Agenda and minutes

Following a short adjournment, the Monitoring Officer advised on the validity of the call-in request. It was suggested by some of the members that, in light of Rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, the request was invalid because there was no evidence that the Cabinet decision had not been taken in accordance with the principles set out in Article 14. The Cabinet had only made a recommendation, which would then be debated by Full Council.  The Monitoring Officer advised that in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000, the decision subject to the call-in request was valid for call-in because it was a minuted decision of the Cabinet, notwithstanding that it was a recommendation to Full Council.

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

The panel was advised that Councillor Moore had been replaced by Councillor Brailsford until the next annual general meeting of the Council and that for this meeting only, Councillor Brailsford had been replaced by Councillor Mike Taylor.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs Dexter and Fines.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were none declared.

The following decision taken by Cabinet on Monday 5^th December 2005 has been the subject of a request for call-in by Councillors O’Hare, Kerr, John Hurst, Gibbins and…, in accordance with rule 16 and in compliance of section 16(c) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules:

DECISION:

That Cabinet

(1)        accepts the progress report and notes that there will be Council briefing on 14^th December 2005, as requested by the chairman of the Council, to consider the information in relation to the strategic choice of landlord.

(2)        recommends to Council, for the purposes of negotiating and developing an “Offer to Tenants”, that in the event of a transfer of the Council’s housing stock proceeding that:-

(a)       50% of the available usable capital receipt from transfer be made available for affordable housing after protecting the General Fund from the impact of transfer;

(b)       100% of any share of “Right to Buy” receipts be made available for affordable housing.

The reasons for exercising the call in are:

(1)   “Any lump sum received if the Transfer (sale) of Council Housing proceeds is an asset coming from Housing and should go back to Housing.

(2)   The principle of ring fencing Housing finance – so that Councils can not apply housing money to non housing purposes – is well established. No case is made to abandon that principle.

(3)   A significant cry in favour of proceeding down the transfer route has been that it will release money to develop affordable housing: you do not develop affordable housing by taking half the lump sum away from Housing.

(4)   A real belief in the need for Affordable Housing should mean at least 75% of any lump sum being ring-fenced for Affordable Housing – with the remaining 25% going on Strategic Housing.

(5)   When the category A priorities were first set there was no chance of this Council receiving a lump sum from possible Housing Transfer. Those priorities were set on being able to deliver from money then available.”

Copies of the call-in request form, the relevant Cabinet minute and report to Cabinet are attached.  

The Scrutiny Officer advised that this special meeting had been called to consider the call-in request of Cabinet decision CO90. He outlined the procedure to be undertaken in the meeting and reminded members that the power to support the call-in rested with the panel. Three members who had signed the call-in request were present at the meeting and they were invited to explain further the reasons for the call-in request. 

One of the members explained that the essence of the call-in related to decision 2(a) of CO90, which recommended the proportion of capital receipts from stock transfer to be allocated to affordable housing. He suggested that the decision to make affordable housing a Category A priority had been made based on the anticipated capital receipt from stock transfer. It was not appropriate to limit the funds to that service. Cabinet had not given their decision sufficient debate, given the level of finance involved. This also had not been detailed in the report considered by Cabinet.

The member referred to: 

·          A media release following the decision of the Cabinet.

·          Minutes from the Council meeting in May 2005 relating to stock transfer.

·          Sections from the Audit Commission report on affordable housing that criticised the Council’s strategic housing function.  

The evidence presented and whether or not to support the call-in request was discussed by the panel with the officers. A proposal to not support the call-in was made and seconded. On being put to the vote, five members supported the proposal and two voted against.  

Conclusion:

That the Resources DSP does not support the call-in request. The Cabinet decision CO90 is therefore implemented.

The meeting closed at 9.52a.m.