|
32. |
NOMINATIONS TO KELSEY HOUSING ASSOCIATION'S LOCAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE |
|
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a report by the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "A") |
|
|
|
Members were advised that the Local Management Committee (LMC) was the key Board through which Kelsey Housing Association proposed to manage and improve tower block homes. Kelsey were requesting that the Council's Housing Board consider nominating two Councillors to the LMC to stand for a term of two years. Housing Board were therefore asked to consider nominating two Councillor representatives (not necessarily from the Board) which would then need to be approved at the next available meeting of Council. |
|
|
|
Members agreed that one representative from each of the two largest political groups be nominated to form part of Kelsey's Management Committee. Councillors Mrs Cully and Hayward were nominated by the Labour and Conservative groups respectively. |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDED: That one representative from each of the two largest political groups be nominated to form part of Kelsey's Local Management Committee. |
|
|
|
PART II |
|
|
|
33. |
HOUSING RENEWAL POLICY 2004/05 |
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a report by the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "B") |
|
|
|
The report resulted from the reform of housing renewal legislation and its effect on the Council's home improvement grant programme. The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, which had come into force on 18 July 2002, required local authorities to have a Private Sector Housing Renewal Policy in place. This enabled the Council to continue offering targeted financial assistance in addition to mandatory Disabled Facilities Grants. |
|
|
|
The current Policy had been approved by the Housing Board on 5 March 2003 and ratified by the Policy and Organisation Board on 12 March. |
|
|
|
Members were advised that every Private Sector Housing Renewal Policy was required to –
-
be fair;
-
give priority to the most vulnerable households, in particular to disabled and older households;
-
ensure that applicants for loans are properly advised; and
-
take realistic account of people's ability to contribute, including to equity release loans. |
|
|
|
This report took account of Government guidance, specifically Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 05/2003, published on17 June 2003. |
|
|
|
Members were advised that Government policy was gradually steering local authorities away from direct funding of home repair/improvement towards loans and other financial alternatives. There were still limited options available from mainstream lenders for people on low incomes, who formed the majority of the Council's clients under the current Policy as well as the preceding grant regime. There was an unmet demand for, for example, low value loans and loans for older people or those without an established credit record. |
|
|
|
Members were advised that authorities were able either to provide assistance themselves or through another agency, such as a registered social landlord, charity or home improvement agency. In addition, they could provide financial help, either direct to the borrower or lender or via an agency, to enable people to obtain a loan provided by another body, such as a commercial lender, at an affordable rate. |
|
|
|
Members were advised that, during 2003, a project had been initiated by the Borough Council, together with five other neighbouring authorities, to investigate the feasibility of a loan scheme through Portsmouth Area Regeneration Trust (PART), a local community bank. The interim report from this research had confirmed that there was a demand, albeit at an uncertain level, for the products on offer and recommended that the local authorities instigate a pilot project. The consortium had decided to commission further development to put in place the mechanisms for the loan package. If this was completed on schedule it should be possible for PART to commence offering loans, initially small, unsecured loans, in support of housing renewal during 2004/5. This could be expanded to include secured loans. Loan repayments would be recycled and, in time, the scheme could become self-financing. |
|
|
|
The proposed Policy made provision for the project. |
|
|
|
Members' attention was drawn to paragraph 2.7.9 of the proposed Policy, which listed areas of delegated authority to the Head of Environmental Health (Residential and Pollution). Members were advised that, following a reorganisation, these areas should be delegated to the Head of Technical Services within the Housing Services Unit. It was recommended that the Policy be amended to take this into consideration together with any other associated amendments. |
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That – |
|
|
|
(i) references in the Policy to the "Head of Environmental Health (Residential and Pollution)" be changed to "Head of Technical Services" and that all other associated amendments be made accordingly; |
|
|
|
(ii) subject to resolution (i) above, the Board approve the Housing Renewal Policy for 2004/05; and |
|
|
|
(iii) the Board recommend to the Policy and Organisation Board at its meeting on 10 March 2004 that the Housing Renewal Policy be adopted. |
|
|
|
34. |
MEETING THE DECENT HOMES STANDARD |
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a report by the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "C"). |
|
|
|
Members were advised that, under the assumptions contained in the report, the Council's management consultants PCA had estimated that, following the planned transfer of its tower block homes, the Council would be able to afford the level of investment identified by surveyors Property Tectonics as being necessary to achieve the total cost of meeting the Decent Homes Standard for the remaining stock by the 2010 deadline. However, the report was based on a range of financial assumptions and through a risk assessment process concluded that there was very little room for error or mis-calculation, as there was approximately £0.4 million, or about £50,000 per year, between success and failure. However, this was on the basis of the 'total cost' of improving homes. In terms of the minimum requirement – undertaking the minimum amount of work needed to meet the Decent Homes Standard, it was estimated that there was a much greater safety net of some £3 million over 7 years. |
|
|
|
Members were advised that the report did not propose to substantially alter the Capital Works Programme Priorities approved in November 2002. However, analysis had revealed that utilising the 'Tenant Led Initiative' (TLI) approach" for large-scale kitchen and particularly bathroom improvements was not practical. As a result, the proposed repairs and improvement programme for 2004/5 envisaged greater investment in the windows and doors and central heating programmes in the coming year. It was proposed that, subject to the confirmation of future funding, the Housing Services Manager during 2004/05 develop proposals for a Council-led kitchen/bathroom replacement programme for the years 2005/06 – 2007/08. |
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That – |
|
|
|
(i) the contents of the Decent Homes Financial Assessment be noted; and |
|
|
|
(ii) the 2004/05 Housing Repairs Programme be approved. |
|
|
|
35. |
RENEWAL OF REFUGE ACCOMMODATION WITH FAREHAM AND GOSPORT FAMILY AID |
|
|
|
|
Members were advised that the Housing Committee last considered the need for a continuation of the accommodation agreement between the Council and Gosport and Fareham Family Aid at its meeting held in June 1999. At that time, Gosport and Fareham Family Aid were about to acquire a larger Refuge in Fareham but they had demonstrated that there was still a need for the smaller property in Gosport (a three-bedroom house).
It remained the case that placements for women and children fleeing domestic violence were still at a premium. Despite the increase in Gosport and Fareham Family Aid's available accommodation, more often than not, the Council had to place victims of domestic violence in non-refuge accommodation. Gosport and Fareham Family Aid had responded to this problem by expanding their outreach service. This service provided support to victims of domestic violence regardless of the accommodation they are in.
It was therefore accepted that the demand for the smaller Gosport Refuge remained, and as such the agreement for Gosport and Fareham Family Aid to hold the property should be continued. |
|
|
|
Members were advised that in June 1999 a license agreement was entered into between Gosport Borough Council and Gosport and Fareham Family Aid. There was some doubt now as to whether the agreement should be on a license or tenancy basis. This same issue had been identified in the report to the Housing Board, January 2004, A Review of the Sub-lets Scheme.
For the same reason as outlined in the January 2004 report above, it was recommended that the Board give delegated powers to the Housing Services Manager, in consultation with Borough Solicitor, to amend the accommodation agreement with Gosport and Fareham Family Aid. It was further recommended that the agreement be drafted to avoid it being for a fixed term or period of time. This would have the consequence of the Housing Board not needing to periodically review the arrangement simply because the contract period had ended. The Housing Board would then only review arrangements when there was a need so to do. |
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "D") |
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That – |
|
|
|
(i) delegated powers be given to the Housing Services Manager, in consultation with the Borough Solicitor, to amend the accommodation agreement with Gosport and Fareham Family Aid: and |
|
|
|
(ii) the agreement be drafted to avoid it being for fixed period of time. |
|
|
|
36. |
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC |
|
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the under mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. |
|
|
|
37. |
TRANSFER OF GARLAND COURT, HAMMOND COURT, BLAKE COURT, HARBOUR TOWER AND SEAWARD TOWER TO KELSEY HOUSING ASSOCIATION |
|
|
|
|
Consideration was given to an exempt report by Jenkins & Hand, Solicitors, which summarised the terms of the contract for the transfer of Garland, Hammond and Blake Courts and Harbour and Seaward Towers to Kelsey Housing Association. |
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That the report be noted. |
|
|
|
The Chairman advised Members that this was the last meeting that Mrs Jean Warwick, the tenant representative on the Board, would be attending in this capacity. Mrs Warwick was thanked for her contributions over the last two years and also for her work on the "At Your Service" Editorial Panel, the Customer Involvement Partnership, Gosport Resource Centre and the Tower Block Transfer Steering Group. |
|
|
|
The Chairman conveyed the Board's best wishes to Mrs Warwick for the future. |
|
|
|
The Chairman thanked officers for the work they had done over the last municipal year. |
|
|
|
The Leader of the Council thanked the Chairman for the fair manner in which she had chaired the Board over the last municipal year. |
|
|
|
The meeting concluded at 6.55 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
