Agenda and minutes

No public present.

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

Councillor Jock Kerr declared a personal interest in the item on Resident Involvement as he was a Council tenant; however, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that as it was not a pecuniary interest no declaration was needed.

(Enclosure)

The notes from the meeting held on 18th January were agreed as a correct record subject to Councillor Robin’s name being amended.

The Community Engagement and Policy Development Officer, Ms Drury, informed the Group that Member training would be coming back to a future meeting of the Group.  The Chairman said that the information that had been given previously had not been very intelligible.  Members wanted information that identified individual Councillors training records and individual training needs. Ms Drury said that she would pass this request on to the Service Manager for HR & OD.

Another Member referred to the dog fouling issue and indicated that this was becoming a problem on the High Street in Stamford. The Strategic Director for Community & Environment Focus, Mrs Blackwell said she would look into the problem for the Member. She said that the dog fouling issue for the district was being looked at and was a future item for consideration by the Communities PDG.

Presentation by Ian Richardson and Blake Hutchinson

(Enclosure)

The Chairman welcomed the Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods, Ian Richardson and the Team Leader Resident Involvement, Blake Hutchinson to the meeting.

Mr Richardson gave a presentation to the Group on resident involvement and tenant scrutiny; that is to say, scrutiny of housing services by tenants rather than scrutiny of tenants.  In the past the Audit Commission had carried out a programme of regulatory inspection of social housing providers; however, the new regulatory framework operated by the Homes & Community Agency adopts a lighter touch from the regulator on the understanding that housing providers would better enable their tenants to scrutinize and influence the housing service.

This co-regulatory approach, involving provider, tenants and regulator was enabling a power shift towards local level accountability, transparency and the promotion of awareness and understanding on the part of tenants. The adoption of “local offers”, which would be distinct to South Kesteven, would enable services to be shaped to meet local priorities and provide tenants with clearer reference points for scrutinizing performance and driving service improvements with housing providers proactively seeking feedback. 

Mr Richardson then spoke about how tenant scrutiny was an approach not a process; it was flexible in terms of its context and application and required a reporting structure that was effective and efficient and which enabled capability and capacity to be built amongst tenants.  It was important, said Mr Richardson, that the priorities and views of the tenants should be at the heart of any decision making.  He then spoke about the requirement of the Localism Act for there to be a ‘democratic filter’ for future housing complaints.  Currently there was a corporate review taking place on the complaints procedure to streamline the service and this would need to take account of Housing Services’ requirement for this democratic filter. From 1st April 2013 all housing complaints referred to the ombudsman would go to a single housing ombudsman. All other corporate complaints referred to an ombudsman would continue to be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman but housing complaints would be referred to the Housing Ombudsman only if referred by a ‘designated person’; such a person being either a Member of Parliament for the area, a District Councillor for the district to which the complaint related or a ‘designated’ panel of tenants from the district.  The expectation was that complaints would have exhausted the internal complaints procedure before being referred onwards to the Ombudsman. Implicit in the legislation was an expectation that every effort would be made to resolve complaints locally rather than have them referred to the ombudsman. However, if the democratic filter did not either satisfactorily resolve the complaint or refer it to the Ombudsman within eight weeks, the complainant would retain the right to refer the complaint directly to the ombudsman.

A brief discussion then followed with Members asking about timescales and clarifying how the complaint process would work.  It was felt by those Members present that the democratic filter should in most circumstances be the District Ward Councillor for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Scoping of issues for the development of the working group.

The Chairman invited Councillor Wood to put his case.  Councillor Wood thanked the Chairman for inviting him to the meeting. He briefly informed Members of his background referring to his time as an officer at SKDC at the time when a committee system was used. He did not propose that the Council went back to using a committee system like the old one but felt that a more modern committee system which was politically balanced would make Councillors feel as if they were part of the decision making process.  He referred to the change that Nottingham County Council had made back to a committee system and also Newark and Sherwood District Council had recently decided to go back to a committee system. 

He felt that although 58 Councillors were elected, only 6 of those made the decisions.  He felt that Scrutiny did not work well and the majority of Councillors were not part of running the Council. In his view a Member had two functions

·       to help run the Council and

·       to represent the electorate of the district

He felt that good ideas that back bench Councillors had were not getting through as they were not part of the decision making process. Although he felt that the Cabinet would object to the change even though it would be likely that in a committee system the Cabinet would become the Chairmen of the committees, he appreciated that it would also entail a lot of work to change back to a committee system; however, Nottingham County Council had made the change at no extra cost and he felt that it would be of benefit to Members.

A discussion then followed with each Member of the PDG putting forward their view.  One Member who had been involved with both systems and felt that a committee system was more involved. It was recognised that any change would need to be justified so put the question: what would be the reason for changing to a committee system.  Other Members felt that the current system was:

·       not accountable, not transparent and not open.

·       Members were not able to put their ideas forward

·       Members did not feel engaged within the system

·       No feedback was given from the Executive

·       Members didn’t feel involved in the decision making process

A comment was made that Members were able to get involved, if they wished, they could attend any PDG and speak on any subject or attend Cabinet and speak.  Members felt that as they could not vote on the topic then they could not influence the outcome.  Further discussion followed with reference being made to the Musical Chairs[1] document.  The Chairman appreciated all that had been said but told Members that no case had been given, the points made had all been emotive and no hard factual evidence had been given, good sound reasons were required.  Councillor Wood asked the Group if they would like someone from Newark and Sherwood District Council to attend a meeting, he would also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

(Enclosure)

Members noted the work of the PDG to date.  Ms Drury said that as this was the last meeting before the Annual Council meeting she would but an over view into a word document and circulate it to Members. This would be circulated to Members for noting at the next scheduled meeting.

>Action Note

Ms Drury to circulate an overview of the work undertaken by the PDG at the next scheduled meeting

The meeting closed at 4.50pm.