Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendices delivered by the Head of Community as set out in the report (at pages 6 - 12) which should to be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

 

Rent Arrears

 

The Head of Community reported that rent arrears were comparatively higher at the end of this March and measures were to be implemented to examine services to enable collections and support tenants experiencing difficulties in paying. She advised Members that the issue of arrears did not involve significant numbers of bedroom tax cases but rather implicated the “working poor”. Members were advised that the Community Team are liaising with other service-areas in order to maximise the incomes of those affected and to facilitate tenant re/payment plans. The service was noted to be worked by temporary officers with an aim to seek permanence staffing levels to ensure greater stability. The work was considered to be a priority for the Community Safety Manager who continues to monitor the situation on an ongoing, weekly-basis.

 

A Member enquired as to the exact quarterly percentage for rent arrears with reference to the 3% target (at page 9). The Head of Community advised that the percentage for rent arrears currently calculated at above 3.5%.

 

A Member was of the opinion that the issue of rent arrears was likely to worsen given the government’s budget to render the working poor marginally poorer and vice versa. There was uncertainty as to ongoing housing benefit entitlement, suggesting the need to devise an action plan (to include the resources to service the same) relating to the collection of rents. A more realistic budget provision and collection target was also sought in this respect (at page 7).

 

The Head of Community commented that the comparative analysis work undertaken district-by-district concluded that the Borough had the highest proportion of “working poor” suggesting more residents were in lower-paid employment. It was cited that the Chartered Institute of Housing advised a 98% rate of collections for those top-performing organisations, from which a recommendation was being sought to incorporate into the HRA business plan.

 

Gas Safety

 

The Head of Community gave an update on gas safety performance as requested by Members that this is a Standing Item.

 

A Member sought clarification as to the Council’s assurance regarding gas contractors’ compliance, gas safety certification and that all fitters are qualified.

 

The Head of Community reassured Members that gas safety certification was a prerequisite to contract procurement, adding that contractors were auditing on a monthly basis and that a 100% rate of compliance was recorded until the end of July.

 

Update on Capital Programme 2014/15 and Decent Homes

 

The Head of Community directed Members’ attention to Appendix 1 of the report (pages 11-12), adding that the volume of work has been achieved within the Capital Programme across several areas. Work at Boulter Crescent was reported to be at a halfway point and other projects such as subsidence works are completed. 

 

A Member noted the achievements made and commended the Officers on their hard work.

 

Boulter Crescent Community House

 

The Head of Community stated that an opportunity was to be explored to further improve the community facilities following the House’s recent refurbishment as part of the Capital Programme. She advised that the scheme was taking longer than anticipated due to consultations with the community/residents. She noted the Officer’s work at Elizabeth Court and invited Members to attend upcoming Community Housing events for additional information.

 

A Member congratulated the work at the House insofar as the objectives set by the Community Partnership in terms of reducing anti-social behaviour.

 

Aids and Adaptations in Council Properties

 

The Head of Community outlined the aids and adaptations made to Council-owned properties (at page 8) from Occupational Health referrals, forming part of a waiting list held by Landlord Services. No backlog was reported save for those significant adaptations requiring the necessary planning permission.

 

Supporting Leicestershire Families (SLF) and Early Help

 

The Head of Community reported that these areas were at their greatest change at County-level in respect of mid-term financial strategies to consolidate services. She advised Members that discussions had been held in terms of services not being duplicated within the Borough, and the targeting of those services to end-users, with lesser rhetoric on the cutting of services to find savings. She said the Council would continue to work in partnership with Leicestershire County Council during this transitional phrase in the hope that a more definite structure will follow. The feedback received was positive and she stated it may warrant the possibility of a closer, working partnership with Officers in this Council as opposed to being relocated elsewhere. It was said that a report was to be brought forward to this Committee detailing the support received by families in this Borough once that information was made available by Supporting Leicestershire Families.

 

A Member stated that it would not come as a surprise if Early Help was due another spending cut stemming from the government’s budget implications. He stated that although the logic was sound in the long-term to provide a saving, that saving would not accrue back to this Council. It was hypothesised that if the service was to be presented in a stand-alone report, it would struggle to win approval given the inability to clearly identify its advantages or disadvantages. It was said this was not necessarily a critical reflection of its workers.

 

It was suggested that a review of the service take place at the next meeting of this Committee and at the meeting of the Steering Group on 29 September 2015, with a view to ascertain:

 

(i)         what financial contribution is currently being made by this Council;

(ii)        the estimated financial contribution to be made by the Council in the future;

(iii)       to cross-reference those contributions vis-à-vis the tangible output in the Borough; and

(iv)       to devise a plan to mainstream some elements of the existing service into this Council’s own. It was said that a significant amount of work was necessarily required.

 

The Head of Community confirmed that the Council’s contribution over a three year-period amounted to £23,000 per annum, furnishing three workers and a team leader based at the Council Offices who would work in partnership with other service-areas. She advised that to employ a single Housing Officer at the £23,000 would not achieve the same work requirements as the above. The cost benefit analysis was said to be outstanding from Leicestershire County Council which, once made available, would enable an evaluation for better service-delivery.

 

The Member asserted that the said cost benefit analysis has been on-promise for the last two years, suggesting that initial reports seen presented a cost benefit yet failed to identify the beneficiary. He stated that although the current arrangements yielded a greater return to the Council from its investment, this return was not guaranteed therefore prompting a need to put the appropriate budgetary provisions in place to provide a contingency.

 

A Member stated that significant funding had been provided by the govern-ment to facilitate this project, raising unanswered questions as the prudent use of such funds and the need for a further subsidy provided by this Council and. He added that a presentation delivered at Leicestershire County Council had purported to use the cost benefit analysis to forecast an overspend on a district-level, thus suggesting no overall cost benefit. The Member also enquired as to which agency the benefit would/saving accrue in view of a deficit. If not to the Council. A meaningful analysis of input versus output was therefore required.

 

Housing Related Support for Older People Update

 

The Head of Community reported that progress for housing-related support was contingent on the receipt of staff consultations, having had the funding confirmed for the end of September. A structure was to be put in place to provide tenancy support across the Borough, incorporating homelessness and complications arising from the private-sector, however noted there was a marginal delay in its implementation given the recent turnover of new staff.

 

Dog Fouling

 

The Head of Community stated that in response to a negative press release regarding dog fouling within the Borough, a joint-initiative between Corporate Enforcement, Environmental Health and Community Housing had been launched. The high visibility patrols were said to be positively received by residents of the Borough and would continue to operate along-side the “Keep Britain Tidy” campaign.

 

The Chair stated that the protocol for the removal of graffiti from private property was still outstanding. The Head of Community confirmed that such a protocol had been the subject of discussion as the latest Corporate Enforcement Team Meeting and would be noted on the Action List.

 

The Chair commended the Officers in respect of the dog fouling initiative.

 

A Member further congratulated the dog fouling initiative, yet emphasised the need for continuity and consistency to guarantee its ongoing effectiveness. He added that should a prosecution arise, it ought to be publicised to strengthen the initiative’s deterrent effect within the Borough. The Member enquired as to several omissions made in the report in respect of where and when these patrols were to be deployed in order to ascertain the initiative’s impact.

 

The Head of Community confirmed that a comprehensive analysis had been conducted into fouling “hotspots” citing an example of a park in Oadby (whereby a patrol had attend between the hours of 7-9 am) and activity reported outside school-areas. Further discussions at the latest Corporate Enforcement Team Meeting also proposed the training of members of the “Clean and Green” Team in addition to Officers on-the-ground. The first patrols were noted in the first instance to be an educative exercise, with any prospective prosecution serving as validation behind the issuing of fixed penalty notices.

 

A Member presented a dog fouling bin-bag scheme currently implemented by Falkirk District Council, citing a 50% reduction in dog fouling in that district area. She recommended that this Council emulate a similar scheme, whereby bags would be readily distributed to the public a various Council outlets. It was opined that such a scheme could be a potential cost-effective solution. The Head of Community requested that a bag sample be provided for inspection.

 

A Member raised a concern regarding the deteriorating condition of dog foul bins across the Borough. She suggested that foul should not be disposed of in the ordinary bins. Urban foxes were also said to be problem insofar as they would strew the contents of refuse bins whilst foraging.

 

A Member supported the initiative and enforcement action and suggested a rota be implemented to systematically patrol the parks in the Borough, citing numerous fouling incidents he had witnessed dog-walking in Knighton Park. He further raised a concern in respect of the inaction taken to remove graffiti from private property within the Oadby Uplands Ward, rendering the affected areas less attractive and emphasising the anti-social nature of such activity.

 

The Chair referred to several failing agreements entered into with companies to remove graffiti from privately-owned junction and post boxes, impressing the need for the aforementioned protocol to be made available imminently to address the matter. He confirmed that the FPN for dog fouling was now £100.

 

A Member stated dog fouling was not limited to parks and school-areas, but implicated neighbouring streets prompting residents to affix “No Fouling” signage to their front-gates, thus requesting patrols to be widely deployed.

 

The Chair invited Members to direct any information of areas likely to be affected by dog fouling to the Head of Community.

 

A Member enquired as to whether a grant was available in order to facilitate the bin-bag scheme earlier referred to by another Member. The Head of Community confirmed that revenue streams existed in the Community Safety budget under the remit of dog fouling being tantamount to anti-social behaviour. She reiterated that the issue was a community-wide problem requiring partnership action and pooled resources in order to overcome.

 

A Member suggested that the issue be brought before, and the scheme potential sourced from, the three Residents’ Forums in the Borough.

 

A Member stated that if a cost effective bin-bag solution was to be implemented, that the necessary budgetary provisions be put in place.

 

Community Payback Scheme

 

The Head of Community reported that the Community Payback Scheme had recently provided for the painting of approximately 30 lamp posts, whereby materials had been supplied by the Council and the labour by payback offenders. The Scheme been had extended into other service-area (e.g. Support Leicestershire Families) with further areas to be explored.

 

The Chair suggested that works to bus shelters be added to the Scheme.

 

Heat or Eat

 

The Head of Community reported that “Heat or Eat” was a Local Welfare Fund which has had success in the Borough in identifying individuals and families requiring heating vouchers and/or food parcels, with a regrettable increase in the latter. The service was described overall as a good and responsive one.

 

RESOLVED THAT: 

 

1.         The report be noted by Members.

2.         The targets set for rent arrears be agreed.