A MEETING OF THE HOUSING BOARD
WAS HELD ON 13 MARCH 2002
The Mayor (ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Edgar) (ex-officio); Councillors Allen (P), Bartlett (Chairman) (P), Mrs Batterbury (P), Mrs Cully (P), Farr (P), Gill (P), Philpott (P), Rigg (P), Smith (P), and Taylor (P)
The Borough Secretary reported that in accordance with Standing Orders Councillor Edwards had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Gill.
15. APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of the Mayor and Councillor Edgar.
16. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 16 January and 6 February 2002 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
PART II
17. HOME IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 2002/2003
The Board considered a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "A"), which presented Home Improvement spending proposals for the forthcoming financial year.
It was explained that each year the Borough Council was permitted to spend an amount of money for its Housing Investment Programme (HIP) by the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). This money was divided between Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs), which were the only mandatory grants that the Borough Council was required to provide, and other discretionary grants.
At the Council Meeting on 6th February 2002 Members approved a capital programme comprising £342,000 for grants and £30,000 for other energy efficiency schemes. This assumed that expenditure on Disabled Facilities Grants would be £200,000, attracting a Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) of £120,000.
The Council was notified that the maximum SCA would be £147,000 which was capable of funding Disabled Facilities Grants to the value of £245,000. Officers determined that £225,000 would be an appropriate budget for these grants. Since this would attract a higher SCA than was originally expected when the 2002/3 capital programme was drafted it would permit an increase in the overall grant programme at no additional cost to the Council. This was explained as follows:
| |
Approved Capital Programme
(£,000) |
Proposed Home Improvement Budget
(£,000) |
|
Programme Component |
Value of Grants Paid |
Assumed SCA Funds |
GBC Funds |
Value of Grants Paid |
Actual SCA Funds |
GBC Funds |
|
Disabled Facilities Grants |
200 |
120 |
80 |
225 |
135 |
90 |
|
Other Expenditure (discretionary grants and energy efficiency) |
172 |
nil |
172 |
162 |
nil |
162 |
|
TOTAL |
372 |
120 |
252 |
387 |
135 |
252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditure proposals for 2002/2003 were outlined in detail:
Disabled Facilities Grants : £225,000
This represented an increase of 10% on the current year. It took into account anticipated demand and the fact that the Secretary of State had recently raised the maximum mandatory amount which could be paid on each grant to £25,000 from a previous maximum of £20,000.
Continued Support of the Homecheck Scheme: £17,000
Currently, Home Repair Assistance Grants (HRAs) were used where work was carried out to the fabric of the property and it was occupied by a person in receipt of a qualifying benefit who was either over the age of 60, or was registered disabled or had a child under the age of 5 years. Other Homecheck works (i.e. not to the fabric of the property) or work to the homes of persons not in receipt of a qualifying benefit was funded from revenue.
Priority Home Repair Assistance Grants: £40,000
For applicants who were over 60 years of age or had a child under the age of 5 or were registered disabled, and were in receipt of a qualifying benefit. These grants (usually up to £2,000 each) would cover minor works and adaptations that, if not carried out, could directly affect the occupant's health, safety and well-being. They were specifically targeted at the less well off and vulnerable. Qualifying works would, as in previous years, include:
· repair or replacement (when not economically viable) of hot water cylinder or boiler or main living room heater;
· severe water penetration;
· confirmed dry rot;
· rewiring in cases where the existing electrical circuit was judged to be dangerous by an approved electrician;
· an emergency disabled adaptation.
Renovation Grants: Priority Cases and/or Conversion Scheme: £35,000
For low-income households whose health, safety and/or welfare was directly jeopardised and where emergency repairs were needed which exceeded the limits for Home Repair Assistance Grant covered in 2.3 above.
In addition, assuming a suitable scheme was presented to the Borough Council, assistance with renovation or conversion of an empty or underused property so that it could then be used for rented accommodation.
Energy Efficiency Improvement Scheme: £70,000
In the last two financial years the Council funded a project that provided low cost energy efficiency improvements to any household within the Borough occupied by a person over the age of 60 not in receipt of a benefit. The scheme attracted funding from a major fuel supplier. It was proposed to continue the project and seek further utility company funding.
Summary of Proposed Spending Plans
|
Disabled Facilities Grants |
£225,000 |
|
Homecheck HRAs |
£17,000 |
|
HRAs (repair/adaptation) |
£40,000 |
|
Renovation (priority health & safety &/or dwelling Conversion) |
£35,000 |
|
Low Cost Energy Efficiency measures |
£70,000 |
|
Total |
£387,000 |
|
Total contribution from DTLR |
£135,000 |
|
Total contribution from GBC |
£252,000 |
The Board was advised that the spending plans outlined were based on an appraisal of both the demands and needs of certain sectors of the community based upon current trends and the results of the last Private Sector House Condition Survey in 1997/98.
RESOLVED: That the proposed spending plan for home improvements in the year 2002/2003 be approved.
18. FLOATING SUPPORT SCHEME
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "B") which sought approval for funding from the Council towards a floating support scheme for the Boroughs of Gosport and Fareham.
It was reported that in 2000, Portsmouth Housing Association (PHA) and Southern Focus Trust (SFT) made a joint bid to the Housing Corporation for Social Housing Management Grant (SHMG) that would be used to provide floating support to families across the Boroughs of Gosport and Fareham.
Both Gosport and Fareham Councils had identified the need for a floating support scheme as part of their Joint Housing and Community Care Strategy. Following discussions between both Councils and Social Services, SFT were asked to work up a floating support bid that would provide a service across both Boroughs.
The bid was presented as one that would deliver a low/medium intensity scheme, funded through a mixture of SHMG, LA Grant and Social Services funding. It was intended to work across public, RSL and private housing tenures and serve a generic client group base. Support was expected to be short term in duration.
It was anticipated that detailed development work would be required as the scheme developed. This was to ensure the range of local needs could be adequately met and that the requirements of the two local Authorities, as well as Social Services, could be agreed and delivered through a single service.
SFT had now been advised that its bid was successful and the Housing Corporation had awarded £4,800 for use in Fareham and £19,200 in Gosport. These amounts varied according to the proportion of Registered Social Landlord (RSL) properties in each Borough.
Floating support had been defined by The Housing Association Charitable Trust (HACT) as:
"A flexible peripatetic service providing or facilitating a range of low to medium level support to people living in their own homes or tenancies, with the aim of maintaining independence. The service will act as a 'broker' assessing an individual's needs and enabling access to locally available services as appropriate, both initially and in the longer term. The service is provided for as long as it is needed but with a clear exit strategy. When it is no longer required the support 'floats off' to another person who needs it. If a person needs support again, it can return."
The successful bid for Gosport and Fareham was based on a model that had been developed in Havant. It was designed to provide support to families and persons in all tenure types although the initial needs that had been identified were young people, single parent families and persons with substance misuse or mental health problems.
Floating support was not a new concept and had been developed as an initiative since 1981, when the Housing Services Agency pioneered it in London. More schemes started and over 300 schemes throughout the country had now been developed. Schemes differed in many ways. Some were specific to a particular client group while others were generic. Some were limited to people living in RSL owned properties and others were not. The intensity of the level of support also varied. Some included housing management as a function while others were purely support focused. Some provided specialist workers while others simply 'linked' clients to other agencies or services. Moreover, some schemes offered long-term support whilst others were short term in nature.
Hampshire County Council Social Services had steered the path for the development of schemes in Hampshire and was actively supportive of this particular scheme. It was felt that the scheme should not limit itself to any specific client groups, nor should it be limited to people living in RSL owned properties as this would exclude others with similar needs from accessing a service on the basis of who their landlord was. To achieve this, a broad mix of funding would be required and the service should be delivered from a non-statutory, non-RSL organisation.
The proposed service was developed in response to the Government's 'Supporting People Consultation Document', in which floating support was a pivotal method of ensuring that public money was targeted at those most in need.
In this case, it was aimed to provide two full time Floating Support Workers, one for each Borough, to hold a caseload of about 30 service users each, of which 10 at any one time would be priority cases.
Local accountability and monitoring of the service would be vital to ensure the support of all parties in both dealing with operational difficulties and ensuring continuous improvement. This would also be important, as under the Supporting People and Best Value initiatives, quality and service monitoring would require particular attention. It was considered that the best way of ensuring that the scheme provided a high quality of service would be by the establishment of an inter agency steering group. The group was likely to be made up of representatives from:
· Gosport Borough Council
· Fareham Borough Council
· Fareham and Gosport Social Services
· Health (to be confirmed)
· Southern Focus Trust
It had been requested that Social Services apportion their grant to even the balance in funding across the Boroughs as follows:
· Fareham Borough Council £7,500
· Gosport Borough Council £2,500
The following funding was required to pump prime the service:
· Fareham Borough Council - to increase their contribution for 2001/2002 to £3,600 over and above the £2500 which would be required for the final quarter
· Gosport Borough Council - to provide a one off grant of £2,500.
The Board considered that the Council would receive good value for the funds invested, but requested that an update on the scheme be provided within six months of its commencement.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) match funding of £2,500 be approved to pump-prime this scheme; and
(ii) a progress report be bought before the Board within six months of the commencement of the scheme.
19. CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU FAST TRACK MONEY ADVICE SERVICE
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "C") which sought approval for the continuation of the funding for the Citizens Advice Bureau Fast Track Money Advice Service for the year 2002/2003.
It was noted that Gosport Borough Council had funded the Fast Track Service since April 1999, following the Advice Audit (reported to the Housing Committee in March 1998), which identified that debt advice services within the District were saturated.
The Fast Track Service was an additional debt service to the standard debt advice services provided by the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and enabled our Housing Services customers (mainly existing tenants) to be referred for debt advice and assistance. The key elements of the service were given as:
· Customers seen and cases actioned more quickly than resources allowed within the standard debt service.
· Customers were seen by a paid specialist money adviser.
These elements were considered to be of high importance for the type of case to be referred to the Fast Track Service. It was anticipated that a high proportion of referrals would be under threat of homelessness due to arrears and as such a fast response to complex debt problems would be needed.
The CAB had reported that one third of all customers required money advice and as such it was clear that there would be continuing demand for a high quality debt advice. It was also noted that the Fast Track Debt Adviser worked in the Fareham CAB through Fareham Borough Council funding and as such, the scheme operated across district boundaries. The Fast Track Debt Adviser was being called upon to attend repossession hearings and provided the only specialist court advocacy service, free at the point of delivery, within the District.
Between December 2000 and November 2001 an advisor attended court on 13 occasions for Gosport clients. A total of 69 customers attended the CAB under the Fast Track Service. This represented a small decrease in customers compared to that reported to the Board in January 2001. Although there had been a drop in referrals, it was considered that the demand for the service was still substantial with 239 appointments held with these clients and 698 external contacts with other agencies on their behalf (for example to negotiate a debt). It was explained that the specific debts these customers had with this Council were £12.042.86 in rent arrears, together with 297 other debts.
RESOLVED: That the funding application for £4627.09 for the financial year 2002/2003 be approved.
20. TRANSFER INCENTIVE SCHEME
The Board considered a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "D"), which sought approval for an amendment to the transfer incentive scheme.
It was explained that the Transfer Incentive Scheme had been in existence for a number of years. The purpose of the scheme was to release family sized accommodation by facilitating the transfer of existing tenant(s) under occupying a Council dwelling into one bedroom elderly designated accommodation. The scheme was originally framed in this way, as there was a relatively low demand for elderly designated accommodation.
Housing Committee approved the award of housing need points to those under occupying their homes in June 1999. This award of points meant that all households who were under occupying by any level were awarded a degree of priority, but only those who were able to move to a one bedroom, elderly designated property received the option of:
£1000 cash payment
or
Internal redecoration of the property
or
Removals, disconnection and reconnections.
NB. Tenants moving to Housing Association tenancies were not eligible for the internal redecoration option.
The following figures highlighted the operation of this scheme since the Housing Committee last considered it in 1999:
| |
1.4.99 – 31.3.00 |
1.4.00 – 31.3.01 |
1.4.01 – 31.12.01 |
|
Number of Incentive Moves Under the Scheme |
19 |
18 |
5 (7.5 pro rata) |
|
Number of Tenants Moving to Smaller Properties Outside of the Scheme i.e. to properties that are not elderly designated |
1 |
8 |
7 |
As at 11th February 2002, there were 11 applicants on the transfer list who could qualify for the incentives offered under the Transfer Incentive Scheme and a further 9 potential applicants who were under occupying their home but would not qualify for elderly designated accommodation.
The numbers of applicants applying for re-housing under this scheme had reduced substantially and this had impacted on the number of family homes that had been released through this scheme.
By only allowing applicants incentives to move to elderly designated properties, applicants who were too young for such accommodation were automatically excluded from the scheme and many would remain in property which was too large for their needs and which could otherwise have been used to house a family.
It was proposed that by extending the scheme to all those who were prepared to give up a family home and move to any one bedroom property, the Council would maximise the opportunity to release family accommodation.
It was considered that the current level and range of choice of incentives of the scheme worked well, minimised void periods and were well received by applicants. It was therefore also proposed to retain the current incentives.
There were, however, certain circumstances where the Housing Services Manager would need to exclude tenants from applying for the scheme. Examples of such circumstances included:
§ The tenants concerned were already receiving compensation for their move
§ The tenants concerned had already received an Incentive Package to move to the existing accommodation within the last 2 years.
§ The tenant concerned was a successor under occupying the property for which Schedule 15, Housing Act 1985 applied.
The Board supported the scheme but requested a further exception was made to those tenants who were able to apply for the scheme. This was defined as:
§ The tenant or occupant has recorded incidents of nuisance/anti-social behaviour problems against them on their file over the last two years (i.e. enforcement officer, housing officer, environmental health, police involvement, etc) and their file had not been clear for a minimum of one year.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) approval be given to the change to the transfer incentive scheme to extend qualifying homes to include all one-bedroom properties, not just dwellings that are specifically designated as elderly or sheltered accommodation;
(ii) exceptions to the scheme be made as set out above; and
(iii) that a review of the scheme be undertaken after one year of operation.
21. LEASE OF LAND AT PHOENIX WAY
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "E") which sought approval for the lease of Housing-owned land at Phoenix Way to the Cerebral Palsy Centre at a less than market rent.
It was noted that an area of land at Phoenix Way, Rowner (formerly Green Crescent) was currently leased to the Gosport and Fareham Spastics Society. They had leased the land since 1987 and had purchased and erected a Portacabin on the site with a ramp for wheelchair access. The Portacabin had been used to provide advice and support to disabled residents of the Gosport and Fareham area.
The current lease was renewed in 1996 for a period of twenty-one years, expiring in 2017. The land was leased at the cost of £1.00 per annum.
The Gosport and Fareham Spastics Society ceased to operate as a voluntary group on 31 December 2001 and its Trustees now wished to withdraw from the lease with immediate effect.
Their lease with the Council required them to revert the site to its original state, including the removal of the Portacabin. The Society did not have sufficient funds for the Portacabin's removal or to re-instate the site to its original condition.
Given the Society's desire to withdraw from this lease and to minimise further financial commitments, the Housing Services Manager conducted 'in principle' negotiations with another voluntary organisation, the Cerebal Palsy Centre. This organisation had expressed an interest in leasing the site on the same terms as the Spastics Society's lease, including the £1.00 per annum rent. Such an arrangement would secure the continuing use of this site for voluntary use and would relieve the Gosport and Fareham Spastics Society from funding the cost of the Portacabin's removal. This proposal would involve no additional costs to the Council.
The Cerebal Palsy Centre worked with disabled people and their families and carers in South East Hants since 1950. Their main office was situated in Copnor, Portsmouth, and they provided an advocacy and befriending service for disabled adults and also aimed to give support and advice to families with a child with special needs. They had already used the Phoenix Way site on an informal basis in partnership with the Gosport and Fareham Spastics Society and wished to continue to use the portacabin at Phoenix Way on a full-time basis, to offer advice and support to residents in the Gosport area.
In terms of legal implications it was explained that Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 stated that an authority could not dispose of land for a consideration less than the best that could reasonably be obtained, unless:-
(a) there was consent of the Secretary of State, or
(b) a short-term tenancy was to be offered
A short-term tenancy would be defined as a period 'not exceeding 7 years'. The Board would also be entitled to consider ethical as well as commercial issues, and whether any other body would be interested in taking on a lease.
The Council's Scheme of Delegation to officers, required at paragraph 3.3: 'that land be leased at the best price, which can reasonably be obtained', unless authority had been granted by the Board to lease the land at a nominal or concessionary rental to a sporting club, voluntary group or similar organisation.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) the lease of land at Phoenix Way to the Cerebral Palsy Centre for a period of 7 years and at an annual premium of £1 be approved; and
(ii) the Borough Secretary be authorised to enter into such lease as is necessary to effect the proposals upon such terms as agreed by the Council's Valuer.
22. EXTERNAL PAINTING PROGRAMME
The Board considered a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "F") which sought approval for the 2002/2003 external painting programme.
At its meeting in March 2001, the Housing Committee had approved the principles for the external painting programme. These were:
"The new painting programme will only cover essential repairs to any item and will include external decoration of all previously painted surfaces. It will not include any Wholesale replacements or improvements to existing facilities.
In addition, where a property has received new PVCu windows, or has previously been included on the planned maintenance programme, the painting cycle will be used to service any PVCu windows and doors that have been fitted, and also carry out repairs and decorations to gates, fences or sheds that may be present at the property"
At that meeting, the committee approved the 2001/02 external painting programme, but resolved that the programme for future years be considered in light of the new stock condition survey.
Property Tectonics had completed the stock condition survey in December 2001 and since that time Officers had worked with them to develop a new programme. However, since the completion of the survey there had been insufficient time to analyse all of the data collected and produce a coherent logical painting programme for all dwellings in the Borough.
Therefore Property Tectonics had worked with officers on the outline programme presented to the Housing Committee in March 2001 and cross referenced this list with properties shown by their survey to be in urgent need of external decorations (attached as an appendix to the report). Prioritisation of properties had been done on a 'worst first' basis although it was fully recognised that there were a large number of other properties on which work would be required in the future.
It was anticipated that a full external painting programme would be brought to a future meeting of the Board once all the stock condition survey data had been fully analysed.
RESOLVED: That the external painting programme as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be approved.
23. FUNDING A 'BOND' SCHEME FOR SINGLE HOMELESS PEOPLE
The Board considered a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "G") which sought approval to continue funding Fareport Fund-A-Home for the year 2002/2003 in order to provide advice, a 'bond' scheme and rent in advance to enable single homeless people and childless couples to secure accommodation in the private sector.
It was explained that Fareport Fund-A-Home provided a drop in service in Gosport and Fareham and a telephone advice service for clients. Those using the scheme usually had multiple support needs. The scheme was intended to provide a range of support to clients including:
· Basic help and advice
· Help with benefits and form filling
· Assistance with moving in and getting settled
· Budgeting
· Life skills
· General support and encouragement.
Support was provided for as long as necessary and FFH were planning to develop more 'peer-support services' to increase the effectiveness of the scheme.
Some of the work of Fareport Fund-A-Home was likely to attract Transitional Housing Benefit (THB). The remaining administrative work required funding by the two Council's supporting the scheme with any shortfalls being met by grant application to various sources by Fareport Fund-A-Home.
The Board noted that there had been a recent change in service provision in that Fareport Fund-A-Home now provided one session per week at which they were able to see 6 new clients and support for existing clients (instead of two 2 and a half hour sessions). This change was due to the costs of hiring the room for two separate sessions.
Service usage statistics provided by Fareport Fund-A-Home, showed that Gosport's figures were based on 90 clients and Fareham's were based on 112. All of Gosport's 90 clients were direct referrals from the Council's Housing Advice Service. Of the 112 categorised as being received from Fareham, 50 clients were Fareham Borough Council referrals, with the remainder categorised as being from 'other areas'. Fareport Fund-A-Home categorised their clients in this way for the purpose of internal financial control.
The Council's Housing Committee had, since the scheme's inception in the Gosport area in April 1999, approved funding of a bond scheme provided through Fareport Fund-A-Home.
The report submitted to the January 1999 meeting of the Housing Committee set out the need for this service and its purpose. The delivery of the service proposed for the year 2002/03 would be improved by extra support offered to customers. The management of Fareport Fund-A-Home had been taken over by Southern Focus Trust from April 2001.
The reason for the management take over was that several voluntary management members of Fareport were retiring. Bids for the take over of the scheme were invited from St Petroc's Housing Association and Southern Focus Trust as they were the only two local organisations identified as being in a position to take on the scheme. St Petroc's Housing Association withdrew from the process, but Southern Focus Trust submitted a bid, which promised to maintain the existing terms of the Service Level Agreement in return for the existing level of funding, plus inflation.
In the Homelessness Bill, the Government stated its intention to strengthen Councils' statutory duties to provide advice and assistance to non-priority homeless people. This change in legislation would come into force in April 2002. Fareport Fund-A-Home was the existing scheme that this Council used to provide assistance to homeless households to enable them to secure private rented accommodation.
Fareport Fund-A-Home provided two services for this Council's referrals:
· An appointment service where advice was given on securing private rented accommodation with Fareport Fund-A-Home's financial assistance, or otherwise; and,
· The securing of private rented accommodation and approval of associated contracts.
In 2001, Fareport Fund-A-Home dealt with 90 referrals from Gosport Borough Council and issued 14 deposits and 8 rent guarantees. With regard to the referrals, the Board requested additional information in respect of the reasons for these placements.
During the first 8 months of the year, 14 customers were re-housed by Gosport Borough Council.
It was noted that the claim rate for Gosport against guarantees issued last year was £3,661 claimed of the £12,133 in guarantees issued. This showed a claim rate of just over 30% which was higher than in Fareham.
Fareport Fund-A-Home intended to address this claim rate as a priority. They aimed to cut the claim rate by at least 10% during 2002/2003 by implementing the following measures:
· Higher support levels through increased peer support as well as more targeted direct support
· A review of the claims to date to give more information about the causes of claims
· Close working with the proposed 'Floating Support' scheme
· Regular property checks implemented
· Closer monitoring of rent payments
· Closer monitoring of users and their needs
In addition, Fareport Fund-A-Home provided the following statistics for the period 1st January 2000 - 31st December 2001:
|
Category |
Value £'s |
|
Total Guarantees Issued |
12,133.00 |
|
Total Live Guarantees |
5,178.00 |
|
Guarantees Terminated |
6,957.00 |
| |
|
|
Claims Paid Out |
3,661.00 |
The total claims paid out were covered by the Borough Council's guarantee for bonds issued for that period.
The scheme provided a key service to single homeless people in the Borough. Continuation of this scheme would enable the Council to meet its extended legal duties to single homeless people. The provision of this service through Fareport Fund-A-Home represented a substantial cost saving to this Council, compared with the cost of providing temporary accommodation direct with the private sector.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) a grant of £4,000 to Southern Focus Trust be approved for the purpose of delivering the services set out in the existing Service Level Agreement between this Council and Fareport Fund-A-Home, or as amended by agreement with this Council. This grant is solely for staffing and associated costs; and
(ii) the Housing Board hold £4,000 on account to cover liability for bond guarantees.
24. MINUTES OF THE HOUSING OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
(Note: This item was not included on the agenda but was considered by the Chairman as an urgent item)
The Board received the Minutes of the meeting of the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11 March 2002 (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "H"). The Committee had been responsible for scrutiny of the Housing Repairs Programme, with the task of ensuring that adequate safeguards were put into place to prevent substantial departure from future Housing Board approved programmes (2002/2003 onwards) whilst still retaining the flexibility of operation to achieve the overall financial delivery of a complex budget.
The Board was requested to approve the following guiding principles from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for adoption:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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 Chairman of the Housing Board will permitted to vary the programme for works up to a value of £60,000;
(iii) 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 Chairman and other Group Spokesmen be permitted to vary the programme for works between £60,000-£100,000;
(iv) 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;
(v) 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
(vi) That Members be informed of significant variations to the Programme, as outlined in (i) - (v) above, which are relevant to their Ward.
RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee as set out above, be approved.
25. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.
26. A RE-ORGANISATION OF THE HOUSING STRATEGIC SERVICES STAFFING STRUCTURE
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "I") which proposed changes to the Housing Strategic Services Section.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) in-principle approval be given for the re-organisation of the Housing Strategic staffing structure as outlined within the report; and
(ii) the matter be referred to the next available meeting of the Personnel Sub-Board for consideration.
27. LEASE OF LAND AT ACORN CLOSE
(Note: This item was not included on the agenda but was considered by the Chairman as an urgent item. The Board agreed to consider the report in exempt session as financial and contractual details were likely to be discussed).
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "J") in connection with arrangements for the lease of Housing-owned land at Acorn Close, and sought approval for its lease to the 6th Gosport Scout Group at a less than market rent.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) approval be given to the lease of land at Acorn Close to the 6th Gosport Scout Group; and
(ii) the Borough Secretary be authorised to enter into such legal documentation as is necessary to effect the proposals contained within the report.
28. VOTE OF THANKS
The Chairman expressed his thanks to Officers and Members for their work on the Housing Board since the introduction of the new political structures in autumn 2001.
CHAIRMAN
