Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Tenant Representative Justyna Ulman-Jaworska
and Tenant Representative Mandy Powell-Hardy attended the meeting virtually via
Microsoft Teams. Councillor Lee provided apologies for lateness. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||
Minutes: Question 1 –
submitted on behalf of West Coleridge Neighbours Group. With regard to the
Final Survey Report published on 8th August 2024 which sought the
views of residents at Davy Road about Cambridge City Council’s proposal to
redevelop their homes, it seems that the Council were satisfied when they
received 15 responses from the 42 households. According to the Council’s
Assistant Director of Development at the most recent Housing Scrutiny meeting,
held in September, 36% (just over a third of residents) is “a reasonable
response rate”. This is significantly less than half of the Davy Road
residents. In our view this falls well short of being a reasonable response rate.
We feel that to accurately represent the views of residents, given that these
findings are used to inform the Council’s decision as to whether to develop a
site or not, the majority of views should be gathered at the very least. This was a postal
survey posted through the letterboxes at Davy Road and given out at in-person
consultations,Due to work commitments some residents could not attend these
consultations. We feel a face-to-face survey would have been more worthwhile
and would have ensured a better response rate. The council survey
chose to focus more on the problems with living at Davy Road. For example, it
found that 12 responses indicated experience of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
issues. At the Housing Scrutiny meeting in question, when councillors were
called upon to vote on the proposed redevelopment, the Executive Councillor
took this finding to mean that 100% of respondents think Davy Road has
an ASB problem. This is a profoundly misleading inference. Looking at the
council survey, only 12 households at Davy Road (out of a possible 42)
responded to this question and indicated that there was an ASB issue at Davy
Road. By contrast, our survey, conducted face-to-face with 25 households from
October 2024 to January 2025, found that only 7 out of these 25 households
reported anti-social behaviour at Davy Road. We would conclude from this that
just over a quarter of residents think that there is an anti-social behaviour
problem at Davy Road. Could the Executive
Councillor for Housing please describe how: 1. the Council
could conduct better surveys so as to ensure that each and every household is
encouraged and supported to give their views about the possible demolition of
their homes? 2. the Council
could report more accurately on what residents have said by indicating how many
were surveyed, so that the Housing Scrutiny Committee can be reliably informed
before voting to approve a development? Executive
Councillor response: i. In February 2024, Council Officers knocked on every
door to discuss implications of the estate being added to the Council’s
development programme. Individual meetings were arranged to discuss this
further. ii. In June 2024 invitations to consultation events
were sent. This was followed up by further door knocking and reminders were
left at doors where no one was home. iii. On 11 and 13 July 2024, two consultation events
were held at Coleridge School. Information was also made available on the
consultation website. iv.The
survey was sent to all addresses and included a broad range of questions to
ensure that residents could feedback on issues that were important to
them. v. All surveys were reviewed prior to them being
issued to ensure that they were both accessible and inclusive for
residents. Paper copies of the survey
and consultation documents were made available at the in-person consultation
events and council officers were on-hand to answer any questions. vi.To
offer flexibility, the consultation events were held on a weekday afternoon /
evening and on a weekend. Follow up calls were made to residents to encourage
responses. vii. To ensure the Committee were able to make an
informed decision, the final survey report was included with the Housing
Scrutiny Committee papers as Appendix 2 (dated 8th August 2024). viii. The Council was grateful for the further feedback
which had been collected from residents. ix. After the decision to proceed with development in
September 2024, all households were sent a letter to confirm the decision and
to provide guidance on the next steps. A surgery session was held at Coleridge
School for residents to come and speak directly to officers on 3 October 2024. x.
Dedicated
Council support had been available, and individual meetings had been held with
residents since the decision. xi. To date, 5 households had moved to properties they
chose and a further 5 households were in the process of moving. 21 households had registered on the Homelink
system and were now able to place bids on properties. xii. The Council had not received any formal or informal
complaints regarding the regeneration process but welcomed feedback to help
with continuous improvement. Supplementary
question: i.
The
question was asking how the council could improve on their surveying rather
than asking about what had been done. ii.
Referred
to their own residents’ survey, which had responses from 23 households, which
stated that they were happy living at Davy Road. This was because: it was
quiet, close to work and school, flats were spacious, well-built and close to
green open spaces. iii.
Now
that their homes had been selected for redevelopment residents had to look to
the future. A few households had already moved, one resident felt pressured to
move next to neighbours they had previously moved away from. Others had moved
within the city boundary but were now paying twice as much rent. Others had
been actively bidding with no success particularly those looking for 3 bed
flats / houses. iv.
One
leaseholder had looked at 47 alternative properties, they had put two offers
in, but both had fallen through. They wanted to move so they did not have to
pay for repair work to their property. v.
Asked
how the Council would support Davy Road residents (tenants and leaseholders) to
find somewhere affordable to live in the city. The Assistant
Director (Delivery) responded:
i. Regeneration isn’t easy when people needed to move
out from their homes. The Development Team had helped move approximately 300
people (leaseholders / freeholders and tenants) into a home of their choice.
Referred to the redevelopment scheme at Fanshawe Road as a successful example
of this. ii. Noted that the decision to proceed with the
redevelopment of Davy Road was a relatively recent decision. The process of
moving took time and took into consideration the particular requirements of the
tenant / leaseholder such as schools and healthcare. iii. Officers would meet with people face to face, by
telephone or online to discuss any queries that they had. The Executive
Councillor commented that there may be additional benefits which people could
claim if their rent increased when they moved.
Encouraged anyone who was worried by the redevelopment scheme to get in
contact with her. Question
2 – Submitted on behalf of the Save Ekin Road Community Group We
are the Save Ekin Road community group, and we are writing to you regarding
Cambridge City Council's plans for Ekin Road. We are a group of council tenants
and freehold residents living on Ekin Road. We seek an update from you
regarding the Ekin Road project, and the status of the estate. Question 1: How
many current, unresolved cases of damp and mould are there in occupied
Council-owned dwellings on the Ekin estate, including Ekin Road, Ekin Walk, and
Ekin Close. If there are any such cases, how long does the Council envisage it
might take to either resolve these, or rehouse the residents? Question 2: How
many Council-owned dwellings on the Ekin estate are currently unoccupied, and
how is the Council planning to secure these dwellings and manage the estate as
it becomes progressively more vacant over time? Question 3: We
note that in Agenda Item 10 of this meeting, on page 50, it states that there
are 19 dwellings due for retrofitting on Ekin Road. Given there are only 7
Council-owned dwellings on Ekin Road being retained in the project, this
presumably implies that the Council will be retrofitting dwellings due for
demolition. Which dwelling types are these (flat, bungalow, house), what sort
of retrofitting will be occurring between now and the demolition of those
dwellings, and when will it occur? Question 4: When
will residents be shown the final design plans for the Ekin Road redevelopment,
and will those final plans be brought back to the Housing Scrutiny Committee
for approval before being submitted for planning permission? Question 5: Can
the Council confirm whether the 6 houses in the north-east corner of the estate
(odd numbers 13-23 inclusive) will definitely be part of the redevelopment ? If
so, we wish to express our continued opposition to the demolition of those 6
houses, due to extreme upheaval it will cause to the longstanding Council
tenants living there. Executive Councillor
response: i.
There
were currently three reported cases of damp condensation and mould (DCM) on the
Ekin Road estate. Direct contact would
be made with the tenants and a visit carried out to assess the extent of the
DCM and advice would be provided regarding the most appropriate treatment. In
line with the Council’s Regeneration Policy, all households with reported DCM
were given additional priority when placing bids on Homelink. ii.
There
were currently 47 unoccupied properties on the Ekin estate. As discussed at the
Liaison Group meeting in December 2024, the Council would be placing hoardings on
these properties to protect against any vandalism and unauthorised access. iii.
The
numbers provided within brackets next to each location referred to the number
of DCM reports and not the number of dwellings. iv.The planning application was anticipated to
be submitted in May 2025, at which point local residents would be notified by
the Greater Cambridge Planning Service. All details of the application
including the final design and plans would be available to view on the planning
portal. It was not intended for the details of this redevelopment scheme to be
presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee again. v.
A
consultation update letter was sent to all residents on 18 September 2024. This
confirmed that, as design work evolved, the inclusion of the eastern properties
was considered to be essential to the design of the scheme from a delivery,
design and financial viewpoint. This meant that the planning application for
the redevelopment of 108 homes at Ekin Road would include the six houses to the
north-east.
|
|||||||||||||
Quarterly Housing Performance Report Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report provided: ·
An update Housing Scrutiny
Committee on the progress towards meeting performance against indicator targets
that support the delivery of the Council’s vision: ‘‘One Cambridge, Fair for
All’ (Appendix A). ·
Briefed Members on the
regular programme of statutory and regulatory returns currently being submitted
by the Housing Service (Appendix B) ·
An update on damp,
condensation and mould recorded in HRA stock (Appendix C) ·
An update on the rent
review project (Appendix D) Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing ii.
Noted the recent reports of damp,
condensation and mould received by the service, and the measures being put in
place to help combat DCM in tenant’s homes. iii.
Noted the update on the rent regulation
project iv.Considered
any further measures of performance that would be beneficial to be included in
these reports, going forward. 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 Communities Director. The Communities Director, Assistant Director of Housing and Homelessness
and Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Advised that Housing Officers were allocated
particular parts of the city as their ‘patch’ and tenancy audits were
undertaken on properties within their patch. Each Housing Officer was
responsible for approximately 1200-1300 properties.
ii.
Acknowledged that it was important for tenants to
update the Council regarding any change in their circumstances which could
impact their needs. Customer Service Advisors always checked contact details
when Tenants called the Council. The Council was going to undertake a ‘Tenant
Census’ and would undertake a procurement exercise to appointment a company to
carry out this work.
iii.
Officers noted Tenant Representative’s concerns
regarding the Council’s new Governance proposals and noted that a decision
hadn’t been made on the proposals yet. Officers believed that transparency
would be enhanced by the proposals as there would be a dedicated focus on
housing under the proposals and more timely reporting to Members. iv.
Advised that the number in brackets contained
within agenda item 10 page 50 of the agenda referred to the number of damp,
condensation and mould (DCM) reports and not the number of dwellings due for
retrofitting at Ekin Road.
v.
The Council was 100% compliant in undertaking fire
risk assessments in accordance with the Housing Regulator’s standards. Officers
would look at how information could be reported to the Committee regarding fire
risk actions (for e.g. what items had had to be removed from certain
areas). vi.
Would provide outside of the meeting the percentage
figure for the number of people who were awaiting a refund under the Rent
Regulation project who were on Universal Credit. Officers were currently
testing systems to ensure that payments could be made to tenants who were on
other benefits such as Housing Benefits. A recruitment exercise was being
undertaken to recruit officers to undertake the Rent Regulation work; a Project
Manager was now in post. An online form was also being created to assist tenants
to contact the Council about the Rent Regulation project. Officers were mindful
that not all tenants wanted to use online forms and tenants were still able to
contact the Customer Services Centre for assistance. This work would need to be
done in stages to manage the workload and the plan was to contact current
tenants first. Further communication with tenants would follow in due course. viii.
Officers would also pick up the point previously
raised at the September meeting regarding DCM figures and their accuracy.
ix.
Noted concerns raised that residents didn’t
understand the DCM process. Advised that the Council’s website had recently
been updated to provide timescales for each individual process for DCM for
tenants. A video providing guidance on DCM was also due to be published on the
council’s website.
x.
Tenancy Audits covered a range of issues including
checking that properties weren’t being sub-let, picking up on additional
support needs of tenants and also picking up on repairs which hadn’t been
reported.
xi.
Encouraged tenants to report instances of bikes
blocking doorways so that Enforcement Officers could investigate. Concerns
could be reported by emailing HousingOfficers@cambridge.gov.uk or by calling the
Customer Service Centre and asking to be put through to a Housing Officer. xiii.
In response to Councillor Thittala’s comments
regarding his personal experience regarding an emergency repair and bathroom
repair; Officers apologised for the level of service received from the Council
and advised that there was an emergency repairs process in place which appeared
to have failed. Advised that as part of the complaint process compensation
could be payable to recognise the inconvenience experienced due to service
failure. The Council would not always get the process right and that was why
this report was important. Would investigate the matter after the meeting. xiv.
Noted Member concern regarding target setting below
the lower benchmark quartile (referred to Appendix A on page 42 of the agenda
and the graph titled ‘Satisfaction with most recent repair). Acknowledged the
target could be higher; there was a balance to be struck between setting a
target and it being achievable, it was likely that the target would be set
higher in the coming year. xv.
Agreed to investigate whether the data included
within Appendix C DCM report, Table 3, Category ‘Other’ could be broken down
further. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
for Housing approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
HRA Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2025/26 Report to follow. Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The
Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Setting Report (BSR) was presented to
Housing Scrutiny Committee to allow scrutiny of proposals for the review of
rents and service charges, revenue bids and savings, and the Housing Capital
Investment Plan, which includes capital bids and all associated funding
proposals. Comments
made by the Housing Scrutiny Committee will be reported to the Executive
meeting taking place on 10 February 2025. The
Executive will then recommend the budget for Full Council approval at its
meeting on 24 February 2024. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing To
refer the recommendations below to the Executive to:
i.
Recommend that full Council approve that council dwellings
rents for all social rented and social shared ownership properties be increased
in line with government guidelines, with an increase of 2.7%, being inflation
as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at
September 2024 of 1.7%, plus 1%. Rent increases will take effect from 1 April
2025. This equates to an average rent increase of £3.37 per week.
ii.
Recommend that full Council approve that affordable housing
rents, inclusive of service charge, are also increased by 2.7% in line with the
increase for social rents. This equates to an average rent increase of £5.06
per week.
iii.
Recommend that full Council approve that rents for affordable
shared ownership properties are increased by RPI as at
September 2024, 2.7% plus 0.5%, as allowed for in the lease requirements for
these properties.
iv.
Recommend that full Council approve that garage and parking
space charges for 2025/26 are increased by inflation at 2.7%, in line with
dwelling rents, and approve changes in charges for parking permits, as set out
at table 10 on page 28 of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan
Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.
v.
Recommend that full Council approve the proposed service
charges for Housing Revenue Account services and facilities, as shown in
Appendix D of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and
Budget Setting Report 2025/26.
vi.
Recommend that full Council approve the proposed leasehold
administration charges for 2025/26, as detailed in Appendix D of the attached
Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26. vii.
Recommend that full Council approve that service charges
continue to be recovered at full estimated cost, as detailed in Appendix D of
the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting
Report 2025/26, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit
increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September
2024 (1.7%) plus 1%, wherever possible. viii.
Recommend that full Council approve (with any amendments) the
revenue savings, pressures and bids set out at Appendix F of the attached
Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.
ix.
Recommend that full Council approve the resulting Housing
Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised at table 5 on page 20 of the
attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report
2025/26.
x.
Recommend that full Council approve the capital bid set out
at Appendix F of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and
Budget Setting Report 2025/26.
xi.
Recommend that full Council approve the updated Housing
Capital Investment Plan as shown at Appendix E of the attached Housing Revenue
Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26. xii.
Recommend that full
Council approve the proposed approach to financing the Housing Capital
Investment Plan as set out at table 11 on page 31 of the attached Housing
Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26. xiii.
Recommend that full
Council approve the revised need to borrow over the life of the Business Plan,
to sustain the proposed level of capital investment, which includes delivery of
the 10 Year New Homes Programme. xiv.
Recommend that full
Council recognise that the constitution delegates Treasury Management to the
Chief Finance Officer (Part 3, para 5.11), with Part 4F, C16 stating; ‘All
executive decisions on borrowing, investment or financing shall be delegated to
the Chief Finance Officer, who is required to act in accordance with CIPFA’s
Code of Practice for Treasury Management in Local Authorities’. xv.
Recommend that full
Council recognise that the decision to borrow significantly to build new homes
impacts the council’s ability to set-aside resource to redeem the HRA
Self-Financing debt at the point at which the loan portfolio matures, resulting
in a need to re-finance debt at the point of maturity. xvi.
Recommend that full
Council approve inclusion of a capital budget for Disabled Facilities Grant
expenditure and associated grant income from 2025/26 onwards, based upon
2024/25 net grant awarded, with delegation to the Chief Finance Officer to
approve an in year increase or decrease in this budget in any year, in direct
relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding available for
this purpose, as received from Cambridgeshire County Council through the Better
Care Fund. xvii.
Recommend that full Council
approval of delegation to the Chief Finance Officer, as Section 151 Officer, to
determine the most appropriate use of any additional Disabled Facilities Grant
funding, for the wider benefit of the Shared Home Improvement Agency. xviii.
Recommend that full
Council approve delegation to the Director of Communities to review and amend
the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for Disabled
Facilities Grants and repair assistance grants, in line with any recommendations
made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board. xix.
Recommend that full
Council approve delegation to the relevant Director, in consultation with the
Chief Finance Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked revenue
reserve or capital reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for
the purpose of open market land or property acquisition or new build housing
development, should the need arise, in order to meet deadlines for the use of
retained right to buy receipts or to facilitate future site redevelopment. xx.
Recommend that full
Council approve delegation to the Chief Finance Officer to make any necessary
technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of recharges between the
General Fund and the HRA. 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 Chief Finance
Officer. The Committee made
the following comments in response to the report: i.
Tenant and Leasehold
Representatives expressed concern that they were not able to vote on Housing
Revenue Account (HRA) budget amendment recommendations, which they had been
able to do so previously. ii.
Noted the budget savings
figure which was expected to be delivered following the redesign of the Housing
Service but understood further detail about this would be provided in the third
week of February. iii.
Was disappointed to see the proposed removal of the
under-occupation incentive scheme in the report. Believed there should be some
incentive available for tenants in under-occupied properties. iv.
Asked if there was other funding available to
support tenants who wanted to move due to the under occupation of their
property. Asked if funding was available, whether this could be publicised
more.
v.
Queried the reduced budget for ‘target hardening
work’ for people suffering domestic violence.
vi.
Noted within the Executive Councillor’s Foreword to
the BSR that tenancy audits identified cases of domestic abuse and that further
tenancy audits may identify further instances of domestic abuse so queried
whether from a budget point of view, the Council may need to spend more in this
particular area than it currently did. vii.
Asked how the committee could be assured that
adequate funding was within the HRA budget to deliver services. viii.
Asked if Central Government would consult with
councils about financing for retrofit schemes.
ix.
Queried if ‘Right to Buy’ (RTB) funding could only
be used for shared ownership schemes.
x.
Asked what work had been undertaken to assess the
impact of the proposed rent increases on residents.
xi.
The group design restructure for the service made
it difficult to scrutinise the budget. It was not clear how the council’s
restructure would impact the delivery of frontline services. More information
and explanation should have been provided. xii.
Asked if there was sufficient officer capacity to
deliver resident engagement taking into consideration the requirements required
by the Housing Regulator. Queried if there was sufficient resource available to
pay for communication with tenants and leaseholders. xiii.
Referred to previous decisions discussed by the
Committee in 2013 and 2019 which agreed that the Council would not process
housing arrears action resulting from issues with Universal Credit and the Spare
Room Subsidy payments. They would have liked to have proposed an amendment to
the BSR to request that this approach be extended to include the two-child
benefit cap and the benefit cap itself. Asked whether work had been undertaken
to see whether a tenant in an affordable rented property may be
disproportionately affected by the benefit cap than a tenant in a socially
rented property. xiv.
Referred to concerns which had been raised about
value for money / deterioration in standards for services charges in blocks of
flats and sheltered housing schemes in relation to building cleaning / window
cleaning and grounds maintenance charges (detailed in appendix D on page 75 of
the BSR). The Assistant
Director for Housing and Homelessness, Director of Communities said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The decision for the Executive Councillor at this
meeting was to recommend the HRA budget to the Executive. Comments from the
Scrutiny Committee would be minuted and tabled at the
Executive meeting. The main reason for the change in the HRA budget process was
to reflect best practice within the Local Government sector so that revenue and
capital budget was approved by Full Council. The HRA budget process was
therefore being brought in-line with the General Fund budget process. Tenant
and Leaseholders were able to submit public questions (in accordance with the
requirements set out in the Public Speaking Scheme) to the Executive and Full
Council meetings.
ii.
The figures regarding the group redesign proposals
had only recently been collated.
iii.
The council needed to set a balanced budget,
unfortunately this meant that difficult decisions had to be made regarding what
services were provided. This was why the under-occupation incentive scheme was
proposed to be removed.
iv.
Funding was available for tenants who wanted to
move due to the under occupation of their property. If a tenant was actively
looking to move and they were in receipt of benefits, discretionary housing
payments were available to top up rent to assist with moving fees etc. Advised that
tenants could seek support from the Council’s Financial Inclusion Officer to
make sure that they were claiming all the funding that they were entitled to.
Acknowledged that there could be a potential gap for tenants who wanted to move
(due to under occupation of their property) but were not in receipt of some
kind of benefit funding as they would not be able to access the discretionary
housing payment to assist with moving fees.
v.
The ‘target hardening works’ domestic abuse funding
was a specific budget set aside to fund works to a property where a victim of
domestic abuse wished to stay in their property. Examples of target hardening
works included new doors, fencing, or a ring doorbell. Often victims of
domestic abuse did not want to stay in their property and were supported by the
Council to move to alternative accommodation. This budget was therefore usually
underspent so the reduction in the budget was to reflect this. There was
alternative funding which could be used to support people if the revised budget
was spent.
vi.
The data from tenancy audits could be interrogated
further; relevant referrals were made for victims of domestic abuse and support
was provided. Additional security measures (provided through the target
hardening funding) were only effective where the perpetrator was no longer in
the household. As noted above, usually victims of domestic abuse did not want
to stay in their property and were therefore supported to move to alternative
accommodation, therefore did not expect the reduction in budget for target hardening
works to impact residents as the budget was for very specific circumstances. vii.
Advised that the HRA BSR was prepared upon the
budget approved within the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy. Revenue and
capital budgets were agreed with relevant budget holders. A balanced budget
needed to be prepared. There had been additional pressures from damp,
condensation and mould (DCM) cases which had been built into the budget. Hard
decisions had to be made about the services which were provided and those that
weren’t. viii.
The Council had ambitious plans for both delivering
new homes and retrofitting existing homes which the Council could not fund on
its own. Officers would continue dialogue with Central Government regarding
financial support.
ix.
Advised that Officers were trying to highlight that
RTB funding could now be used to fund shared ownership housing as previously it
was not possible to do so.
x.
The Council was mindful of the impact on residents
when rents were increased. An Equality Impact Assessment was undertaken as part
of the HRA BSR drafting process. The Council was in a difficult economic
position. Rent increases were capped on an annual basis. If rents were not
increased there would be a lasting impact on the HRA, and this needed to be
balanced against the ability of the Council to deliver services for tenants.
xi.
Under the current staffing structure there was
sufficient capacity within the Team to fulfil the resident engagement
requirements of the Housing Regulator. The Resident Engagement Strategy would
be reviewed as part of the transformation programme. Moving forward the
proposals to bring together certain Teams as part of the restructure would
strengthen resident involvement. xii.
In response to the question regarding previous
Housing Scrutiny Committee decisions and the process for rent arrears action,
noted that the 2019 report and decision statement was in relation to Universal
Credit Agenda for Housing Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday,
16th January, 2019, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council. This stated ‘In
light of issues surrounding Universal Credit and payment arrangements for
housing costs, approvals for eviction will not be progressed for a tenant in
rent arrears which relate solely to Universal Credit delays and missed payments
which are beyond their control. Any delays that are deemed to be the result of
the tenant’s own delay in applying/supplying the correct information will be
followed up through the usual processes.’ xiii.
The report referred to in October 2013 was a report
on Welfare Reform and the impact on tenants Agenda for Housing Management Board on Tuesday, 1st
October, 2013, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council. The decision stated
that ‘Eviction will not be progressed for a tenant in rent arrears, which
solely relate to the under occupation reduction in
Housing Benefit, when all any of the following criteria are met: a.
Where the tenant has applied for rehousing and is
making active reasonable bids. b.
Where the tenant has applied for DHP. c.
Where other tenancy conditions (such as anti-social
behaviour) have not been seriously breached.’ xiv.
The issues raised in relation to enforcement action
for rent arrears would be better considered within the Council’s Rental Arrears
and Income Collection Policy rather than as part of the BSR. The Rental Arrears
and Income Collection Policy was due to be reviewed, and Tenant and Leaseholder
Representatives would be involved with the review in due course. In response to
the concerns raised regarding the two additional factors impacting rent arrears
(two child benefit cap and benefit cap) it would not be prudent for the Council
to pursue possession orders or eviction for rent arrears which occurred due to
delays with payment of benefits. xv.
Noted concerns raised about service charges and the
standard/level of service provided. Noted that building cleaning was tricky as
areas could be cleaned and shortly afterwards for example following inclement
weather areas become dirty quickly, so it appeared as though cleaning had not
been undertaken. Requested that issues were raised with Officers and noted that
Tenants and Leaseholders could raise concerns via the Council’s complaint
process. The Executive
Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing advised that the
reduction in the budget for domestic abuse funding for ‘target hardening works’ appeared on the face of the document to be alarming
however it was a budgetary measure and advised that anyone who needed help and
support would receive it. The Executive
Councillor for Housing noted that rents were increased by 5% in 2022/23, in
2023/24 rents were increased by 7.4%. The proposed rent increase for 2025/26
was 2.7% which was a lower percentage than in previous years. The impact of
rent increases on tenants unfortunately had to balanced
against the delivery of a balanced budget. The Committee
resolved by 6 votes to 1 with 5 abstentions to endorse recommendations a to i. The Committee
resolved by 6 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions to endorse recommendations j to t. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
Homelessness Prevention Grants Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision This report detailed the annual bid round for grants
made to organisations providing homelessness prevention services. It provides
an overview of the process, the grant eligibility criteria and the budget.
Appendix 1 details the applications received with recommendations for 2025-26
awards. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing i.
Approved the award of homelessness prevention grants to
voluntary and community organisations for 2025-26, 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 Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and
Wellbeing advised that the Council had received a higher ‘Homelessness
Prevention Grant’ from Central Government compared to last year, which could be
used to increase the Council’s
(similarly called) Homelessness Prevention Grants, awarded to partner organisations,
which was the subject of this report. The Housing Advice Service Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Noted that ‘the Haven’ was to provide support 2
nights and 1 afternoon a week.
ii.
Homelessness applications needed to be determined
in accordance with Homelessness legislation and each case was considered on its
own merits. Not everyone who presented as homeless would be provided with
interim accommodation whilst their homelessness application was determined. The
Homelessness Relief Duty lasted for 56 days but not all applicants may be
accommodated during that time. The applicant would need to fall within a
‘priority need’ during that time. Examples of ‘priority need’ included having
dependent children, or a person being vulnerable due to their mental health
needs. Applicants who did not qualify within the Homelessness Relief Duty would
be provided advice on other accommodation options for example Jimmy’s Night
Shelter and the Winter Provision for Rough Sleepers.
iii.
Applicants had to set outcomes within their
Homelessness Prevention Grant applications to explain how their project /
application would prevent / relieve homelessness. Organisations which were
awarded grant funding had to provide monitoring data to the Council in relation
to their outcomes every 6 and 12 months so the Council could assess the
effectiveness of the homelessness prevention measures. The Committee resolved unanimously to
endorse the recommendation. 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. |
|||||||||||||
Cambs Home Improvement Agency (Cambs HIA) - works contractor procurement Minutes: Matter for
Decision Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Agency (Cambs HIA) was
established as a shared service on behalf of City Council, Huntingdonshire District
Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council in 2012 and delivers
adaptations and repairs work for elderly and disabled adults and children. The proposed
procurement and contracts will ensure that Cambs HIA is compliant with the
Procurement Regulations. It will ensure that there is standardisation in
specifications and access to pre-tendered fixed and variable price contractors
/ suppliers who will be able to deliver all work in much shorter timescales and
at more competitive rates. The simplified
delivery model, made possible with the contracts in place, will enable grant
applications to be processed and completed quicker and at lower overall cost. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Approved Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Board’s decision to
proceed with a procurement exercise for up to four years for the provision of
two contracts, the first being for adapted bathrooms and kitchens and the
second for the provision and installation of disability equipment. ii.
Authorised Cambs Home Improvement Agency (on behalf of
Cambridge City Council and its partners South Cambridgeshire and
Huntingdonshire district councils) to evaluate tenders and to award contracts
to suitable bidders following a competitive tender evaluation process. 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 Cambs HIA Manager. The Committee resolved unanimously to
endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |