05 04 2006

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of the Mayor and Councillors Davis and Hook. 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Board meetings held on 18 and 31 January 2006 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Chief Executive, which advised members of the consultation documents produced by the South East England Development Agency’s (SEEDA) as part of their review of the Regional Economic Strategy 2006 -2016.

 

The Regional Economic Strategy consultation document was accompanied by an Interim Paper which provided the evidence base for the review of the Strategy.  This was a fairly comprehensive document that looked at the context for the South East, provided an overview of the current economic situation and identified trends for the future.  An outline of SEEDA’s approach to developing the strategy, the main objectives and the key actions for delivery in the South East coastal strip, of which Gosport was a part, were provided at Appendix A to the report.

 

 

 

In seeking consultation responses, SEEDA specifically invited comments on:

 

   ·   whether the challenges and key issues identified are the most whether the challenges

      and key issues identified are the most important ones for the future of the South East

      and/or can others be identified;

   ·  how best to prioritise the objectives and actions identified; how best to prioritise

      the objectives and actions identified;

   ·  the most effective way for SEEDA to contribute to the objectives and key tasks;

    ·  how partner organisations will contribute to the achievement of the

       objectives and actions identified.

 

 

In conclusion it was suggested that the Council’s response focus primarily on the issue’s of concern to the Borough and its potential contribution to the delivery of the Strategy.  With this in mind, the key questions posed by SEEDA, as outlined above, were reiterated in the report followed by a recommended response that drew on the input from officers and the priorities and actions emanating from the Council’s Corporate Plan 2005-2008.

 

RESOLVED: That –

 

(i) the findings of the interim Evidence Base and proposals contained in the Consultation Document be noted; and

 

(ii) approval be given to the Council’s response as outlined in paragraphs 2.5 to 2.14 of the Chief Executive’s report,  subject to reference being made in the Council’s response to the sites at Daedalus, Fleetlands and Frater.

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Chief Executive concerning The Compact for Gosport.

 

The report sought support for the "‘One Compact for Hampshire’ and the ‘Volunteering Code for Gosport’, designed to build upon the beneficial working relationships between the Council and the Voluntary and Community Sector.  The Hampshire Compact Officer Working Group had produced a "One Compact for Hampshire" document in November 2004 and this was appended to the report as Appendix A.  This document sets out the four key issues (Consultation, Funding, Volunteering and Infrastructure) for improving the working relationships between public sector agencies and the Voluntary and Community Sector across Hampshire.  This principles document was widely consulted on and had been adopted by all local authorities and agencies as listed in the document.

 

The Hampshire Compact Officer Working Group would work to support all Hampshire Districts in promoting a ‘Compact way of working’ and would produce Codes of Practice for each of the four key issues– the first Code of Practice on Volunteering was published in November 2005 and was appended to the report as Appendix B.

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That -

 

(i) the "One Compact for Hampshire" and the ‘Volunteering Code for Gosport’ and the principles and key issues contained therein be adopted; and

 

(ii) approval be given to a formal launch of the Gosport Compact and associated documents at the Gosport Volunteer Certificate Ceremony in June 2006.

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a cross-reference from the Housing Board (08 March 2006) concerning the above matter.  It was reported that the Housing Board had amended the wording of paragraph 6.11 on page 20 of the Housing Renewal Policy to indicate that the Council would consider supporting any third party that met the approval of the Council, such as an energy management company.

 

RESOLVED: That the Housing Renewal Policy 2006-2007, as amended, be formally adopted. 

 

 

 

By reason of special circumstance, the Chairman determined that this item be considered at this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the item had not been available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of Section 100B (4) (a) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

 

The special circumstance for consideration of this item at this time was that the Council had to respond to the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) on the above consultation exercise by 22 March 2006.

 

Accordingly consideration was given to Councillor Edgar’s report on the above subject. Councillor Edgar had submitted his report in his capacity as a co-opted member of the Portsmouth City Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee, member of the Hampshire County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee and Haslar Task Force Spokesperson.  He advised that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is currently leading a stakeholder consultation on a range of proposals aimed at transforming local NHS organisations including Strategic Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts and Ambulance Service NHS Trusts.

 

 

 

Councillor Edgar had attended most of the public stakeholder consultation meetings.  In general, the majority view of those present supported the following options:

 

   1.  A new Strategic Health Authority covering Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Thames

        Valley with another covering Kent, Surrey and Sussex;

   2.  The continuation of Primary Care Trusts for Portsmouth and Southampton Cities and

        the Isle of Wight, and a single Primary Care Trust for the rest of Hampshire which

        would be coterminous with the Hampshire County Council boundaries; and

   3.  A stand alone ambulance service preferable run, as at present, by Hampshire

        Ambulance, or as a second option combined with Thames Valley.

 

The report concluded with a recommended Borough Council response on the three areas under review.  In summary the Council’s response recommended that the Council should:

 

   ·      not support option 1 or option 2 under Strategic Health Authorities.   Members raised serious concerns regarding the current and future role of a Strategic Health Authority, citing the current Strategic Health Authority’s misunderstanding of local issues related to the use of the Gosport War Memorial Hospital and the Royal Hospital Haslar. 

 

   ·       not support option 1 or option 2 under Strategic Health Authorities.   Members raised serious concerns regarding the current and future role of a Strategic Health Authority, citing the current Strategic Health Authority’s misunderstanding of local issues related to the use of the Gosport War Memorial Hospital and the Royal Hospital Haslar. 

 

   ·      support the proposal for a single PCT for the two tier Hampshire County Council area comprising the existing PCT’s.  Once again members had some concerns on the understanding of local issues and wished to add the following sentence:

 

 "The new countywide PCT would need to put structures in place to demonstrate truly local accountability."

 

   ·      reject the proposed merger of Hampshire Ambulance Service with Thames Valley on the grounds that it is not in the interests of either the population of Gosport or the NHS in Southern Hampshire.

 

 

RESOLVED: That -

 

(i) the Council supports the observations outlined in Councillor Edgar’s report under "Gosport Borough Council’s Response" on Strategic Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts and Ambulance Services; and

 

(ii) an additional sentence on the Council’s response under Primary Care Trusts be added as follows:

 

"The new countywide PCT would need to put structures in place to demonstrate truly local accountability."

 

 

 

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 involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Chief Executive, which sought approval to an offer from Bayview Developments in respect of the provision of access to the Shell Filling Rooms at Priddy’s Hard.

 

RESOLVED: That the Chief Executive and Borough Solicitor be requested to conclude an agreement with Bayview Developments in accordance with the terms outlined within the Chief Executive’s report.

 

 

Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Development Services Manager, which sought approval of the sale of the freehold interest in the land shown hatched black on the plan attached to the Manager’s report.

 

RESOLVED: That a decision on the sale of land adjacent to Powder Pier be deferred pending a site visit by members of the Board.

 

 

The Mayor (Councillor Burgess)(ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook)(ex-officio); Councillors Mrs Batterbury (P), Carr (P), Dickson (P), Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Hayward (P), Kimber (P), Searle, Smith (P) and Wright (P).

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Mrs Wright had been nominated to replace Councillor Searle for this meeting.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of the Mayor and Councillors Hook and Searle.

 

 

 

 

Councillors Wright and Edgar declared non-prejudicial interests in that any decisions made at the meeting would not affect any decisions they made as Hampshire County Councillors.

 

Councillor Carr declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 9 on the agenda (Publication of Food Hygiene Inspection Information).

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Board meetings held on 9 and 23 January 2006 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records, subject to the final line of the fourth paragraph of minute no. 35 (9 January 2006) being amended to read:

 

" A charge was proposed to be levied to use these facilities which, it was anticipated, would discourage unacceptable use".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Environmental Services Manager which sought:

 

a)  to advise the Board on the award of a Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant for 2006 – 2008;

 

 b)  the Board’s approval for the allocation and spend of the two year funding; and

 

c)  the Board’s approval for an additional contribution to Project Integra’s Behavioural Change Strategy for 2006-2008.

 

Members were requested to approve the spending plan of the Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant for 2006 – 2008 and the additional contribution to Project Integra’s Behavioural Change Strategy for 2006 – 2008.

 

Officers updated the Board with following information regarding four proposed project submissions totalling £79,500:

 

i)  To trial a number of different collection containers/methods to encourage greater participation and reduce contamination from multi-occupancy premises

 

The value of this proposed project was £50,000

 

ii)  To develop and create a Fareham and Gosport Real Nappy Network

 

The value of this proposed project was £13,000

 

iii)  To create and develop an In-House Natural Resource Group to implement new systems and/or enhance existing schemes to improve waste minimisation and recycling

 

The value of this proposed project was £6,500

 

iv)  To provide relevant training for:

 

   · All collection crew operatives to include conflict management, assertiveness and

     customer services training.

   · All support staff to include conflict management, assertiveness and customer services

     training.

   · Lead operatives to further technical knowledge on recycling processes in order to feed

     back to colleagues through in-house arrangements.

 

The value of this proposed project was £8,000 - £10,000

 

Members were advised that the appointment of 2 dedicated Recycling Inspectors from April 2006 on a one year fixed term contract, with the option to extend for a further 12 months, would provide the opportunity to reduce contamination levels within the current recycling scheme and increase participation levels. 

 

Appendix A of the Environmental Services Manager’s report identified a programme of works and associated costs.

 

Appointment on a one year fixed contract would provide the opportunity to reassess the work programme in 12 months taking into consideration the outcomes of the Waste Management Strategy and environmental improvements obtained through the formation of the Environmental Enforcement Team.

 

Successful funding through Project Integra Local Delivery Projects would enable additional improvements to be made to the current recycling services.

 

RESOLVED: That the spending plan of the Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant for 2006 – 2008 and the additional contribution to Project Integra’s Behavioural Change Strategy for 2006 – 2008 be approved.

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Environmental Services Manager, which sought the Board’s approval of the Draft Business Plan 2006 – 2011 to permit the Project Integra Management Board to finalise the plan on 6th April 2006.

 

Members were advised that the plan was shorter this year as the more strategic elements had now been encapsulated in the draft Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy. The plan concentrated on the delivery of operational priorities, projects, programmes and the funding of the Project Integra Executive.

 

The priorities and project programme had been approved by the Project Integra Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee on 15th December 2005.

 

The draft plan proposed that subscriptions for the Executive function (total cost £167,400) would rise by inflation only.  The draft plan’s proposal for project funding had been held at £150,000 as per the two previous years.

 

The draft plan proposed that the project funding be allocated to support the Behavioural Change Strategy (£100,000) and the Strategic Financial Review (£50,000).

 

Members were advised that it was a requirement of the Project Integra constitution that each Local Authority within the partnership adopt the Business Plan.  Without Board approval the Council would be at risk of loss of benefits of the wider membership of Project Integra. 

 

It had been agreed by all authorities present at the Project Integra Management Board Annual General Meeting held on 12th January 2006 to adopt the Draft Business Plan 2006 – 2011.

 

RESOLVED: That the Project Integra Draft Business Plan 2006-2011 be approved.

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Environmental Services Manager, which sought approval of the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JiMWaMS) Document.

 

Members were advised that there were four potential waste management options set out in the Hampshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Scoping Report.  These had been submitted to statutory consultees and other interested organisations during early October 2005.  Several Project Integra Members had participated in the MRS Stakeholder Workshop on 7th October 2005 where the options had been scrutinised in some detail.  As a result of feedback, a fifth option had been added.

 

The five options had been subjected to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) over two days in November 2005 by the JiMWaMS Officers Group and an Environment Agency representative.  The appraisal had been facilitated by Clare Brown of Entec.

 

As a result of the SEA, Option 5 had emerged as the best performing option on sustainability grounds.  This outcome was considered and endorsed by the Strategic Officers Group at a workshop on 1 December 2005 and by the Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee on 15 December 2005.

 

The emergence of the Preferred Option had permitted the drafting of the Core Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1 of the Environmental Services Manager’s report.

 

Subject to the approval of the Board, the Strategy would be submitted for consultation with all PI partners and other stakeholders.  Parts 2 and 3 of the document, which contained supporting information, would also be made available.

 

RESOLVED: That the Draft Core Strategy outlined in Project Integra’s Hampshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy document be approved.

 

 

 

Note: Councillor Carr declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the meeting room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Environmental Services Manager, which requested the Board to decide on the principle of the publication of food hygiene inspection information.

Members were advised that the Council currently published details of its Shipshape Food Hygiene Award Scheme on its website, and the names and addresses of holders of the Award would also be published in a leaflet.

 

The Shipshape Food Hygiene Award had been devised by Gosport Environmental Health to recognise food businesses that consistently maintained high standards of food hygiene.  The standards needed to achieve the Shipshape Award were higher than the law required, and it was automatically given to qualifying businesses following a food hygiene inspection.

 

Members were advised that the Council could choose to do nothing now, apart from continue to respond to legitimate requests for information under environmental information legislation.

 

The Food Standards Agency may introduce a national scheme within the next few years, although no time limit had yet been set. A cross-London pilot scheme was being planned.

 

Any national scheme would be developed following consultation with the trade and enforcement bodies, to ensure a system, which would be transparent and consistent throughout the UK.

 

The Council could make budget provision to purchase the use of separate internet-based facilities to post information on the internet which would have to comply with the format and layout determined by the company providing the service. There would also be a considerable ongoing cost implication. There was currently no budget provision so this would have to be referred to the Clearing House for consideration.

 

The Council could choose to be proactive and provide some information on the Council website.

 

Any "Scores on the Doors" scheme introduced in Gosport BC would have to be fully explained to local food business operators and trade representatives (particularly for businesses which were part of national chains) in order to dispel potential fears of bias, loss of trade, and inconsistency of enforcement by officers.

 

If a local public information scheme were to be introduced, the Board would have to determine whether it should apply to all food businesses or just to restaurants, pubs, cafes, takeaways and other businesses providing food for immediate consumption.

 

A local scheme introduced by Gosport BC would involve some resource implications in both staff time to develop and introduce a scheme, and in financial terms to purchase any new IT that may be required.

 

Members were requested to express their preference on the way forward based on the following two options:

a)

The Council wait for a national scheme to be introduced by the Food Standards Agency; or

 

b)

The Council develop its own website-based information system, using existing staff, based on the Modified Audit Commission Curve.

 

Members took the view that details of holders of Shipshape Food Hygiene Award, showing gold, silver and bronze awards, should be published on the Council’s website. The website should be up to date and it should be made clear to members of the public that non-possession of the Award did not necessarily mean that an establishment did not meet the standards required for the Award.

 

In conclusion Members felt that there were a number of options to provide food hygiene information and these clearly would all have implications. In the circumstances Members agreed that the matter should be referred to Scrutiny for investigation.

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

a)

details of the holders of the Council’s Shipshape Food Hygiene Award, showing gold, silver and bronze awards, be published on the Council’s website; and

 

 

b)

the Board approves in principle the publishing of the results and refers the  method to be used to scrutiny.

 

 

Consideration was given to a cross - reference from the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 9 February 2006.

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

a)

Haslar Road and Haslar Sea Wall   The toilet blocks at Haslar Road and Haslar Sea Wall be demolished;

 

 

b)

Whites Place and Forton Recreation Ground   The public toilets at Whites Place, be closed for a six-month trial period and the existing, closed facility at Fort,, , on Recreation Ground be re-opened for a trial , six-month period. Following the trial, consideration to be given to the re-vamping or demolition of the Whites Place facility;

 

 

c)

Nobes Avenue    Toilet block be retained and referred back to Ward Councillors for suggestions regarding the future of the building;

 

 

d)

Elson Recreation Ground    Toilets be incorporated within the existing changing rooms for use by changing room users only. Resultant space to be offered to a local pre-school for use as a storage area;

 

 

e)

Stanley Park   The existing facility at Stanley Park be converted to a store/mess room for staff working at the park and the concept of the use of the toilets at the Alver Bank Hotel by members of the public, with the agreement of the hotel management, be pursued;

 

 

f)

Falkland Gardens   The new facility to be provided at Falkland Gardens be of a design where members of the public walk directly walk into the cubicles (3 unisex, 1 disabled persons); and

 

 

g)

That the following apply to the provision of the new facility at Falkland Gardens:

 

 

 

· Monitoring of complaints received

 

· The provision of spring loaded seats

 

· The provision of light sensors, blue, anti-drug lighting and piped classical music

 

· A sharps (hypodermic needles etc.) disposal unit

 

· A blue/grey heavy resin finish

 

· A changeover from the existing facility of a few hours per day over a period of one month

 

· A maximum charge of £0.10 be made to members of the public for use of this facility

 

 

 

 

By reason of special circumstances, the Chairman determined that this item be considered at this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the item had not been available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of Section 100B (4)(a) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

 

The special circumstances for consideration of this item at this time were related to the need to implement the improvements as soon as possible following approval on 6 March 2006. This would allow the play areas to be upgraded and available for the forthcoming Spring & Summer season. Delaying consideration of this proposal until June 2006 would probably lose 2 - 3 months availability.

 

Accordingly consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager, which sought approval of the use of developer contributions for improvements to play area facilities at the following locations:

 

· Privett Park

· Leesland Road

· Fairway

· Kings Road

 

Members were advised that, at each location, the report outlined the proposed improvements and also identified how these would address any risks that had been assessed from the current provision.

 

Reference was made under each scheme to comments from the Forward Planning Section in respect of Developer Contribution funds and the appropriateness of the scheme to meet the relevant criteria.

 

The upgrading of the identified elements at each location  would enable the facilities to be fully utilised once again.

 

Members were advised that each of the proposed schemes sought to enhance play value and contributed to an improved quality of play facility for residents local to the areas identified and that the proposals met the criteria to allow them to be funded from Developer Contributions.

 

RESOLVED: That approval be given to the use of developer contributions for improvement work to play area facilities at the following locations:

 

· Privett Park Play Area

· Leesland Road Play Area

· Fairway Play Area

· Kings Road Play Area

 

 

By reason of special circumstances, the Chairman determined that this item be considered at this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the item had not been available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of Section 100B (4)(a) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

 

The special circumstance for consideration of this item at this time related to the need for the Board to give direction on what was required before the onset of the summer months

 

Accordingly consideration was given to a report of the Environmental Services Manager, which advised the Board of the current situation regarding potential water restrictions in Gosport and recommended conservation methods to minimise future water usage.

 

Members were advised of the following suggested options to reduce water dependency in the Borough, thus promoting a more sustainable environment:

 

· Grow higher quality bedding plants in order that they recover more quickly at the transplanting stage – this had been put into operation, all bedding material was now grown in pots as opposed to seed trays thus creating a better root system

 

· Select more drought resistant bedding plant material

 

· Improve the structure of the soil in the flower beds by the incorporation of organic material

 

· Improve moisture retention in the flower beds through the introduction of wetting agents

 

· Limit bedding displays to high profile areas such as gateways, main parks and areas that attract visitors – quality versus quantity

 

· Convert existing flowerbeds into more sustainable planting schemes planting a range of shrubs, herbaceous perennials and grasses – this idea had been trialled over the past year and had received favourable reports

 

· Reduce/eliminate hanging baskets and barrier planters

 

· Water early morning and evenings and not in full sun

 

Members agreed that no alterations to flowerbeds should be carried out without prior consultation with Ward Councillors.

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

a)

the report of the Environmental Services Manager be noted;

 

 

b)

officers be instructed to pursue the methods of water conservation outlined in the report; and

 

 

c)

no alterations to flowerbeds be carried out without prior consultation with Ward Councillors.

 

 

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were thanked by Members of the Board for the way in which Board business had been conducted during the Municipal Year 2005/06.

 

In turn the Chairman thanked the Members of the Board and officers for their hard work during the year.

 

The meeting commenced at 6.00 p.m. and concluded at 7.35 p.m.

 

The Mayor (Councillor Burgess) (ex-officio), Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook) (ex-officio), Councillors Allen (P), Carter (P), Mrs Cully (P), Davis, Foster (P), Gill (P), Philpott, Rigg (P), Mrs Salter (P) and Mrs Wright (P).

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillors Wright and Hayward had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillors Davis and Philpott respectively.

 

 

 

 

Apologies were received on behalf of the Mayor, Councillor Burgess and Councillors Davis, Hook and Philpott.

 

 

 

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meetings of the Housing Board held on 11 and 25 January 2006 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.

 

 

 

 

There were no deputations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board received a copy of the Housing Services Manager’s report on the above matter.

 

 

Members congratulated officers on the content of the draft Policy, which reflected the need to provide assistance to lower income groups and target empty properties to provide accommodation for people on the waiting list for housing.  They also welcomed the efforts being made to ensure that adequate loft insulation was installed in properties within the Borough.

 

 

Members were of the opinion that an amendment to the wording of paragraph 6.11 on page 20 of the report was appropriate to indicate that the Council would consider supporting any third party that met the approval of the Council, such as an energy management company.

 

 

RESOLVED: That:-

 

(i)

 

 

(ii)

the Board approves the amended new draft Housing Renewal Policy for 2006-2007; and

the Board recommend to the Policy and Organisation Board that the Housing  Renewal Policy, as amended above, be formally adopted.

 

 

 

 

The Board received a copy of the report of the Housing Services Manager advising the Housing Board of the requirements for licensing private rented accommodation that falls into prescribed categories of houses in multiple occupation and requesting the Board to determine the fee to be paid.

 

 

Members were advised that there were only three properties in the Borough that would require licensing under this legislation.  Members were also informed that the application form attached as Appendix A to the report was being reviewed by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Housing Advisory Committee and, therefore, may be subject to amendment.

 

 

In answer to a Member’s question, it was confirmed that the Gosport Refuge would not be required to be licensed or be subject to any fees under this legislation, as the Council owned the property.

 

 

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

(i)

 

 

(ii)

 

 

 

 

 

(iii)

the fee to accompany the application for licensing a HMO be set at £550 for applications received 1/4/06-31/3/07;

 

the function of licensing HMO under the Housing Act 2004 be delegated to the Housing Services Manager including the form of application to be submitted, granting and varying licences and determining conditions to be applied to such licences. Delegated powers also be given to the Housing Services Manager to refuse and revoke an order

and to create an Interim Management Order as required on particular cases; and

 

the function of applying for Rent Repayment Orders where applicable be delegated to the Housing Services Manager in consultation with the Financial Services Manager.

 

 

 

The Board received a copy of the report of the Housing Services Manager setting out the background to the current partnering arrangement for Decent Homes works and recommending that an extension be approved to take this arrangement to the end of the Decent Homes programme in 2010/11.

 

 

Members welcomed the continuity of service provision to be provided by the extension of the contract with Connaught Partnerships Ltd.  In answer to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that it was not possible to quantify precisely the savings provided by Connaught in providing new kitchens, bathrooms, etc., in the drive towards achieving the Decent Homes Standard across the Borough.  However, the kitchen installations and associated works were being provided below the sums originally budgeted and therefore funds were being made available to extend the upgrades to more properties within the same budget provision.

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Board authorises the extension of the partnering contract with Connaught Partnerships Ltd, formerly Connaught Property Services Ltd, to run from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2011, in respect of the provision of the delivery of the Decent Homes Standard and associated works.

 

 

 

 

The Board received a copy of the report of the Housing Services Manager setting out the proposed 2006/07 Housing repairs Programme and seeking the Board’s approval for the programme.

 

 

Members requested that Appendix A to the report be amended to show the total amount allocated to the Decent Homes budget without breaking it down into specific works.  This would allow for greater flexibility in allocating funds as required between the different work requirements necessary to achieve the Decent Homes Standard.

 

 

Amendments to the table provided on the second page of Appendix B were also requested as some roads appeared twice whilst others were omitted.

 

Members expressed concern that the results of the Best Value Review into Sheltered Housing Schemes had not yet been brought to the Board.  Members were advised that this was a complex review and the results of an external review into funding for Supporting People were not available yet and these results would impact on the funding available for the provision of wardens to sheltered housing.

 

 

Particular concern was expressed into the provision of heating at The Leisure.  The failure of the heating system within this property had caused difficulties for the residents and the provision of temporary equipment had not always proved adequate.  Members were given an assurance that officers shared their concerns and would investigate alternative schemes for a replacement heating system at The Leisure as part of the Best Value Review of Sheltered Housing.  A report detailing the way forward would be brought to the June meeting of the Housing Board.

 

RESOLVED: That:-

 

(i)         the Board approves the proposed 2006/07 Housing Repairs Programme, subject to the following guiding principles:-

   a)         that Officers be required to seek Board approval to vary the Housing Repairs Programme where work within an identified element of the approved Housing Repairs Programme cannot take place;

 

   b)         that where urgent works are identified after approval of the Housing Repairs Programme for which there is no identified provision, Officers in consultation with the Chair of the Housing Board be permitted to vary the programme for works up to £60,000;

 

   c)         that where urgent works are identified after approval of the Housing Repairs Programme for which there is no identified provision, Officers in consultation with the Chair and Group Spokespersons be permitted to vary the programme for works between £60,000 and £100,000;

           

   d)         that Officers be required to seek Board approval to vary the approved Housing Repairs Programme where urgent works are identified after approval of the programme, for which there is no identified provision and the value of these works exceeds £100,000;

 

   e)         that Officers be required to seek Board approval where work within an identified element of the approved Housing Repairs Programme is going to under- or over-spend by more than £100,000;

 

   f)                    that Members be informed of significant variations to the Programme, as outlined in a) to e) above, which are relevant to their Ward.

 

(ii)        Appendices A and B be amended as outlined above and circulated to Members; and

 

(iii)       a report be brought to the June meeting of the Board to consider the findings of the Best Value Review of Sheltered Housing.  This would include a consideration of the heating system at The Leisure.

 

The meeting commenced at 6pm and concluded at 7.30 pm

 

_______________

 

 

Members of the Council had before them a report of the Chief Executive (a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix "C1") in connection with the above.

 

It was reported that in accordance with Best Value Legislation and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) guidance, Gosport Borough Council had a statutory duty to publish and distribute a Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP) annually by 30 June.

 

Originally the finalised BVPP was presented to Council in June.  However, due to the dates of Full Council meetings and election timetables, it had become more appropriate to present a draft BVPP to this Council meeting for approval with the request that the final production (especially in relation to Chapter Five) and publication be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Group Leaders.

 

The Best Value Performance Plan was a Policy Framework Document and therefore subject to Scrutiny.  The Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 9 February 2006 had scrutinised the Best Value Performance Indicator Information, as consideration of the Best Value Performance Plan, and thereby concluded its scrutiny of the BVPP.

 

Therefore the Chief Executive recommended in his report that the Council approve the draft Best Value Performance Plan (2006-2007) and delegates the final production and publication of this Plan to himself in consultation with the Group Leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members of the Council had before them a report of the Development Services Manager (a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix "C2") in connection with the above.

&#