Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision: To consider the 2011/12 Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances for the Housing Portfolio.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

a) To agree carry forward requests, totalling £128,260 as detailed in Appendix C of the committee report, are to be recommended to Council for approval.

 

b) To seek approval from Council to rephase capital expenditure of £1,074,000 from 2011/12 into 2012/13, 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 committee report.

 

 

c) To seek approval from Council to carry forward net capital resources to fund rephased capital spending of £5,372,000 between 2011/12 and 2012/13, in relation to investment in the Housing Revenue Account, as part of the Housing Capital Investment Plan, as detailed in Appendices D and E and the associated notes to the committe report, with the resulting need to increase the use of revenue funding of capital expenditure by £1,149,000 in 2012/13.

 

 

d) To seek approval from Council to rephase the use of £68,000 of developer contributions for affordable housing, from 2011/12 to 2012/13, to assist in funding the re-development of the Seymour Court / Street site to deliver 20 units of affordable housing.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report.

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the year-end out-turn for the Housing portfolio.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

i.        A number of questions were asked about the practice of using temporary accommodation in Peterborough, and concerns were raised about the impact that this on individuals in terms of employment, education and economic well-being. Officers advised that homelessness prevention activities had been increased to reduce the number of people requiring emergency accommodation. It was noted that whilst rough sleeping had increased, there was no major increase in statutory homeless cases. The committee was also advised that the supply of available housing within the system had slowed, which had resulted in a reduction in the number of available emergency places.

 

ii.       With regards to the use of emergency accommodation in Peterborough, an explanation was requested on what specific actions were planned to reduce and remove the need to use this type of accommodation.  Officers and the Executive Councillor outlined the steps undertaken to date

 

-         A new leasing arrangement has been introduced, but the effectiveness of this has been limited by the effects of the broad market rental area.

-         Bed and breakfast providers in the city have been approached to see whether they would be willing to be added to the providers list. It was noted that to date no provider had been willing to enter into an agreement.

-         Additional supply would be provided on the Major Growth sites and other developments in the city.

iii.      The appropriateness of certain types of emergency accommodation used in the city, as such 222 Victoria Road was questioned. The comment was noted. Mrs Best also requested information regarding the cost of transferring people to Peterborough. The Housing Options and Homelessness Manager agreed to provide information outside of the meeting. The committee were re-assured that every effort was made to move people back to Cambridge as soon as practical.

 

iv.          Clarification was requested on why the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) budget was unspent in light of the difficulties in providing emergency accommodation in the city. The Head of Refuse and Environment explained that CPO was only used as a last resort, and that other approaches and interventions were used first.

 

v.       With regards to the capital expenditures and the reported carried forwards, it was questioned other opportunities to utilise those resources in the short terms had been lost.

 

vi.      With reference to the homelessness grant, it was suggested that the reporting gave the impression that the programme was delayed or not performing as planned, where as actually it was a multi year allocation. The Executive Councillor agreed to raise the issue of reporting grants outside of the meeting, to see whether there was a more appropriate corporate approach to give a clearer indication of the actual position.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A