Agenda and minutes

To receive comments or views from members of the public at the Panel’s discretion.

Mr Cox from the district compacts asked about why the number of days that properties were void was not adhered to.  The Chairman indicated that he would respond to the question outside the meeting.

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

The Panel were notified that Councillor Brailsford was substituting for Councillor Mrs Bosworth for this meeting.

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Mrs Wheat.

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

None declared.

The notes of the meeting held on 8th June 2006 are attached for information.

(Enclosure)

The action notes from the meeting held on 8th June 2006 were confirmed as a correct record with the following amendment to minute 8 Street Drinking the conclusion to read:

That the Community DSP suggests that the following areas be designated as restricted alcohol consumption areas under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001:

Grantham Town Centre specifically the Market Place, Westgate, St Peter’s Hill, Dysart and Wyndham Park also the paddock area off St Catherine’s Road.

Stamford Town Centre specifically the area around Broad Street, Red Lion Square and the Recreation Ground and the Meadows.

None.

Presentation by Steve Cullington, Care Services Manager

Conclusion

That the Care Services Manager be invited to a future meeting of the Panel to further discuss sheltered housing specifically for young vulnerable people.

The Care Services Manager thanked the panel for the opportunity to give a presentation on sheltered housing.  He apologised for the amount of information that he had given members but said he would be happy to come back to a future meeting and discuss any issues that the panel had.   The presentation covered the Warden Service/sheltered housing, Supporting People (SP) issues, the Helpline Community Alarm Service and the Service and Business Plan for 2006/07.   He began with the sheltered housing and referred to the 40 schemes within the district, which were visited on a regular basis by a scheme manager, that amounted to currently 1313 tenants.  The number of dwellings within the scheme varied and also the rurality of some scheme meant that some scheme managers looked after more than others.  Most schemes had community centres and all units were connected to the 24hour Care Centre in Grantham, which was open 365days a year and provided support and an emergency service at all times to ensure that help and assistance was readily available.  Scheme managers worked 9.00am – 5.00pm but outside these hours mobile staff were on hand to provide an effective and efficient response if required.  This was a fairly unique service delivery at least in Lincolnshire.  Typical duties of a scheme manager were then listed and the Care Service Manager stressed that Supporting People (SP) was to support people to live independently not care for them.  He referred to the “one size fits all” service that was available in 2003 and the findings of the Best Value Review and satisfaction survey that were undertaken.     As a result of the findings of the BVR and satisfaction survey a new flexible level of service was now offered from core to level 4.

·Core Monthly visit

·Level 1 A weekly visit

·Level 2 Monday, Wednesday & Friday visit

·Level 3 Daily visit including weekends

·Level 4 Twice daily visits

Currently there were only a handful of tenants, which had the level 4 service.  These services were in the main paid for by the SP grant.  Eligibility for the SP grant was that if you were in receipt of housing benefit then you would get the SP grant.

The costs for the new levels of service were:

·Core Monthly visit£3.19

·Level 1 A weekly visit£6.76

·Level 2 Monday, Wednesday & Friday visit£11.00

·Level 3 Daily visit including weekends£41.97

·Level 4 Twice daily visits£81.62

Following the introduction of the SP programme in 2003 a formal support plan was introduced for each resident which the scheme manager completes on a regular basis.  This monitors the residents and if required the scheme manager can arrange extra visits if necessary.  The current levels of service were then discussed.  Assumptions were made following the survey carried out in 2003 when residents were asked, “If you had a choice,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The following background papers are attached:                           (Enclosures)

·              Homeless stats 2005/06

·              Homeless BVPI’s appendix 2

·              Service Standards for the Housing Solutions Team appendix 3

·              Housing Strategy priority 2 homeless appendix 4

The Housing Solution Manager briefly referred to the performance related information, which had been circulated with the agenda and gave stark information about homelessness.   The presentation would hopefully give a broad idea about the service offered by the Council which was underpinned and driven by legislation outlined in the Housing Act 1996 part VII, Homelessness Regulations 2006 and the Homelessness Act 2002.  

There was a team of officers that offered a front-end service with advice and assistance to people.  A suite of information leaflets which offered broad advice in various languages was available together with a website.   Nothing was taken at face value and all circumstances were investigated with advice being given to help prevent homelessness.  Housing Solutions worked closely with Tenancy Services to help stop instances in the past whereby a tenant had been evicted by the Council and promptly walked back into the offices as homeless.

The Housing Solutions Team Leader then spoke to the Panel about the preventative agenda, which was being driven forward by the Government.     The Council now had an initial homelessness enquiry form which started the ball rolling, so that information could be obtained and options considered and resolved before the need for a formal homeless claim was made.  Partnerships with outside agencies such as the CAB were part of the preventative agenda and the Housing Solutions Team Leader referred to training which she had recently carried out with volunteers at the CAB on housing advice.    All options were looked at when a homelessness enquiry was made including home visits, negotiation with family members and mediation where necessary.   The successful landlords forum had helped the section improve access to private landlords.  If someone presented as a non-priority need and the Council’s statutory duty did not apply they would be given advice and information of where to tap into facilities that were available outside of the Council.     Housing Solutions involvement included:

·Taking claims

·Investigations – a homelessness investigation could take 6/7 weeks and include medical issues, mortgage arrears etc

·Temporary accommodation

·Decisions

·Allocations

·Reviews

·Performance Indicators

The Housing Solutions Team Manager then listed the examples of those people who had a priority need to be housed which included pregnant women and those vulnerable as a result of having been a member of HM regular forces i.e. naval, air or military.   People who were unintentionally homeless could be split into those who had a priority need and those who did not.    The council had a duty to accommodate those with a priority need but also to provide advice and assistance to those who did not.   She then discussed the main duties owed to an applicant who was intentionally homeless and what definitions were used for intentionally homeless and how deliberate acts or omissions made people intentionally homeless.

When a decision was given to an applicant it was clearly documented.  If the applicant wished to have his/her case reviewed then a special form was completed together with any messages or new supporting information and a senior officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Conclusion

That a report on the findings following the recent Audit Inspection of Housing be presented to the next meeting of the Panel.

The Housing Solution Manager referred to the recent Audit inspection, the results of which would be known in three or four weeks time and suggested that the Strategic Housing working group be utilized once the outcome of the inspection is known.  A report would be submitted to the next panel meeting following the audit report.  

(Enclosure)

The Housing Solutions Manager referred to the BVPI 183a and indicated that there was specific criteria for figures to be included with this performance indicator and he did not want to mislead the panel members that bed & breakfast accommodation had not been used to date.  It had, but not under the criteria used for the PI.  A panel member referred to a void premise at Stamford and the Chairman indicated that if she passes the details to him, he would look into it for her.  The Scrutiny Officer referred to the anti-social behaviour indicators and reminded members that Mr McWilliams had indicated at the last meeting why the figures were in the red.  A response to the DSP’s request for more resources for this section was still awaited from the Portfolio Holder.   The criteria for BVPI 78a was being revised and the Scrutiny Officer had been assured that these figures would be amber for the next month.  The average time to re-let council houses was decreasing and it was hoped that by the end of the year the figure would be in the green.

(Enclosure)

Conclusion

That the issue of travellers be added to the work programme for discussion at a future meeting of the Panel.

The Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel of a few changes that had been made to the work programme following the publishing of the Forward Plan which related to timescales.  Two new items had been added; Wake House Bourne, disposal of premises and LSVT stock ownership.  The Panel were asked if they had anything specific which they wished to put on the work programme.  A request was made for the subject of travellers to be discussed at a future meeting.  The subject of LSVT was raised due to concerns, which some councillors had following the publication of the financial details, however as the council had made a decision on the offer to tenants the previous week, it was felt that it was too late to discuss the subject.

A member asked if the time of the meetings could be earlier possibly 10.00am, with less on the agenda to enable those items that were on the agenda to be discussed in more detail.  It was suggested that a future meeting be held in Stamford, possibly in the Arts Centre.  

The Scrutiny Officer confirmed that members of the CDRP would be willing to attend the next meeting of the panel to discuss their work.

Report from Councillor Mrs Mary Wheat.                                       

(circulated to Panel Members only)

Members noted and thanked Councillor Mrs Wheat for her report on the Community Care for the Elderly.

A short presentation was given by the Care Services Manager on the proposed new development at Worth Court, Bourne that was being undertaken by LACE Housing Association in conjunction with Longhurst Housing Association following the successful submission of a bid for funding to the Housing Corporation to develop an extra care housing scheme on the site.  It was hoped that the project would be completed by March 2008 and the council would have nomination rights.

The meeting closed at 1.45pm.