08 02 2006

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board received the Housing Services Manager’s report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘HO1’), which considered the Board’s revised 2005/2006 budget and the 2006/2007 budget for the Housing Revenue Account and made recommendations on rent levels for 2006/07.

 

 

Members were advised that the revised council house maintenance budget for 2005/2006 was £2.587M, a reduction of £0.043M on the Original budget. The principal cause of this was a change in the apportionment of recharging from the Housing administration accounts. The council house maintenance budget for 2006/2007 was £2.525M representing a £0.062M reduction on the 2005/2006 revised estimate.  This reduction was due to the apportionment of recharges from the housing admin accounts.

 

It was anticipated that HRA balance level would decrease to £790,000 by the end of the current year. The HRA balance would increase to £820,000 by the end of 2006/2007. £820,000 equated to an average of £251 per property and also represented 5.20% of budgeted expenditure. The balance was also in line with the recommendations laid out in the Audit Commission annual letter of October 2003, which was considered adequate for present needs.

 

The Capital Programme for 2005/2006 to 2010/2011 was shown on page 84 of the draft budget book. The HRA Capital Programme totalling approximately £4.497M in the revised budget for 2005/06 was funded from the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) £2.100M, supported capital expenditure £0.822M, revenue contributions £0.410M and capital receipts £1.165M. The Capital Programme for 2006/07 was £4.500M as the Council worked to achieve the Decent Homes Standard by December 2010.

 

The expenditure for 2006/07 of £4.500M was to be financed from MRA £2.154M, revenue contributions from within the HRA of £400,000. The level of SCE (supported capital expenditure) was now wholly determined by the Regional Housing Boards and, at the time of writing the report, the level of borrowing approvals was still unknown. The remainder of the programme would be financed from useable capital receipts.

 

The Government had published the Final Housing Revenue Account Subsidy and Item 8 Determinations for 2006-07 and the calculations for 2007-08 would probably be the same. General formula for the subsidy calculation remained the same for 2006/07.

 

There had been a slight increase in the formula for Maintenance allowances and the allowance for Gosport Borough Council had increased from £957 per property in 2005/06 to £1017 per property in 2006/07, an increase of 6%. The management allowance formula had also been increased. The allowance had increased from £482 per property in 2005/06 to £513 per property in 2006/07, an increase of 6%. These increases were significantly lower than the previous two years.

 

The Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) had increased from £639 per property in 2005/06 to £645 in 2006/07, an increase of only 1%. The MRA provided the Council with the resources to maintain the condition of the housing stock over the long term. 

 

In order to maintain the move towards target rents in equal annual steps, a national average increase of 5.4% would be needed. However the ODPM had estimated by using the RPI+0.5%+£2 rule this would limit the increases to an average of 5% by using the tolerances within the system. The guideline rent was a major factor in determining the level of subsidy an authority received. The guideline rent, set by the ODPM, for Gosport Borough Council had increased by 7.5% in 2006/07 and the impact of this when input in subsidy calculation was a net loss of subsidy to Gosport of £165,000 for 2006/07. Aligning of guideline rents to actual rents was a fundamental part of rent restructuring.

 

The introduction of the new proposals meant target rents had increased significantly and actual rents would have to increase by £2.87 on average or 5% in order for Gosport to achieve rent convergence by 2012. It was a Government requirement that the Council achieve rent convergence by 2012, so it would have to implement the necessary level of rent increase each year to achieve that fundamental objective. If the Council failed to implement the required annual rent increases it may face financial penalties, which would impact on its ability to achieve the Decent Homes Standard by 2010.    

 

It was proposed to increase rent levels for garages, carports and parking lots by 5% from April 2006. There were a small number of other committee properties where the rent levels were assessed in line with HRA properties. The proposal was to also increase these by 5%.

 

A net loss of subsidy to Gosport of £165,000 for 2006/07 was disappointing, but the Council had a robust HRA Business Plan and would continue to make the necessary investment in its housing stock to keep on-track to achieve the Decent Homes Standard by 2010. 

 

 

RECOMMENDED:  That, with effect from 3 April 2006:

 

a)

the average weekly Council Dwelling rent increase by 5.0%; and

 

 

b)

garage, car port and parking lot rents increase by 5.0%.

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Searle had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Financial Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix “PO1”), which sought Council’s approval to the content of the report, which included the prudential indicators and limits for 2006 – 2007.

 

Members were advised that the report covered the operation of the Council’s prudential indicators, its treasury function and its likely activities for the forthcoming year.   The report incorporated the following key Council reporting requirements:

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion it was reported that the formulation of a plan or strategy for the control of the authority’s borrowing, investments or capital expenditure was a function reserved for the Council.  Hence this Board’s required recommendation to the next Council meeting.

 

RECOMMENDED: That Council approve the Financial Services Manager’s report on (a) the Treasury Management Strategy for 2006/07 – 2008/09, and (b) the limits/prudential Indicators referred to in the report for 2006/07:

 

   ·        capital expenditure projections (para. 2.5)

   ·        capital financing requirement projections (para. 2.6)

   ·        authorised and operational borrowing limits (para. 3.4)

   ·        affordability prudential indicators (paras. 4.2 – 4.8)

   ·        treasury management prudential indicators (page 6/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix “PO2”), which outlined the financial situation of the Council’s General Fund in the current year and, after consideration of the main factors affecting the outlook for 2006/07 including Exchequer support and Reserve levels, recommended a budget level for that year.  The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer updated his report in the light of the recently received Revenue Support Grant Settlement for the Council.

 

The proposed budget, contained in the draft budget book, consolidated the requirements of the Policy and Organisation Board plus the Community and Environment and Housing (General Fund) Boards as cross referenced.  The proposed budget was expected to result in an increase in the Borough’s share of the Council Tax of 2.4% after taking account of reserve and tax collection fund balances.  This increase equated to an extra 6.5p per week Council Tax for an average Gosport property (Band B).

 

The report advised that the revised 2005/2006 budget totalled £10,934,110, the same as the original.  The draft budget book contained a list of variations that had arisen between the Council’s original spending plans for the current year and the latest estimate of expenditure and income.  The working balance was being maintained at its target level of 7% (£765,000) by 31 March 2005 and the newly established Revenue Financing Reserve (RFR) was already proving its worth in assisting the Council to meet unexpected repair and maintenance bills that would otherwise impact on Working Balance.

 

The report advised that, with regard to the budget proposals for 2006/2007, there were substantial variations to the Council’s budget requirements compared to the revised 2005/2006 figure, arising from inflation of over 3%, the new bus pass scheme, Homelessness, Housing Benefits, Priddy’s Hard Site, Interest transactions and the cost of holding local elections.  A detailed analysis was contained in the draft budget book.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer advised that the 2006/2007 budget totalled £11,739,310 including a contribution to Reserves.  The budget total was £805,200 higher than the current year’s original budget. 

 

The report advised that the Capital Programme for the next six years amounted to over £39 million and would require external funding in excess of £10 million to be raised.  This process had already been commenced in order to take advantage of market conditions. 

 

RECOMMENDED: That Council approve a revised 2005/2006 budget totalling £10,934,110 and a budget for 2006/2007 totalling £11,739,310 (including a net contribution to reserves of £18,920).

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Searle had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of the Mayor

and Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Board meeting held on 9 November 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: During the debate on this item Councillor Hayward declared a personal and prejudicial interest and subsequently withdrew from the meeting and took no further part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

Prior to the consideration of the Financial Services Manager’s report on Relate Portsmouth and District’s request for financial funding it was reported that notice of a deputation had been received from Mrs Jackie Buckley, Centre Manager, Relate Portsmouth and District for her and Samantha Gurnah (Trustee) to address the Board meeting on this item. 

 

 

Mrs Buckley accordingly thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them and stated that her remit covered Portsmouth, Gosport, Havant, Fareham and East Hampshire.  She wished to appraise the Board of Relate’s operation and how it affected Gosport.  The issues that affected Gosport’s residents were:

 

     ·  Communication

 

She had looked at the Borough Council’s website and particularly the strategy documents and in this context she referred to “Homelessness”.  Relate contributed significantly to this strategy as it dealt with relationship breakdown, teenage conception, poverty and transport.  Relate had two sessions per week at the Harbourside Cancer Centre facility within Gosport Bus Station.

 

For a Relate session there was a charge of £40 but this was reduced according to an individual’s ability to pay.  From April – December 2005 there had been 295 sessions held for Gosport residents.  92 clients attended these sessions; of these clients 38 were couples and 16 were individuals.  Relate had overspent by £1,500 this year therefore Mrs Buckley requested an increase in the allocation to £7,000 to ensure they could continue the present level of service to Gosport residents.

 

Hampshire County Council had turned down a request from them for financial support.  However they had agreed to some funding towards the cost of family counselling in the area outside Portsmouth.  Further discussion had taken place with Social Services and they would fund Gosport residents on a pro-forma basis.  The Navy would also fund Gosport residents if they had a Naval background.

 

Following Mrs Buckley’s presentation members of the Board questioned her on the operation of her service and the finances required to sustain it.  Mrs Buckley duly left the meeting for the members to consider her presentation and the Financial Services Manager’s report. 

 

Members accordingly considered the Financial Services Manager’s report.  The Manager advised that the Council had a three year service level agreement with Relate that was now in its final year.  The agreement provided annual funding to Relate, at a capped level, in return for an agreed level of provision.  Relate had requested a continuation of the existing service level agreement for a further three years with an increase to £7,000 from its present level of £4,800 to continue the service. 

 

The Manager had accordingly appended to his report, Relate’s service level agreement, grant request letter and Statement of Financial Activities 2004/2005.  Members debated the content of the presentation and the Manager’s report and expressed their concern regarding the lack of funding from other agencies.  They felt that if Relate did manage to attract further funding from the County Council and the Navy then perhaps the Council’s contribution could be reduced.

 

RESOLVED:  That -

 

(i) a maximum of £7,000 be paid to Relate for a further year, with a subsequent review of Relate’s funding requirements being reported back to the Board; and

 

(ii) the £7,000 be paid to Relate on a periodical basis throughout the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager on the Falkland Gardens new public convenience facility.

 

The proposed new facility in the Falkland Gardens sought to improve the service provision by providing a new public convenience in a more suitably located position in the Gardens.  The recommendation before Members sought approval to a virement to utilise a sum of £100,000 from the now terminated Bridgemary Healthy Living Centre project to fund a new public convenience facility.

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to a virement of £100,000 within the Council’s Capital Programme to provide and install a new public convenience facility at the Falkland Gardens.

 

 

(A) Orlit Homes Redevelopment, disposal of site to RSL Partners.

 

Consideration was given to a cross - reference from the Housing Board (11 January 2006) concerning the above matter.

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to the disposal of the Orlit Properties, together with associated garden land, to Portsmouth Housing Association and Hermitage Housing Association for no consideration and on terms to be agreed.

 

(B) Disposal of 79 Avery Lane

 

Consideration was given to a cross - reference from the Housing Board (11 January 2006) concerning the disposal of 79 Avery Lane. 

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to the disposal of 79 Avery Lane on the open market.

 

 

 

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 100 B (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 as one of the interested parties had to submit its views on the proposed merger by 31 January 2006.

 

Councillor Kimber was allowed to address the Board on this matter in accordance with Standing Orders 3.7.2 (c) and 3.7.3.

 

Accordingly consideration was given to a report of the Gosport Voluntary Action and Gosport Development Trust merger proposal December 2005.  The report detailed the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed merger, functions and activities aligned to the two organisations together with the related funding and finance. 

 

RESOLVED:  That Council support the proposed merger between Gosport Voluntary Action and Gosport Development Trust and the current level of funding for both organisations be retained for 2006/07 – 2007/08.

 

 

 

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 100 B (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 matter by 31 January 2006. 

 

Councillor Edgar was allowed to address the Board on this matter in accordance with Standing Orders 3.7.2 (c) and 3.7.3.  Prior to Councillor Edgar’s presentation the Board was informed that Mrs Edgar had been taken ill and in the circumstances the Board wished Mrs Edgar a speedy recovery.

 

Accordingly consideration was given to Councillor Edgar’s report on the Acute Paediatric Services Review in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.  The SHA had recently commissioned the Office for Public Management to undertake a review of the Acute Paediatric Services in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.  The review was led by Sir Cyril Chantler, Chair of Great Ormond Street Hospital and Doctor Sarah Harvey, Director of Health and Social Care at the Office for Public Management.

 

The review team had visited the acute paediatric units in Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight to hear presentations and to visit the units.  Focus groups were held with parents and carers to listen to families and children who had used the services.  Further data and information was collated from each unit for analysis.

 

The report was now completed and the Strategic Health Authority wanted organisations within the NHS family and its partners to respond to it by 31 January 2006.  Councillor Edgar had drafted a Gosport Borough Council response under the following headings:

 

 

The report concluded that it was very important that the problems of access from Gosport to the acute care and A & E facilities at Queen Alexandra Hospital were recognised by the provision of extra resources on the peninsula.  There was no doubt that an enhanced paramedic service and easily accessible facilities locally would ensure that children with worrying symptoms or injuries could be assessed and treated as soon as possible.

 

RESOLVED:  That Council support Councillor Edgar’s draft observations under “Gosport Borough Council Response” in his report, for onward transmission to the Strategic Health Authority.

 

 

 

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 involves 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 Head of Property Services on the above matter. 

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to the sale of the land (edged in black on Appendix B of the report of the Head of Property Services) to Hardway Sailing Club for the consideration outlined in the report. 

 

 

 

 

 

An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of Councillor Davis. 

 

 

 

The Board received a report of the Financial Services Manager, which recommended the Board’s fees and charges for 2006/2007, the revised budget for 2005/2006 and the 2006/2007 budget.

 

The report advised members that the revised budget for 2005/2006 for this Board was £3,775,340, which represented an increase of £610,130 (19%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £3,165,210.  The budget for 2006/2007 for this Board was  £4,870,010, which represented an increase of £1,704,800 (54%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £3,165,210 and an increase of £1,094,670 (29%) on the revised budget for 2005/2006 of £3,775,340.

 

The major variations for the 2006/2007 budget were listed in the variance analysis under the following headings:

 

 

The Board’s recommended fees and charges were included within the draft Fees and Charges book.   They had been examined in line with the Council’s budget strategy to ensure that they stayed in line with the costs of providing the service so that the bottom line cost to the Council Tax payer did not increase in real terms.

 

The draft capital programme for 2005/2006 to 2010/2011 for the Policy and Organisation Board was included on pages 89 – 90 of the Budget book.  The Council’s generally available capital resources were diminishing and it was now clear that there would be a significant impact on future revenue costs from those schemes that required local funding.  The Board was asked to consider the programme in the light of this. 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Financial Services Manager’s report be accepted and forwarded without debate for consideration under Minute No. 44 above. 

 

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 (P), Smith (P) and Wright (P).

 

 

 

 

 

An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of the Mayor.

 

 

 

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Board meeting held on 31 October 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Environmental Services Manager which informed the Board of future funding problems affecting the Council’s ability to maintain Water Quality Awards in 2005/06 and beyond and sought a decision on the way forward.

 

Members were advised that the Council had, for several years, benefited from awards issued by the Solent Water Quality Conference (SWQC) for good bathing water quality at :

   ·        Stokes Bay

   ·        Lee on the Solent

   ·        Haslar Marina

   ·        C&N Marina

   ·        Stoke Lake

   .        Hardway

 

The laboratory which analysed the samples on which the Awards were based had, without notice or consultation, introduced new charges for which no budget provision had been made. This was in March 2005 and efforts had been made since, and were continuing, to overturn that decision.

 

The annual Awards were made for consistent achievement of the required standard for bacterial quality. Each Award was for 12 months; only Gosport, Portsmouth and Havant councils received these, the other member authorities having elected to apply for Awards restricted to the UK bathing season.

 

On 23 March 2005, Wessex Environmental Microbiology Services had written to all local authorities in its area announcing new credit arrangements for 2005-6. On the issue of sea water sampling, WEMS had declared that….“For those authorities that currently sample outside the bathing season, samples will be examined under allocation in April 2005 only; charges will be levied from October 2005 onwards.”

 

Members were advised that, during the remainder of 2005/6 the cost of sampling would be £1,716. The cost of maintaining the sampling programme in a full year was estimated at £1,980 (2005/6 prices). Due to the late notification, no provision had been made in the 2005/6 Environmental Health revenue budgets. Other laboratories offered no financial advantage over WEMS. Officers advised that, in their view, the current frequency of water testing should continue.

 

Council Management Team in September 2005 had requested that independent marina operators be approached for financial contributions towards the sampling programme.

 

Members therefore considered the following options:

 

Seek a contribution from a partner organisation: two marinas benefit from Awards and could be invited to contribute;

 

Seek a contribution from another service, e.g. Leisure & Amenities (on the basis that there are, as WEMS argue, certain tourism benefits);

 

Reduce the number and/or duration of Awards applied for: this could be either by reducing some or all of the applications to bathing season only, or reducing the number of locations for which Awards are sought.

 

 

 

Maintaining an Award for one location outside the bathing season (October to April, i.e. 15 weeks) would cost the Council £330 at current rates;

 

Revise (i.e. increase) budgets or make savings by reducing other EH Services: savings would mean cutting other elements of the service because the budgets were zero-based with no slack nor contingencies. An appropriate increase had been requested in the budget bid for 2006/7.

 

Members were advised that one marina operator had agreed to make a donation of £500 towards the Council’s costs, but had not agreed to any longer term support. A response was still awaited from the second major operator.

 

RESOLVED: That -

 

a)

an additional £2,000 be made available on an annual basis to maintain the water sampling programme; and

 

 

b)

marina operators and other appropriate organisations be approached for contributions towards the Council’s water sampling programme.

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager, which sought the Board’s approval on proposals for the management of water areas for   fishing purposes within the Alver Valley.

 

Members were advised that there were a number of water areas within the boundaries of the proposed Alver Valley Country Park; one of these areas comprised a lake that was currently used for fishing. The Master Plan had identified that the continuation of fishing in this lake would be a suitable use for the foreseeable future.

 

Officers advised that, as the Council did not have the necessary angling management expertise within its staff resources, a suitable method of achieving effective angling management would therefore be required, utilising the skills and abilities of organisations with extensive experience of this activity. The most appropriate way forward would be for tenders to be invited from interested groups.

 

RESOLVED: That interested groups be invited to tender for an agreement to allow fishing at the lake adjacent to the RMC batching plant in the Alver Valley.

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager which sought approval for the use of £34,700 of the funding received by the Council from the sale of land at Camden Allotments, to upgrade the existing perimeter boundary fencing and gates.

 

The Allotments Stakeholders’ Consultative Group had identified that the existing perimeter fencing and gates were in urgent need of upgrading and officers proposed the installation of a 1.8 metre high galvanised steel Bow Top railing design.

 

Members were advised that, given the seriousness of the damage being caused due to unauthorised access to the allotments, the proposed measures would assist in reassuring plot holders of the Council’s commitment to such facilities.

 

RESOLVED: That approval be given to the use of £34,700 of the funding received from the sale of land at Camden Allotments to upgrade the existing perimeter boundary fencing and gates.

 

 

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:

 

i)

to have the opportunity for the facility to be in place and operational for the 2006 visitor season;

 

 

ii)

to allow for production time and planning permission to be obtained; and

 

 

iii)

the requirement for a virement to be approved before committing to ordering the unit.

Accordingly consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager, which sought approval of a virement of £100,000 towards the Falklands Gardens new public convenience facility. The virement would come from the terminated Bridgemary Healthy Living Centre project within the Council’s Capital Programme.

 

The report proposed to improve the service provision on this site by providing a new facility in a more suitably located position within the Falkland Gardens. A charge would be levied to use these facilities which, it was anticipated, would discourage unacceptable use.

 

Members were advised that the proposed location would enable the Council to take advantage of the CCTV monitoring system to deter the antisocial activities that had occurred in the current facility.

 

RESOLVED: That approval be given to a virement of £100,000 from the terminated Bridgemary Healthy Living Centre project within the Council’s Capital Programme in order to provide and install a new public convenience facility at the Falkland Gardens.

 

 

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 Head of Property Services  on the above matter.

 

RESOLVED: That -

 

a)

approval be given in principle to the sale of the land (edged in black on Appendix B of the report of the Head of Property Services) to Hardway Sailing Club for the consideration outlined in the report; and

 

b)

authorisation be sought from the Policy and Organisation Board to the above recommendation.

 

 

Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Head of Legal Services, which sought direction from the Board on how to progress the proposed acquisition of the land owned by Home Farm Trust in the Alver Valley.

 

RESOLVED: That an offer be made to the Home Farm Trust to purchase its land in the Alver Valley (as shown on Appendix A to the report of the Head of Legal Services), without a guarantee of obtaining vacant possession, for a nominal sum and that the Council bear the costs (if any) of any action to remove the gun club.

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.00 p.m. and concluded at 8.14 p.m.

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

 

 

 

 

 

An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of  The Mayor.

 

 

 

 

Councillors Edgar and Dickson declared personal, non-prejudicial interests in any aspect of concessionary travel in item 5 on the agenda (Board Budget 2006/07).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Councillors Edgar and Dickson declared personal, non-prejudicial interests in any aspect of concessionary travel contained in this item and remained in the meeting room throughout its discussion.

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Financial Services Manager, which considered the Board’s revised 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 budgets, including the Board’s fees and charges for 2006/2007. The Board’s budget recommendations would be forwarded to the Policy and Organisation Board for inclusion in the Council’s overall budget proposals.

 

Members were advised that the revised budget for 2005/2006 for this Board was £6,607,760, a decrease of £651,490 (9%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £7,259,250. 

 

Excluding the decrease in Asset Rental charges (-£602,430) and the movement in Admin Recharges (-£16,580), the net cost of the Board’s services had reduced in the revised budget by £32,480.

 

The two largest variations – a reduction in Market income (+£90,000) and an increase in Car Parking income (-£133,000) – had been previously forecast in the budget monitoring reports to P&O Board.

 

The budget for 2006/2007 for this Board was £6,316,740, a reduction of  £942,510 (13%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £7,259,250; and a reduction of £291,020 (4%) on the revised budget for 2005/2006 of £6,607,760.  

 

Excluding the reduction in Asset Rental charges (-£807,780) and the movement in Admin Recharges (+£146,280) the net cost of the Board’s services had increased by £370,480 from the revised budget to the estimated budget.

 

Following the Government’s initiative to provide free local travel from 1st April 2006, an additional sum of £219,900 had been included in the budget for 2006/2007 to provide for the estimated additional costs of providing a farepass for free countywide travel. The Council’s provisional Revenue Support Grant – which did not appear within this Board’s budget - included a sum towards the funding of this initiative.

 

The Council’s generally available capital resources were diminishing and it was now clear that there would be a significant impact on future revenue costs from those schemes that required local funding. The Board was asked to consider the programme in the light of this.

 

The Financial Services Manager’s report made reference to the Community and Environment Board‘s capital programme for 2005/06 and 2010/11.

 

RESOLVED: That the Board recommend to the Policy and Organisation Board its requirements for:

 

a)

the revenue budget (revised 2005/2006 and estimate 2006/2007);

 

 

b)

the capital programme 2005/2006 to 2010/2011; and

 

 

c)

the fees and charges for 2006/2007.

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.00 p.m. and concluded at 6.21 p.m.

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

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Cully had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting of the Housing Board held on 17 November 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

There were no deputations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Housing Board recommends to the Policy and Organisation Board the disposal of the Orlit Properties, together with associated garden land, to Portsmouth Housing Association and Hermitage Housing Association for no consideration and on terms to be agreed.

 

 

 

 

The Board received a copy of the report of the Housing Services Manager on the disposal of 79 Avery Lane.

 

 

Members questioned whether the property had been offered to a Housing Association to repair as this would have kept the property within social housing.  Officers assured Members that this solution had been sought but no RSL partner had been interested in the property in view of the substantial works required.

 

 

Officers explained that the survey carried out in June 2005 was a full structural survey that identified defects that required substantial works.  The 1998 void property survey was a general survey identifying only work necessary to bring the property up to a standard suitable for letting.

 

 

Members questioned whether the property had been offered to a Housing Association to repair as this would have kept the property within social housing.  Officers assured Members that this solution had been sought but no RSL partner had been interested in the property in view of the substantial works required.

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Housing Board recommends to the Policy and Organisation Board that 79 Avery Lane is disposed of on the open market.

 

 

 

 

The Board received a copy of the report of the Housing Services Manager on the Allocations Policy Review.

 

 

The Chairman indicated that he had numbered the bullet point paragraphs contained in the Recommendation to the report and would invite discussion on each point separately but, for clarity of discussion, not in the order they appeared in the report.

 

Members considered the proposed deletion of Policy provisions empowering the suspension of an application due to arrears.  Members were unanimous in expressing their concern about the requirement to delete these provisions. The proposed Policy could only use penalty schemes. Members felt that the Policy should not only penalise bad behaviour but also reward good behaviour.  Officers would be required to “second guess” whether a judge would make an outright Possession Order resulting in a serious behaviour penalty.

 

Members recognised that arrears were sometimes accrued that should not result in a serious behaviour penalty, as in the case of vulnerable tenants, sudden illness or other such difficulty. 

 

Members considered that further research should be carried out by the Housing Services Manager in consultation with officers from the Legal Unit to find a way, within Government guidelines, to reward tenants with a history of prompt payment.

 

Members considered the split families’ treatment under the Allocations Policy.  Officers advised that, where no specific Court Order had been given, one of the primary factors taken into consideration when determining with which parent children resided was the Inland Revenue determination of payment of Child Benefit.  Members agreed that, identifying the balance between the need for efficiency in allocating properties (a split family would under-occupy property for part of the week) and the welfare of children of split families was difficult.

 

Members considered the proposed eligibility criteria for GBC sheltered housing outlined at Appendix C of the report.  Members were informed that the word “following” in the final paragraph should be amended to “above”.  Members also agreed that the word “would” in paragraph 1 should be amended to “will”.

 

Members believed the criteria would assist people under the age of 60 requiring sheltered accommodation.

 

Members considered the proposed Banding Scheme housing need assessment for eligible applicants as detailed in Appendix B to the report.

 

Members considered the consultation process undertaken by officers and were informed that 77% of those responding were in favour of the proposed scheme, not 79% as indicated in the report. 

 

Concern was expressed that the Banding Scheme would disadvantage vulnerable clients who could find the criteria difficult to understand. Officers outlined what steps were being planned to ensure vulnerable customers were not disadvantaged and an additional consultation report was to be submitted to the Housing Services Manager, Chairman and Group Spokespersons on this subject.

 

On the points system, people who had been resident in Gosport for a number of years gained additional points.  Members were concerned that the Banding Scheme did not reflect a similar advantage for local people.  Members were informed that length of residency within the Borough might be considered within the behaviour criteria and that comprehensive assessments would be carried out on all housing applications.

 

Members expressed their support for staff within the Housing Unit and acknowledged their hard work in processing housing applications.  However, they felt that the Banding System should not be adopted for the convenience of staff and to the detriment of clients.  The Housing Services Manager confirmed that, if adopted, the Banding Scheme would be transparent and open to review to take advantage of experience gained both by this Borough and from other authorities operating similar schemes.  Pilot schemes already undertaken had indicated that few allocations were made to tenants from outside the Borough to which they had applied.

 

Members discussed the importance of encouraging tenants to downsize from a family home into something smaller, in order to free up larger houses for growing families.  To facilitate this process, Members considered that provisions for downsizing should be included in Bands A and B and not B and C, as indicated in Appendix B to the report.  

 

RESOLVED: That the Board note the contents of the report on the Allocations Policy Review and:

 

   ·        approve the Housing Need scheme set out in Appendix B of the report, to be implemented upon the adoption of the Choice Based Lettings approach to lettings (due mid 2006), with an amendment to the provisions for tenants wishing to downsize properties being included within Bands A and B and not B and C;

   ·        defer approval of the deletion from the Allocations Policy of provisions relating to suspension of application where specified arrears apply in order for officers to undertake further research and bring a further report to the Board;

   ·        approve the deletion from the Allocations Policy on provisions involving the assessment of an estranged partner’s housing circumstance where split household applies forthwith (children residing in more than one household);

   ·        approve an amendment to the Management Rehousing Panel Policy to include additional eligibility criteria that one or more of the grounds under Section 167(2) Housing Act 1996, apply;

   ·        approve the additional eligibility criteria for access to this Council’s sheltered schemes as set out in Appendix C of the report;

   ·        delegate authority to the Housing Services Manager to make necessary arrangements to the Gosport Joint Housing Register Policy to give effect to the Board’s decision; and

   ·        delegate authority to the Housing Services Manager to amend Schedule Six of the Allocations Policy (schedule of officer decision making powers).

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Apologies were received on behalf of the Mayor and Councillor Mrs Salter.

 

 

 

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

There were no deputations.

 

 

 

 

 

The Board received the report of the Housing Services Manager, which considered the Board’s revised 2005/2006 budget and the 2006/2007 budget for the Housing General Fund with budget recommendations being made to the Policy and Organisation Board for inclusion in the Council’s overall budget proposals.

 

Members were advised that the revised budget for 2005/2006 for this Board was £515,810, an increase of £74,050 (16.76%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £441,760.

 

The budget for 2006/2007 for this board was £533,640, an increase of £91,840 (20.79%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £441,760 and an increase of £17,830 (3.5%) on the revised budget for 2005/20065 of £515,810.

 

The draft capital programme for the Housing Board for 2005/06 to 2011/12 was contained within the draft budget book for approval. The Policy and Organisation Board would subsequently consider the overall programme in the light of available financing resources.        

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Board recommend to Policy and Organisation Board its requirements for the Revenue Budget (revised 2005/2006 and estimate 2006/2007) and the capital programme 2005/2006 to 2011/2012.