINGS IN THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN (DLPPHS) -
PACT meetings were currently regularly taking
place at various locations throughout the Vale of Glamorgan.
The Vale was split into three police sectors i.e. Barry, Penarth
and the Vale, which covered 23 electoral wards. The work of
the PACTs was a joint collaboration between the Police, local
authorities and other partners who were committed to improving the
quality of life and dealing with issues that affected wards
throughout the County. Other partners included voluntary and
charitable organisations, neighbourhood watch schemes, youth groups
and residents groups. It was also important that members of
the community such as leaders of residents associations, voluntary
groups, faith groups and councillors were involved.
Following the last review of the PACT it was
apparent that there were inconsistencies in the way meetings were
being set up and information / priorities being highlighted to the
correct department. The Safer Vale Community Engagement Group
(CEG) commissioned training in order to bring partners together to
identify the changes necessary in order to provide consistence
across the county, the details of which were set out in the
report.
Building on the initial training, a draft PACT
guidance document had been produced which included all the issues /
concerns / best practice that had resulted from the training.
Given the comments raised, the final guidance to be issued would
require some changes in the way PACTs were delivered in some
wards. In addition to these matters, a number of issues were
raised surrounding the chair of the PACT and inconsistency of how
this role would be viewed across the County. In order to
address such concerns and improve the links between the PACT
meetings and agencies, training would be arranged for September
2008.
It was also noted that a representative from
one of the 23 chairmen of PACTs would be asked to become a member
of the CEG. This was to ensure a very visible process and a
way in which chairmen of the PACTS could raise issues or
concerns. The CEG would monitor progress against PACTs and be
responsible for driving community engagement across the county.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the report be noted and
the guidance forwarded to all elected Members.
Reason for recommendation
To enable the Scrutiny Committee to consider
potential future options to ensure consistency for all residents in
the Vale of Glamorgan.
87
MEETING THE WELSH HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS 2009-2014 (DLPPHS)
-
The report comprehensively set out proposed
arrangements in respect of the following matters:
· the
level of investment required to be made by the Council over the
life of the
30 year business plan
· the
procurement process which was subject to the EU procurement
regulations
· the
procurement steps which set out the sequence of action required to
identify
preferred bidders
· the
advantages / disadvantages of using a single contractor versus a
multiple
contractor
· management
issues.
It was noted that a 5 year programme of £10m.
per annum, equating to an available budget of £10,500 per property
(£14,000 for the 200 non-traditional properties as additional
structural and energy efficiency works would be required).
A robust assessment of each property was required to
ensure that the Council only expended what was required in order to
satisfy the WHQS. Accordingly, a programme of whole house
surveys had commenced which would encompass blocks of 600-700
properties individually surveyed and only works absolutely
essential to meeting the WHQS by 2015 would be undertaken.
Further, a complementary approach was also required for the
Council’s responsive repair activities which would need to see
repair requests considered against the programme of WHQS and where
WHQS was programmed in the near future a decision about whether the
repair required to be carried out prior to the WHQS work would need
to be undertaken.
In addition to the above matters, planned
maintenance would also need to be co-ordinated with the WHQS in
order to maximise the impact of the planned works budget, void
properties would need to be inspected on WHQS principles and where
major works were required before letting a decision would need to
be made as to whether to bring these properties up to WHQS whilst
empty. The Head of Housing indicated that this approach
required co-ordination of the Voids budget and WHQS budgets but,
given the reduction in void properties over the last year and the
level of Void budget this was considered to be achievable.
Building Services would be given the opportunity to undertake this
work to drive efficiencies that could be gained during the void
process.
Taking account of the above financial issues
the Head of Housing indicated that the Property Services Division
earned around £260,000 per annum from fees associated with design
and contract management of the housing programme. It
was considered feasible that the Housing client could continue to
utilise the design and contract supervision / qualities control
skills of Property Services although, this would need to be
contained within the fees element of the WHQS budget.
It was anticipated that the fees element amounted to around
£800,000 per annum over the period 2009-2014 of which £250,000 per
annum would be used to employ WHQS staff including three Building
Services staff who would be trained to survey properties and would
also be responsible for onsite supervision and quality
control. It was considered that three surveyors was the
absolute minimum necessary for the contract period and far more
value could be achieved by having more staff on site protecting the
Council’s and tenants’ interests. Regarding Building
Services, the circumstances were different in that a review of
their Business Plan indicated a potential shortfall of £750,000 per
annum once the housing capital works were externalised.
However, potential WHQS work to void properties was anticipated to
reduce this shortfall.
The anticipated cost of procuring a partnering
contract was likely to incur expenditure of £500,000 which should
be seen in the context of a six year improvement contract amounting
to circa £60m. of investment in the Council owned housing
stock.
A number of questions were raised by Members
in respect of the following matters:
· the
impact of the Metrix development at St. Athan and the ability of
the Council
to procure local contractors
· the
ability of Building Services to be competitive to make up the
potential shortfall
in
their Business Plan of £750,000
· repairs
to communal areas and the requirement of regular planned
maintenance
to the Council stock following the completion of WHQS work.
In responding, the Head of Housing indicated
that he was confident that the Council would be in a position to
procure local contractors in the work of the WHQS. He also
recognised that other key areas of maintenance required to be
undertaken and whilst priority would be given to internal works to
properties some funding would be held in reserve to address other
priority issues such as communal area works. Once properties
were brought up to WHQS condition there would be a need to maintain
the standard in following years. The Head of Building and
Vehicle Services acknowledged that the shortfall in the Building
Services Business Plan was challenging. He was however
confident that Building Services with its local knowledge and
experience could be equally as competitive as external contractors
and be positioned to tender for appropriate work.
The Head of Housing indicated that given the
circumstances it was proposed that the Council enter into a
partnering contract with up to 3 contractors. Such an
approach would have a number of advantages leading to competition
and comparison, the size and value of the contract would be
sufficient to attract national contractors but would also enable
larger local firms to tender, the size of each contract could be
varied to allow greater scope for local firms, potential
contractors would be encouraged to share the supply chain therefore
maximising the purchasing power to achieve lower prices and local
economic benefits would be protected through the contract
requirements, which would stipulate that the main contractor would
use localised sub-contractors and local labour at every
opportunity.
Having regard to the above and related issues
it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the restructured
procedure option for procuring the WHQS work as detailed in the
report be endorsed.
Reason for recommendation
To advise the Cabinet of the Scrutiny
Committee’s views on this matter.
88
VOIDS MANAGEMENT POLICY (DLPPHS) -
The Council’s current Void Policy and
Standards were introduced in March 2003 and were based on the
premise of minimal standards at the time of re-let and non-health
and safety works being completed within a reasonable period
following the new tenancy commencing. There were a number of
difficulties with this procedure in that the housing client had no
part to play in the process other than to set overarching
completion timescales as part of the policy.
In terms of the current Void Standard it was
considered to be extremely low and often the state of the property
at re-let stage created concern to the ingoing tenant and showed
the Council in a poor light. Accordingly, a review of the
Void Management and Void Standard arrangements had recently been
undertaken taking account of best practice and other social
landlords.
The proposed revisions to the Council’s
current Void management arrangements were set out in Appendix 1 to
the report and showed a number of fundamental departures from the
current arrangements viz:
· a
vastly improved Void Standard;
· a
more robust pre-termination inspection regime;
· a
revised rechargeable work programme;
· written
list of works to be completed post void along with timescales
for
completion to be given to ingoing tenants;
· complex
void properties to be excluded from the normal re-let targets;
· all
void properties to have a full gas service and all safety check
certificates to be
given to ingoing tenant;
· decorating
vouchers to be given rather than paint in order to increase
tenant
choice;
· the
Void Standard would incorporate the Housing Health and Safety
requirements.
The key change was however for the pre-void
and post-void inspections to be undertaken by Housing Officers
instead of Building Service Inspectors. This approach would
ensure a consistency throughout the re-let process, enable the
housing client to determine the works to be undertaken and allow
the housing client to both establish and monitor the target date
for completion of works.
The Wales Audit Office key lines of enquiry
expected organisations to have challenging re-let standards to
which service users have contributed. It was considered that
the draft re-let standard set out in Appendix 1 was considerably
more challenging than the present arrangements and also
incorporated re-let standards drafted following Tenant
Participation Workshops conducted by Rowan Consultancy in May
2002. It was also proposed that where a tenant improvement
has been left in the property and is to a satisfactory standard,
then that improvement be retained in the property with the Council
assuming repair / maintenance responsibilities.
Having regard to the above and related issues
it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the revised draft Voids
Management Policy as set out Appendix 1 to the report be
endorsed.
Reason for recommendation
To advise the Cabinet of the Scrutiny
Committee’s views on this matter.
89
HOUSING INVESTMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (DLPPHS) -
The Committee was apprised on progress towards
meeting the requirements of the above Plan which had been developed
in response to the Options Appraisal commissioned through Tribal
Consultancy and was an action plan containing a series of actions
designed to assist the Council in working towards the WHQS and in
improving its service deliverability. It was noted that a
number of actions had been progressed, others had not and also some
of the actions identified over 3 years previously had been
overtaken by events. In addition a very detailed WHQS Project
Plan, Tenant Engagement Strategy and Building Services Business
Plan were being developed which would provide a far more
structured, focussed and time targeted approach. These new
plans would also be up to date, taking into account the Council’s
progress since 2005 and any changes in emphasis / direction from
WAG over the same period.
It was proposed to incorporate the existing
Housing Investment Implementation Plan within the proposed WHQS
Project Plan, Tenant Engagement Strategy and Building Services
Business Plan in future.
The Chairman referred to the current
Implementation Plan and made reference to a number of action plan
indicators which were identified as delayed or on going, but with
no indication of when the actions were to be completed. These
actions were identified as HSR2; HSR5; BMDSOR5; HAMR2; HAMR3; HAMR6
(HRAFS3) and HAMR14.
Having regard to the above and related issues
it was
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A
T the Housing Investment Implementation Plan be subsumed into the
proposed WHQS Project Plan, the Tenant Engagement Strategy and the
Building Services Business Plan subject to the Head of Housing in
liaison with the Head of Building and Vehicle Services submitting
reports on the undermentioned matters to this Committee on the
dates indicated below:
|
Action Reference
|
Committee Date
|
|
HAMR6 (HRAFS3)
|
24th July 2008
|
|
HSR5, BMDSOR5, HAMR2 and HAMR3
|
November 2008
|
|
HAMR14
|
September 2008
|
(2) T H A
T it be noted that action HAMR10 was confirmed as completed.
(3) T H A
T where practicable all actions contained in the various Action
Plans be cross referenced.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To
allow streamlining of plans and strategies and to ensure actions
hand appropriate targets to enable robust monitoring of
performance.
(2) In
acknowledgement of completed actions.
(3) To
provide elected Members with appropriate monitoring
information.