02 04 2003

RECOMMENDED:  That the Statement of Accounts for 2001-2002 be approved.

 

 

 

 

 

Recent changes in legislation had widened the money markets available to Local Authorities with effect from 1 April 2002.  Since receiving Board approval a Money Market Fund operated by the Council's Bank had been used for the past month in order to manage daily surpluses and deficits.  It was proposed to set up a second fund in order to compare returns and increase flexibility.

 

The authority to respond to different interest rates throughout the financial year was delegated to the Borough Treasurer.  In his absence the Council's response to short-term fluctuations was to be jointly agreed between any two of the Financial Services Manager, the Head of Accountancy and the Senior Accountant.

 

 

Any long-term loans (i.e. those in excess of 365 days) would be raised through the PWLB, Bond issue or Loan Receipt (1989 Housing Act).

 

All short-term loans (i.e. those of less than 365 days) were to be raised through dealings on the London Money Markets using the brokers identified above and the Council's Bank.

 

 

The major British banking groups

The top ten building societies

Other Local Authorities

The Bank of England

Money Market funds

 

 

It was reported that the Council's Policy and Resources Committee on 19 September 2001 had approved the preparation of a Sure Start bid with a catchment area covering the Rowner estate.  The Committee had also resolved that the Borough Council could act as the Accountable Body and provide officer support where appropriate. 

 

The Sure Start Scheme was a Central Government initiative, with the following aim:

 

"To improve the health and well-being of families and children before and from birth so children are prepared and able to flourish when they go to school".

 

 

The Sure Start – Rowner had no legal status of its own.  However, it was considered prudent to have a statement of arrangements compiled as a written agreement and signed by the parties within the Sure Start Partnership.  A draft copy of the Sure Start Rowner - Statement of Arrangements between the Accountable Body, Lead Organisation and the other parties was attached to the Director's report as Appendix 'A'. 

 

The intention was that this protocol should be approved by all the relevant parties within the Sure Start Rowner programme.  Therefore subject to the Board's approval the Borough Solicitor would be given authority to sign the protocol on behalf of Gosport Borough Council.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to sign the "Sure Start" Rowner – Statement of Arrangement between the Accountable Body, Lead Organisation and other bodies on behalf of Gosport Borough Council.

 

 

It was reported that the Housing Board had recommended that the Policy and Organisation Board adopt the Policy.  The Housing Board had approved one amendment to its report in that the word "food" be removed from page 8 (Supporting Information: Sustainability Implications No.4).  The Policy and Organisation Board's notice was also drawn to a further amendment in that the number of owner-occupied dwellings in the Table on page 7 (paragraph 2.14) of the Policy be changed to 22,589 to coincide with the recently released figures from the 2001 Census.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Act.

 

Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Financial Services Manager which recommended the Board to consider early retirement for a post holder in the Council Tax Section on the terms set out in the report.

 

RESOLVED:  That –

 

(i)         early retirement for a postholder in the Council Tax Section be approved, on the terms set out in the Financial Services Manager's report, in the interest of the efficiency of the service; and 

(ii)        the consequent review of the Council Tax Section be required to achieve guaranteed savings of £43,000 over a 4 year period.

 

It was reported that 3 of the 9 plots were in the Housing Board's ownership therefore Plot No's 6/3, 13/1 and 14/1 were withdrawn from the Corporate Services Manager's report and would be referred to the next Housing Board meeting for consideration.  Further plans for Plot No's 7/7, 8/7 and 8/8 were circulated to Members of the Board to clarify the land under consideration.  The Head of Property Services advised Members of the consequent reduction in acreage and consideration.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter into such legal documentation as was necessary to effect the sale of the remaining 6 Plots of land to Hampshire County Council for the proposed LRT route on such terms and conditions as recommended by the Council's Head of Property Services.

 

(NB:  Councillor Edwards was present as a permanent replacement for Councillor Francis)

 

 

Having received the available information and considered papers submitted by Councillors Allen and Redrup at their meeting on 4 February 2003, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed to recommend to this Board that approval be given to a Borough-wide phone mast policy, ensuring that masts should not be installed on Council land (a) close to schools or (b) in the midst of residential properties and that other locations should be decided on their merits.

The Chairman expressed the Board's thanks to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and especially to Councillors Allen and Redrup, for the work carried out in respect of investigating whether a standard policy should be adopted in this regard.

 

There followed a full debate during which Members commented on:

 

 

The Board also considered the potential financial and legal implications of the removal of those masts already in situ on Council owned property.

 

The general consensus of the Board was that it would be difficult to implement a policy satisfactorily that restricted masts being installed close to schools or in the midst of residential areas and concluded that there was sufficient guidance available to enable decisions to be made without the need for further policies at this time.

RESOLVED: That

 

(a)         the details of the outcome of scrutiny in respect of the formulation of a

 

(b)        with regard to (a) above, requests for telecommunications masts and equipment to be located on Council owned property be determined on their individual merits.

RESOLVED:  That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the undermentioned item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure if exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

Consideration was given to an exempt report by the Leisure and Amenities Manager seeking the Board's approval for the procurement process and timetable in respect of the Ground Maintenance, Arboricultural, Other Cleaning Services and Toilet Cleaning Contract based on a negotiated partnership process.

RESOLVED: That the recommendations, as set out in the report by the Leisure and Amenities Manager, be approved.

 

  

Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex officio) (P), Councillors Bone (P), Carter (P), Mrs Cully  (P), Friend (P), Hayward (P), P Russell (P), Smith (P), Taylor (P), Wright (P) and Mrs Wright (Chairman) (P)

 

(N.B. Councillor Smith was present as a permanent replacement for Councillor Mrs Gravell).

 

 

(b)   a recommendation be made to the Policy and Organisation Board that the

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager, containing an Options Appraisal report. This report had been produced following an extensive period of consultation with a steering group consisting of democratically elected residents, officers and Trade Union representatives together with an Independent Tenants and Residents Adviser (ITRA), Tenant Initiatives. A Ward Councillor from both the Town and Leesland Wards had also attended the process.

 

It was reported that given the financial pressures facing the Council and its current inability to meet the Decent Homes Standard deadline of 31st December 2009, democratically elected resident representatives had considered all the options currently available to the Council and had concluded that transfer of the Council's five tower blocks to a Housing Association best met the evaluation criteria they had determined. Residents' representatives had therefore recommended to the Council that they consider allowing the Steering Group to select a preferred potential Housing Association partner and that this organisation be allowed to make a contractual offer to all residents, prior to a ballot of tenants and leaseholders to be held towards the end of 2003.

 

It was stressed that residents' representatives had determined the criteria by which the each option had been examined and the subsequent evaluation of each option.

 

The options were:

 

 

The standards against which each option was examined and evaluated were:

 

 

After considering the all the options, residents' representatives concluded that the partial stock transfer (of the Council's five tower blocks namely Garland, Hammond and Blake Courts and Harbour and Seaward Towers) was the only available option that met their minimum criteria and addressed the additional benefits they were seeking.

RESOLVED: That the Housing Services Manager be given authority to appoint PCA Management Consultants Ltd to facilitate the processes required to select a preferred Registered Social Landlord (Housing Association) partner in partnership with the Steering Group and to undertake all necessary steps to work towards a ballot of Tenants and Leaseholders of the Council's five tower blocks, to be held towards the end of 2003.

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager, which advised the Board that the Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) had produced a model constitution for Residents Associations and that there was a need to review the constitutions of the seven Residents Associations that had been formally recognised by the Housing Board in order to bring them into line with the good practice model.

 

It was reported that there were currently seven Residents Associations, which had been formally recognised by the Council. They were:

 

 

A working group from the Housing Forum had been set up to discuss the review of the constitutions and the associated issues of nominations to the Housing Forum, annual reports and support to the Residents Associations. The Customer Involvement Partnership had also been briefed on the proposals.

 

Each Residents Association's constitution had been checked against the updated model constitution. Where clauses were missing, they had been discussed with the Residents Association. Subject to Housing Board approval, Residents Associations were proposing to take any amendments to their next Annual General Meetings. It was noted that this process may take up to a year.

 

It was reported that each Residents' Association would be able to nominate up to two representatives to the Housing Forum and that annual reports would be produced prior to their Annual General Meetings to provide members of the Residents' Associations with feedback on its activities and achievements throughout the year. This would also enable the Customer Services Team to review the performance of each Residents' Association to assess where support or advice may be needed.

 

RESOLVED: That –

 

(a)    approval be given to the adoption of the TPAS good practice model constitution for Residents' Associations by Residents' Associations recognised by the Council where those clauses were applicable;

(b)   approval be given to the procedure for nominating representatives to the Housing Forum;

(c)    approval be given to the introduction of Resident Association annual reports;

(d)   approval be given for access to support and training for Residents' Associations who, where applicable, fulfil the criteria within the model constitution; and

(e)    a progress report be presented to the Housing Board during the next twelve months.

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager, which updated the Housing Board as to the impact of the new priority needs categories introduced on 31st July 2002. The report outlined the service responses to the increase in applications for housing from young people and identified a gap in existing services. It recommended the approval of funding for the establishment of a youth reconciliation service to address the identified gap in existing services.

 

It was reported that the new priority needs categories which came into being as a result of the Homelessness Act 2002 were:

 

(a)    all homeless 16 and 17 year olds who were not the responsibility of Social Services (for example children in care)

(b)   long term care leavers under 21 years of age not in further or higher education

(c)    anyone under 25 years of age who was vulnerable due to lack of a support network

(d)   persons who were vulnerable (regardless of age) because they had been in care, imprisoned or served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces

(e)    anyone who was vulnerable due to having fled domestic or other violence

 

 

The Board was advised that since 31st July 2002, by far the most significant number of homeless applications received from the new priority need categories had been from people under the age of 25. During the period 31st July – 31st December 2002, of the 23 applications made by persons under 25 years of age, 17 were due to eviction by parents or friends. Applications that were accepted because the applicants were young had quadrupled since the change in the law although the numbers were still relatively low when compared to overall homelessness levels.

It was reported that another issue with the new priority need categories was the level of support required to maintain applicants in temporary accommodation. Essential work was being carried out by both in-house and through external agencies in supporting homeless customers in temporary accommodation.

 

The Board was advised that the Accommodation Resource Centre (ARC), operated by Two Saints Housing Association was set to significantly expand its services in the locality to address the ongoing support needs of young people. It was recognised that ARC was the main provider of accommodation for young people in Gosport.

 

It was reported that, as a first step towards the adoption of a multi agency approach, the Council had progressed a cross - district initiative with Fareham Borough Council for a Youth Accommodation Panel (16+ Housing Panel), which would involve housing authorities, social services and relevant voluntary agencies.

 

The Board was advised that, despite positive steps taken to establish floating support and assessment services locally, a significant gap in available services had been identified by the range of agencies working in the Gosport area. This surrounded the need for a "reconciliation" service as over 70% of young homeless people presenting themselves to the Council had been evicted by family or friends and it was clear that there was a role for attempting reconciliation in an effort to prevent homelessness.

 

It was reported that ARC had approached the Council as an organisation prepared to deliver a reconciliation service. ARC had already agreed funding of £13,500 from Fareham Borough Council to set up the service and was requesting £13,500 from Gosport Borough Council for 2003/04, the money to be used in conjunction with that from Fareham Borough Council to establish a cross-district youth reconciliation service. It was not considered that the Council could provide this level of support for less than £13,500.

 

The Board was advised that the cost of this funding application would be met by using part of the Government homelessness subsidy of £26,000.

 

RESOLVED: That –

 

(a)    the contents of the Housing Services Manager's report be noted; and

(b)   approval be given for funding of £13,500 for the year 2003/04 in favour of the Accommodation Resource Centre for the est, ablishment of a cross-district youth reconciliation service.

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager, which set out the proposed 2003/04 Housing Repairs programme.

 

It was reported that the programme was designed to implement the Capital Works Programme Priorities approved by the November 2002 meeting of the Housing Board and aimed to target available resources over the next three financial years at: Criteria 4 of the Decent Homes Standard – Thermal Comfort (through the installation of insulation and central heating) and Criteria 3 of the standard – Modern Facilities. The investment strategy aimed to combine targeting available funds at two of the four elements of the Decent Homes Standard that were also the key identified priorities of customers.

 

RESOLVED: That approval be given to the proposed 2003/04 Housing Repairs Programme as set out in Appendix1 of the Housing Services manager's report.

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager.

 

It was reported that, in the three full years since the development of the Council's capital programme partnering approach with Connaught PLC, there had been a significant improvement in the delivery of major works, improved satisfaction and a reduction in the number of defects. A partnered rather than a conventionally tendered approach had resulted in a significant proportion of the overall programme being completed earlier in the financial year and a noticeable number of efficiency improvements. Particularly beneficial had been the "open book accounting" approach and the ability to financially plan the delivery of the programme on a longer-term basis.

 

The Board was advised that the expiry of the existing day-to-day repairs contract with Quadron SITA in April 2004 presented an opportunity to extend the partnering approach to routine repairs as well as major works. However, although Gosport's Housing Service now had significant partnering experience, partnering a routine repairs service would present new challenges. Given the success of the previous "partnering pilot" approach with Connaught and Quadron's consistent level of performance (97.58% of day to day repairs completed within the contractual time scale between 1st April and 30th September 2002 compared with 95.43% during the financial year 2001/02) and the favourable assessment of the day to day repairs service received from the Audit Best Value Inspection Service in 2000, it was recommended that the existing day to day repairs contract be effectively extended until 2005/06 to provide an opportunity to pilot partnering arrangements. This approach was considered to be of benefit to both organisations and would allow the Council in 2005 to appoint one long-term partner for all repairs and improvement work (excluding gas servicing work).

 

The Board was advised that the legal implications of this course of action had been investigated and it had been found that the proposed extension was permissible.

 

It was reported that the Council's existing gas servicing arrangements for all landlord appliances covered by the Gas Act 1998, were currently undertaken by Hardings Ltd. This contract had commenced in September 1998 and had been performed to a high standard. Given the nature of the work, it was not proposed to include these duties within a partnering arrangement. The existing contract with Hardings was due to expire in September 2003.

 

The Board was advised that, given the good working relationship developed with this contractor, it was proposed that the Housing Services Manager and the Borough Solicitor agree the principles of a proposed six month extension and, if agreement were reached, affect this proposal. A full selection process (including advertising within the European Union) for a new 5-year servicing agreement would then be undertaken this summer, bringing this process into line with the advertisement of a range of other corporate repair and property related contracts.

 

It was reported that, on 3rd October 2001, the Council undertook a partnering exercise to appoint a door entry installation partner. This process resulted in the appointment of EPS Ltd with SAC Ltd being appointed as the reserve contractor. This partnering arrangement had originally been intended to cover two financial years with the first year involving the installation of door entry systems to Harbour and Seaward Towers and a number of smaller blocks throughout the Borough. This work had been completed at the end of the last financial year but the quality of the partnering arrangement had not met expectations.

 

 

RESOLVED: That –

 

(a)    the Borough Solicitor be given authority extend the day to day repairs contract with Quadron until the end of March 2006, to present an opportunity to pilot partnering arrangements;

(b)   the Housing Services Manager and Borough Solicitor be authorised to agree a proposed extension of the gas servicing contract with Hardings for a period of six months and, if agreement is reached, effect this proposal; and

(c)    the appointment of the reserve door entry system partner organisation, SAC Ltd, to undertake servicing and planned installations in the 2003/04 financial year be noted.

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager in connection with two grant applications from two separate voluntary organisations, namely, Gosport Citizens Advice Bureau Fast Track Debt Service and Fareport Fund-a-Home. Both services, which delivered vital preventative homelessness services to non-priority homeless customers, had been established for a number of years and had previously been funded by the Housing Board.

 

It was reported that Gosport Citizens Advice Bureau Fast Track Debt Service had established a good reputation for timely intervention in complex cases. The Council had funded the provision of a part-time specialist debt worker to provide debt advice and advocacy to customers referred by the Council since April 1999. The current post holder also delivered a similar service through Fareham Citizens Advice Bureau and arrangements were in place that enabled the service to be viewed as a cross-district service.

 

The funding application was for a total of £4,978.92, which represented the existing level of funding plus a 3.5% annual increase and it was recommended that this amount (or as varied if the local government annual increase were to vary from 3.5%) be granted for the year 2003/04.

 

It was reported that the Council had funded Fareport Fund-a-Home since January 1999. The organisation provided services to customers for whom the Council had no statutory duty to accommodate but for whom it did have a statutory duty to assist.  The services provided were:

 

·        advice to customers about securing private rented accommodation

·        assistance to customers in securing accommodation (with or without the need to resort to the Council's financial backing)

·        support to customers in accommodation to maintain their tenancy

 

The Council was now being asked by Fareport Fund-a-Home to provide further "on call" funding of £3,000 to help secure accommodation. The Council had previously set aside £8,000 to cover potential liabilities arising from claims on damage guarantees. The £8,000 was made up of £4,000 at the onset of the scheme in 1999 and a "top up" of £4,000 in 2002.

Consideration was given to a recommendation that future funding applications to the Housing Board be classed as either new or established and that established schemes have funding applications determined through delegated powers. New or substantially re-caste services seeking grant funding would be reported to the Housing Board. Members took the view that this recommendation should be approved subject to the funding request being in line with previous awards.

 

RESOLVED: That approval be given for -

 

(a)    funding of £4,978 (or as varied if the Local Government annual increase varies from 3.5%) for the year 2003/04, in respect of the Gosport Citizens Advice Bureau Fast Track Debt Service;

(b)   funding of £3,000 be held in account by this Council to cover potential liabilities incurred by Fareport Fund-a-Home in respect of damage guarantees issued to assist homeless customers in their securing private rented accommodation; and

(c)    the Housing Services Manager be given delegated powers in consultation with the Chairman of the Housing Board and Group Spokespersons to approve future grant applications falling under the Housing Board remit, where the service to be funded has previously approved by the Housing Board and the funding request is in line with previous awards.

 

 

It was reported that a reservation was a right to re-acquire land after sale and could be placed on the land at the time of the sale. This would allow the vendor to the right to re-acquire the land, at no cost, in order to implement certain specified proposals, in this instance to provide a rear accessway.

 

Reservations emanated from a highways policy decision in the 1970's, which recommended the construction of rear accessways to properties in order to encourage off street parking. Where rear accessways could not be constructed immediately when a "right to buy" sale took place, reservations were placed on the appropriate land, ordinarily the final 3 to 4 metres at the end of the garden. A time limit was also placed on the reservation of 20 years after which time the Council would be unable to re-acquire the land except under compulsory purchase legislation or negotiation with the freeholder.

 

In September 1998, the Housing Committee had resolved that:

 

" when the first reservation within an area (Appendix 1 refers) lapsed, existing freeholders with reservations be advised that the Council no longer intended to exercise any rights it has to take the land back"

 

RESOLVED: That the revised list of areas where reservations will be extinguished, contained in Appendix 2 of the Housing Services Manager's report, be approved