Agenda item

The Committee will receive an update on the Council’s performance after the second quarter. This report will have a focus on the ‘good housing for all’ priority.                  (Enclosure)

The Performance Management Officer presented the quarter 2 performance report which had a focus on the council priority ‘support good housing for all’. The reports listed projects that had been successfully completed; three projects had been signed off (the purchase of a new electoral registration/elections software system, ‘tell us once’ and the outsourcing of careline alarms). It was hoped that the Gravity Fields Festival project would be signed off by the Performance and Programme Board by the time the Scrutiny Committee received its next update.

Performance in development management, the abandoned call rate, the percentage of the housing stock which met the decent homes standard and sickness levels were highlighted and updates provided. Councillors questioned why, despite improved performance, the sickness level showed as red and questioned whether it should be amber. Because of previous performance in this area, the tolerance between achieving a target and not achieving a target was tight. It was up to the service manager and head of service to determine how performance should be represented.

The Head of Development and Growth provided an updated on actions that had been taken to improve performance against development management planning targets. A performance clinic had been held which led to a number of recommendations. Performance measures were based on the average amount of time it took to determine planning applications unlike the old best value performance indicator measure which had a single target. It was recognised that ways of working needed to reflect this change.

Officers were becoming more proactive in respect of applications chasing up applicants required to submit additional information. Development officers were also working more closely with statutory consultees to improve the speed with which applications are determined. Additional meetings of the Development Control Committee had been called to help catch up with the backlog of applications.

It was hoped that by quarter 1 in 2013/14 performance would be meeting targets and could be maintained for the full year.

Councillors asked questions about the circumstances under which officers could refuse applications because additional information was required but not supplied promptly. It was suggested that officers could issue a deadline for the applicant to provide responses; failure to meet that deadline would see that application being put forward for decision on the facts available. There was some risk attached to determining applications without sufficient information.

The Head of Development and Growth explained that the determination period through which performance was measured, began when an application was validated. An application was validated when it was received with all information required within a local checklist. When officers found an application that did not include sufficient information, the applicant was contacted immediately.

In response to a question from a Committee member, the Head of Development and Growth provided an update on Section 106 officer. The Council had a dedicated officer who monitored trigger points and ensured that payments were made to the appropriate place at the correct time.

The Head of HR, Customer Service and Performance explained the roles of the Performance and Programme Board (this monitored the development and progress of projects in support of the council’s priorities) and how performance clinics operated (peer challenge by officers outside the service).

The Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods talked to the Committee about the Council’s ‘good housing for all’ priority and associated projects. He explained that following the completion of careline alarm outsourcing, the monitoring of calls was undertaken in Lincoln while the despatch of officers to calls had not changed.

The Localism Act required a review of the Housing Programme. Councillors noted in particular new opportunities to develop new affordable housing which was a result of the refinancing of the Housing Revenue Account. Council tenants would have more input into provision of services through the introduction of a dedicated tenant’s scrutiny panel. Performance against targets in respect of void properties had improved; the target for the number of days a property was void was 29 and was running in November at a rate of 23.88 days. In total approximately 1.81% of the Council’s housing stock was void (including minor and major voids) however a stretch target of 1% had been set.

An increase in the number of approaches from households presenting as homeless was reported. Referrals were often made to landlords in the private rented sector. On a number of occasions the Council’s rent deposit scheme had supported people finding accommodation (81 households year to date against a full year target of 100). 16% of approaches travelled through the statutory homelessness route, a real terms increase against previous year performance.

Councillors were also advised of potential impacts resulting from welfare reform. Specifically highlighted was the change to housing benefit entitlement for under-occupancy (reducing benefits for people living in accommodation beyond what they need). Pensioners were exempt from this change. Estimates showed approximately 1,000 households in district council housing were likely to be affected. The Council had put in place contingencies where households classed as overcrowded or under-occupied could swap to properties of a suitable size.

Councillors were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. In so doing, the Committee was advised that the council had a duty to provide housing advice and a general duty to house people who met statutory criteria laid down in the Homelessness Act.

Councillors were advised that the Council had a duty to ensure its properties met the Decent Homes Standard. Current performance against a target of reaching 100% properties by 2015 was running at 97%. This work was covered in the capital programme and mapped within a rolling programme of improvements. Stock condition surveys also helped inform this.

The Committee was advised that although void properties were brought up to the highest standard, they were still, on occasion, turned down; this was particularly the case for some older persons’ accommodation. Councillors suggested that this could be because the accommodation did not sit on public transport routes, which made them less attractive, particularly in respect of older people.

Councillors were advised that electrical testing was responsible for some of the delays turning round void properties. This was necessary work and officers were working closely together to meet the needs of all concerned.

In response to a question from a councillor, the Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods stated that the market for flats had tailed off. He suggested that despite appearing more affordable, they were still above the means of some people wanting to get into the housing market possibly because lenders were wary and first time buyers were unable to secure a deposit. It was suggested that there could potentially be good news for the private-rented sector as landlords could buy cheaper; it was hoped that they would pass on their savings to tenants by reflecting this in their rents.

Committee members noted changes in the demands of tenants; people wanted properties with an additional bedroom so that they could have visitors. Mr Richardson suggested that the Council might need to investigate the configuration of adaptable properties. The attention of members was redrawn to housing benefit changes in respect of the ‘bedroom tax’.

The Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods summarised the housing programme of work and explained that the Council must have a Tenancy Strategy in place by 15 January 2012. To complement the programme, additional work would include consideration of how the Council controls the housing register and the allocations policy.

The call centre service had been outsourced and was being carried out by City of Lincoln Council. Responding to a question on the involvement of Procurement Lincolnshire Mr Richardson explained that they had only been involved in the Supporting People Contract. He further answered that the Council needed to recover costs on services provided and the districts were at the beginning of the tendering process.