Agenda item

From:Councillor Ian Selby

To:      Councillor Terl Bryant, Good Housing for All Portfolio Holder

I wish to raise a question on an issue that I have no doubt affects other councillors in their ward.

Back in April 2007 I was contacted by some of my constituents regarding contributions by residents on the warden scheme towards community centre costs. I subsequently submitted a question to Councillor Cartwright at that time and the reply stated that the matter would be discussed by the DSP Working Group. Further to this a letter from a council officer (name can be provided but unnamed for the purpose of this public question) in October 2007 stated that the Service Improvement Plan that was being developed would allow for the carrying out of a full review of the situation.

In Feb 2010 my constituents raised the question again and received a reply from the officer with an assurance that a 'Review of Supported Housing Services would tackle the issue'.

In 2011 I then contacted another officer for a progress report and the reply stated that, 'the use and funding of the community rooms will be reviewed as part of the extensive supported housing review which is ongoing. However this particular part of the review is unlikely to be started until after the summer of 2012 as it ties in with other key pieces of work involving fees and charges'.

My constituents feel that this issue is constantly being pushed back they think it is time that a decision was finally made, particularly in the light of yet another rise in the amount that they are having to pay, the present cost being £5.60 a week. 

Also my constituents’ community centre in Belton Avenue is in use by at least seven different groups at various times of the day and evening and so it is not available for use by tenants at these times unless they are part of one of the groups. 

My constituents have recently carried out a survey on the use of the community centre in Belton Avenue and have found out that the majority of the groups are not charged at this present time for use of the facilities and my constituents ask the question; “why are we being charged to pay for their use of electricity etc”.

This issue is long overdue being addressed for fairness for all concerned. Personally I don’t think it’s fair that a small minority of people should pay for a facility that the whole community has the use of. May I therefore respectfully ask; can you give me a definitive answer as to when will this issue be finally addressed by the council?

In anticipation of a positive response, thank you.

At the Council meeting on 18 April 2013, a question in relation to community rooms at sheltered housing schemes was referred to the PDG. The question, which was put by Councillor Selby, specifically referred to Belton Avenue, Grantham. A full copy of the question was circulated with the agenda. The question was about a service charge for the community room paid by residents, and its use by non-residents free-of-charge.

The Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods explained that tenants were required to pay a mandatory service charge which covered facilities relating to accommodation. The charge also included a component for elements that did not relate directly to housing, including the community rooms. The service charge quoted in the question (£5.60 a week) incorporated both categories.

Members were informed that there was no formal charging policy for the community rooms by external users however most housing schemes dealt with this through a residents’ committee. The committee would charge external users; the proceeds would then be available to the committee to organise social events. It was noted that the number of schemes with a committee in place was decreasing, which meant use of the rooms was not managed and therefore donations were fewer.

The Housing Revenue Account met the full cost of providing the facilities irrespective of their levels of use.

The question also referred to a review of the service charge. This was directly linked to Lincolnshire County Council’s supporting people review, which dictated the timeframe for the service charge review. This would take account of current running costs, projected running costs, the extent to which a facility was being used and the potential for future use.

Councillors asked questions and raised a number of points. Levels of use for community rooms varied across the district. Members noted that any attempts to advertise facilities to external users would need to be balanced by the right of residents to access the facility. Residents were able to decide who could use the facility and were enabled to charge accordingly.

In considering a response to the question, the PDG agreed that the residents of Belton Avenue should be encouraged to form a committee, which could control the use of the community room. Residents were empowered to determine who should be allowed to use the facility, charge them for its use and use the proceeds to fund social events and activities. The PDG also asked that service charges for sheltered housing schemes be included on its agenda for 3 October 2013.

Conclusion:

A response should be sent to Councillor Selby suggesting that residents of Belton Avenue should be encouraged to form a residents’ committee, which would be empowered to charge external users of the facility. The committee could then use the income to fund social activities and events for residents. The response should also include a note to state that the PDG would consider service charges in respect of sheltered housing at its meeting on 3 October 2013.

Action Point:

Add service charges for sheltered housing to the work programme for the meeting on 3 October 2013.