Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Kighley. Councillor Brierley attended as an alternate.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Kay Harris	13/55/CS	Personal: Member of Campkin/Hawkins Residents Association

 

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting on 14 March 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2013 were approved and signed by the Chair.

Public questions were deferred to the beginning of the relevant items. 

 

The decision was noted.

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2012/13 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Arts, Sport and Public Places portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2013/14 were identified. It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2012/13) members of the committee were asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor: The Executive Councillor for Public Places was unable to attend this meeting.

 

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 Principal Accountant.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Accountant and the Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed the following:

 

(i)             Whilst the net variance from final budgets would result in an increased use of General Fund reserves of £71,243, overall an underspend would be reported.

(ii)            The loss of the Folk Festival sponsorship related to the 2012/13 budget and was therefore not factored into this report.

(iii)          In order that capital contributions could be used for building improvements, a one-off final grant had been agreed for the Cambridge Arts Theatre.

 

The Committee had no views on the proposals.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

Capital grant of £140,000 to St. Andrew’s Hall Management Committee towards the cost of a new extension to St. Andrew’s Hall to create additional meeting and activity space and could be used to house the existing community café.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Subject to relevant planning approval and completion of the Council’s Capital Grant Agreement approved a capital grant of £140,000 to St. Andrew’s Hall Management Committee towards major improvements to St. Andrew’s Hall in East Chesterton. This project is already included in the Council’s Capital Plan.

 

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 Head of Community Development.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Community Development confirmed the following:

 

(i)             Approval would be subject to relevant planning approval and completion of the Council’s Capital Grant Agreement.

(ii)            Whilst current costs for the building work were estimated, the Council’s contribution of £140,000 would be fixed.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2012/13 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Community Development & Health portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets are highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2013/14 were identified. It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2012/13) members of this committee are asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Note the views of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the following proposals, and resolved to make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council:

 

(i)   To agree carry forward requests, totalling £16,000 as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

(ii)  To seek approval from Council to carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £183,000 from 2012/13 into 2013/14 as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report.

 

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 Principal Accountant.

 

No views were expressed on the proposals.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report considered the current use of the Barn as a sports and community facility in the context of other sports and community facilities of higher quality that were available in the locality and recommended that the Council give notice to the Trustees of the Old Schools of Cambridge that it does not intend to invest in the Barn in the future.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

(i)   That the Council give notice to the Trustees of the Old Schools of Cambridge that the Council no longer wishes to invest in St.Luke’s Barn as set out in paragraph 6.1 of the officer’s report.

(ii)  If required to do so by the Trustees of the Old Schools of Cambridge, the Council arranges for the Barn to be demolished

(iii)                    Officers inform the community users of the Barn that they have given notice (as above) and that if the Trustees of the Old Schools of Cambridge decide to end community use, officers work with the school to support the users to help them find alternative venues for their activities.

 

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 Head of Community Development.

 

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

 

(i)             The principal users (the University and Bottisham Badminton Clubs) had alternative facilities available to them in the area.

(ii)            The building was not extensively used by the local community and alternative, fully DDA compliant, meeting rooms were available in the area. 

(iii)          Continuing to invest in St. Luke’s Barn would not represent good value for tax payer’s money.

(iv)         Supported the officer’s recommendation.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Community Development confirmed the following:

 

(i)             Cost comparisons for alternative facilities in the area had been undertaken.

(ii)            The University would be opening additional facilities soon.

(iii)          Officers would be working with the Islamic youth group that currently used St. Luke’s Barn to source an affordable alternative venue.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Appendix A to this report is not for publication as it contains exempt information. If members wish to discuss the contents, the Committee is recommended to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The Council’s third leisure management contract expires at the end of September 2013. A procurement process has taken place to source management arrangements for a fourth contract to start on 30th September 2013 for a period of at least 7 years, with the option of a three year extension period. The report highlighted the procurement process and the resulting recommendation for award of the contract. The evaluation process considered both price and quality and concluded that the contractor with the highest total score was Greenwich Leisure Limited.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   In accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, award the Leisure Management contract to Greenwich Leisure Limited for a seven year period from 30th September 2013, with the option of a three year extension.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

Public Speakers

 

Local residents raised the following points regarding the report:

 

(i)   Supported the change of management.

(ii)   Questioned why the Health Suite at Parkside Pools was being changed to a Fitness Centre, when similar facilities were available at Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre.

(iii)                  Asked if any changes would be made to the opening hours or entrance fee at Parkside Pools.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing confirmed that the facilities at Parkside Pools and Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre would complement one another and would not seek to be in direct competition. It was also noted that usage of the Health Suite had decreased recently and all bidders had proposed a change of use.

 

The Head of Arts and Recreation confirmed that entrance fees were scrutinised every year by this Committee and the Council sets a maximum price for swimming in the City. It was also noted that a better solution to the current ‘Leisure Card’ system would be looked at in consultation with users.

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Arts and Recreation.

 

Members of the Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

(i)             Commended officers for their work on this issue.

(ii)            Supported the officer’s recommendation to award the contract to Greenwich Leisure Limited.

(iii)          Supported the bespoke apprenticeship scheme and the capital investment proposed.

(iv)         Expressed concern that the Living Wage had not been made a condition of the contract.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Arts and Recreation and the Recreation Services Manager replied:

 

(i)             Officers undertook a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) process to select 6 appropriately qualified contractors. 3 contractors had subsequently dropped out. As part of the process in 2003, 4 contractors had been selected and 1 had subsequently dropped out.

(ii)            With regard to the Living Wage, and following legal advice, the Invitation to Tender (ITT):

-        Identified strong support for the payment of Living Wage in the contract;

-        Highlight the benefits that the Council believes this will provide;

-        Include evaluation criteria that measure the performance of bidders in areas where the Council believes the benefits of paying the Living Wage will be demonstrated.

-        Amend the previous decision relating to the capped annual fee for the contract and raise this by £25,000 to £675,000 per annum

(iii)          The bespoke apprenticeship scheme would involve a 16-20 week qualification programme followed by employment opportunities. Greenwich Leisure Limited had their own Academies and Colleges of Further Education and worked closely with job centres.

(iv)         Whilst a 16-20 week qualification programme was not as intensive as some service industry apprenticeships (such as plumbers and gas fitters), it was a very good scheme for the leisure industry.

(v)           As is common practice in the leisure industry, the Council did not place restrictions on the sub-contracting out of services such as cleaning and pool maintenance.

(vi)         Quarterly performance management reports would be sent to Councillors and regular meetings held with the contractor.

 

Exclusion of the Press and Public

 

In order to discuss Appendix A of the officer’s report, the Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda to move items 11 and 12 to the end of the meeting. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the published agenda. 

 

The Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting for the following item on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

This report is not for publication as it contains exempt information. The Committee is recommended to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

Matter for Decision

Approval of a Compulsory Purchase. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Approve the Compulsory Purchase.

 

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 Head of Strategic Housing.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2 to this report is not for publication as it contains exempt information. If members wish to discuss the contents, the Committee is recommended to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided a review of the programme and specifically seeks approval of a revised three year rolling programme that includes sites to be investigated 2013/14 to 2015/16. The report set this request for approval to the revised three year programme in the context of the delivery of Affordable Housing through the planning system, and the new Council housing programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Approve revisions to the 3 Year Rolling Programme 2013/14 to 2015/16 in the context of the wider Affordable Housing Programme.

 

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 Head of Strategic Housing.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2012/13 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Housing portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2013/14 were identified. It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2012/13) members of this committee are asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Note the views of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the following proposals, and resolved to make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council:

 

(i)   To agree carry forward requests, totalling £241,330 as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report, are to be recommended to Council for approval.

(ii)  To seek approval from Council to rephase spending of £48,000 in respect of energy efficiency improvements in the private sector into 2013/14, and to recognise the re-phasing required to finance £16,000 of expenditure in respect of the property accreditation scheme earlier than anticipated in 2012/13, therefore reducing the resource available in 2013/14, as detailed in Appendix D of the officers report.

(iii)                    To seek approval from Council to rephase general fund housing capital expenditure of £151,000 from 2012/13 into 2013/14, in respect of the balance of investment required to create the Assessment Centre on East Road, as detailed in Appendices D and E of the officer’s report.

(iv)                   To seek approval from Council to carry forward net capital resources to fund rephased capital spending of £9,586,000 from 2012/13, deferring £8,165,000 into 2013/14, £700,000 into 2014/15, £517,000 into 2015/16 and £204,000 into 2028/29, in relation to investment in the Housing Revenue Account, as part of the Housing Capital Investment Plan, as detailed in Appendices D and E of the officers report and the associated notes. As part of this, also recognising a delay to 2013/14, of the anticipated £1,500,000 capital receipt for the land on which the market housing is being delivered on the Seymour Court site.

(v) To note the resulting need to defer the use of £3,085,000 of revenue funding of capital expenditure into 2013/14, as considered at Housing Management Board.

 

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.

 

No views were expressed on the proposals.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report set out a policy in respect of strategically acquiring and disposing of HRA assets in response to these changes, to ensure that the authority makes best use of available capital resource, whilst maintaining a balanced and sustainable Housing Revenue Account.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Approve the Housing Revenue Account Acquisition & Disposal Policy and Process documents, attached at Appendices A and B of the officer’s report.

 

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.

 

Councillor Price commented that increased discounts on ‘right to buy’ properties meant that they were selling faster than the Council could build them. Concern was raised that this would lead to an overall decrease in affordable housing. 

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services responded that the timescales in which the Council could spend ‘right to buy’ receipts was very short. The City Council, along with many other local authorities, were actively appealing against this.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report made recommendations on how the Council could improve its current approach, based on the findings of the project.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Approve the following approach to dealing with Houses in Multiple Occupation:

 

(i)   Continue to use available methods of supporting and regulating landlord and letting agent activity, increasing the focus on this area of work following the recent appointment of a dedicated new member of staff.

(ii)   Support the introduction of an improved criteria-based policy for the Cambridge Local Plan which recognises the importance of HMOs but minimises the impact on the wider community.

(iii)                    Make better, more targeted information available to tenants on their rights and responsibilities. Information on waste management and recycling, deposit protection, and controlling mould-growth are particular priorities. Ensure that this information is accessible to those for whom English is not their first language.

(iv)                   Improve information available to tenants on longer-term housing options, including shared ownership and other intermediate tenures.

(v) Work with partners to explore options around procuring suitable shared accommodation in more affordable parts of the sub-region for single homeless people not in priority need. 

(vi)                   Improve working links between different Council services working with residents and landlords –including enforcement, waste management, housing advice, landlord and tenant liaison, etc

(vii)                  Improve monitoring information available within the relevant service areas, to better understand the issues arising from HMOs and trends over time, so that services can respond effectively.

(viii)                Improve engagement and communication with landlords and investigate whether this can be done jointly with other local authorities within the Cambridge sub-region.

(ix)                   That a review of the actions being taken be carried out in 1 years time to inform members of progress being made in tackling issues related to HMO’s.  

 

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 Housing Strategy Manager.

 

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

 

(i)             Raised concern over the low number of residents surveyed (152 living in the smaller privately rented HMO’s).

(ii)            Felt that more could have been done to identify HMO’s for the survey.

(iii)          Suggested that the wider community needed to be included in the survey in order to get their views on the wider impact of HMO’s.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Housing Strategy Manager and the Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed the following:

 

(i)             Officers regarded the 152 residents surveyed as a fair spread, and confirmed that the aim was never to have a fully representative survey.

(ii)            It had proved difficult to identify HMO’s and the cost of carrying out additional research had been a factor.

(iii)          Many local authorities experienced difficulty in identifying HMO’s. Oxford City Council and Peterborough City Council had been approached to share good practice.  

(iv)         One source of information for the survey was the Electoral Register.

(v)           The thrust of the work was to look at the smaller HMO’s which the Council knew less about, but it had proved difficult to identify them all.

(vi)         The rent levels for HMO’s noted in appendix 1 of the officer’s report came from publicly available information and not the survey.

(vii)        National research had highlighted issues such as anti-social behaviour, increased noise and parking issues as some of the ‘negative impacts’ of HMO’s.

(viii)      The Focus Group had included some of the 152 residents surveyed.

(ix)         The telephone survey had included 10 landlords and 10 letting agents.

(x)           The conclusion of the report was that there were no significant issues related to HMO’s that the Council was not already aware of.

(xi)         There was a requirement for leaseholders to inform the Council when they sub-let rooms.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing confirmed that the aim of the survey was to look at the current landscape to identify any significant issues regarding HMO’s that the Council were not already aware of. No significant issues were identified and she felt that the survey was not flawed. It was also noted that an additional Environmental Health post had been added in order to address any issues of sub-standard HMO’s. 

 

Councillor Brierley proposed the following additional recommendation:

 

(i)   That a review of the actions being taken be carried out in 1 years time to inform members of progress being made in tackling issues related to HMO’s.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the additional recommendation.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

Proposals for the refurbishment of Ditchburn Place sheltered housing scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Approve proposals for the refurbishment and extension of Ditchburn Place including the complete refurbishment and extension of existing small flats and existing Supported Housing bedsits to create new flats. Plus internal refurbishment of flats used for sheltered housing together with the provision of new services.

(ii)  Approve the budget of £3,808,982 to fund the project.

(iii)                    Authorise the Director of Community Services to invite tenders and award a contract for the appointment of a main contractor and project consultants to carry out the works for the refurbishment of Ditchburn Place in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

 

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 Development Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Development Officer confirmed the following:

 

(i)             It would be more cost effective to replace the communal heating plant instead of the boilers in each of the individual flats.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The Equity Share policy is proposed as an addition to the City Council’s housing ‘offer’ at this time as it is a form of tenure that may be attractive to leaseholders of City Council flats that would be required to move under the Council’s new build housing programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Approve the Equity Share Policy attached as Appendix 1 of the officer’s report.

 

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 Head of Strategic Housing who highlighted the following errors in the figures noted under the ‘Financial implications’ (page 3 of the officer’s report):

 

(amendments in bold, errors struck through)

 

 

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

 

(i)             Felt that is should be made clearer that Equity Share was also available to non-resident leaseholders.

 

Councillor Price read out a statement of behalf of a resident of Aylesborough Close. The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that the Council were in discussions with the resident to address the issues, and the Head of Strategic Housing agreed to write a formal response and copy Councillor Price in. 

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report introduced Members to a new sub-regional initiative, led by Cambridge City Council, aimed at preventing rough sleeping.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Approve the proposals for the establishment of a sub-regional single homelessness service and the City Council’s lead role in its development.

(ii)  Approve the new sub-regional reconnections policy (as set out in appendix 1 of the officers report), which underpins the approach to single homelessness in the sub-region.

(iii)                    Approve the broadening of the use of the Access Scheme holding account for the local lettings agency scheme as set out under financial implications at 4(a) of the officer’s report.

 

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 Housing Advice Service Manager.

 

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

 

(i)             Welcomed any scheme that helped prevent rough sleeping in the City.

(ii)            Raised concern about moving people outside of the district and away from their support mechanisms.

(iii)          Highlighted the importance of the Reconnection Procedure.  

 

In response to Members’ questions the Housing Advice Service Manager confirmed the following:

 

(i)             Whilst not ideal, depending on the availability of properties it was possible that people from Cambridge would be found accommodation in another district.

(ii)            It was hoped that the scheme would encourage landlords in Cambridge to lower their rents in order to guarantee a tenant.

(iii)          Officers had attended meetings of the Landlords Association to explain the service and generate interest. 3 landlords had so far shown an interest.

(iv)         An assessment process would determine appropriateness for the scheme and choice and availability of accommodation would then be looked into.

(v)           Emergency accommodation would be available while officers were sourcing available places elsewhere.

(vi)         The aim was to target those with low support needs and avoid them having to spend long periods in the hostel system.

(vii)        A rapid response service would be undertaking skills assessments and be linked in with employment agencies.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided a summary of homelessness and housing needs pressure in Cambridge.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

(i)   Note the contents of the report in relation to the current housing pressures faced by those in Cambridge who are in housing need.

(ii)  Adopt the policy on discharge of homelessness duties as set out in appendix 1 of the officer’s report.

 

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 Housing Advice Service Manager.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.