Issue - meetings

Recommendation 2A was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair / Tenant Representative) and recommendation 2B and 2C were chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Setting Report, considered and approved in January / February of each year was the long-term strategic planning document for housing landlord services provided by Cambridge City Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.        Approved the Housing Revenue Account Mid-Year Financial Review, to include all proposals for change in:

 

·        Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix C of the document.

 

·        2015/16 and 2016/17 revenue budgets as introduced in Section 5, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of change, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix E (1) of the document and summarised in Appendix H.

 

·        2016/17 base revenue budgets, to incorporate the savings recommendations arising for the Fundamental Review of the Housing Service, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix E (2), of the document, and summarised in Appendix H.

 

·        Rent Setting Policy, to allow for the movement of all void properties directly to target rent, as outlined in Section 4 of the document.

 

Agreed to recommend that Council:

 

    ii.        Approves proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix F(1) of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix I, for decision at Council on 22^nd October 2015.

 

   iii.        Approves proposals for changes in housing capital investment resulting from the Fundamental Review of the Housing Service, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix F(2) of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix I, for decision at Council on 22nd October 2015.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Business Manager & Principal Accountant. She confirmed that long-term debts were staggered and were on differing rates. Refinancing them now would not achieve any savings. The HRA carried reserves of £3,000,000 as Council properties were not insured and engaging in a building programme could throw up unexpected costs.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Moving from planned maintenance to responsive repairs might produce initial savings but would be more expensive in the longer term.

    ii.        The service achieved a high level of resident involvement at the decision level but is less effective at an estate level. Could funding for this service be protected? When cuts are happening, resident involvement becomes even more important.

   iii.        Suggested that the under occupancy scheme should focus on people who were impacted by the spare room subsidy rent increase.

  iv.        Concerns were expressed about the possible loss of the City Homes South office.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Customer and Community Services stated:

     i.        There was not a shift from planned maintenance to responsive repairs and efficiency saving had been under review for some time.

    ii.        The proposals recognised the need for resident involvement.

   iii.        The under occupancy scheme was being brought back to the base line of twelve months ago.

 

The Committee further discussed the position of resident involvement. Officers confirmed that this service had carried an underspend for a number of years. This dated back to the closure of the Tenant Federation.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services stated that it was important to make decision now in order to achieve the significant saving that were needed.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 8 abstentions to endorse the recommendation 2A (i).

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the recommendation 2B and 2C (ii and iii).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.