BOROUGH OF POOLE

HOUSING CONSULTATIVE PANEL

MINUTES OF A MEETING HELD ON 6TH APRIL 2005

The meeting commenced at 6.30 p.m. and concluded at 7.45 p.m.

Members of the public present: 4

Members of the Panel present:

Tenant Representatives:

Mrs A Warren (Chairman)

Mr S Brown (Vice-Chairman)

Mrs Guile and Mr T Stevens

Leaseholder Representatives:

Mr K Shirland, Mr D Robinson, and Mrs T Robinson

Local Authority Representatives:

Councillors Bulteel and Wretham (as substitute for Councillor Belcham)

Quorum

The Panel noted that there was an insufficient number of tenant representatives present to constitute a quorum and agreed that all recommendations would need to be ratified at the next meeting.

1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Belcham who was substituted by Councillor Wretham, Councillor Miss Wilson, Mrs A Deacon, Mrs D Knight and Mrs E Hancock.

2.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3.MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 23rd February 2005, subject to the words “and Leaseholder Panels” being deleted from the fourth bullet point listed at M.7 on page 4 be confirmed.

UNANIMOUS

One matter arising from the Minutes related to the recommendation at M.9 (page 6), that the Principal Democratic Support Officer set up a meeting for Panel Members to discus proposals listed in the “Roles of Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives and the Code of Conduct” Report. The Chairman updated the Panel that due to difficulties encountered in agreeing a suitable date, this meeting had yet to take place.

4.HOUSING CONSULTATIVE PANEL – REVISED CONSTITUTION

The Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services was presented by the Principal Democratic Support Officer, who explained that the Panel was requested to adopt its revised Constitution, which a number of Panel members, advised by the former Head of Democratic Services, had helped to revise during the summer months of 2004.

The Chairman then expressed disappointment that the Panel, being inquorate, could not formally adopt the revised Constitution, which she felt would have enabled a much smoother transition to the new tenant participation structure and new Code of Conduct.

Mr Shirland then updated the Housing Consultative Panel (HCP) that, at the last Leaseholder Panel meeting, representatives present had expressed unanimous support for the revised Constitution. However, he also questioned the need for this approval, noting that officers from Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (PHP) were currently developing a new Code of Conduct for the Housing Strategy and Policy Panel (HSPP), which he understood would supersede HCP.

In response, the Chairman explained that the current HCP Constitution was unworkable and that changes, to i.e. amend references to Housing Management Services to Poole Housing Partnership, and technical details relating to representations and voting rights had required revision. The Chairman went on to explain that she had initially asked for the revised Constitution to go before the November 2004 HCP meeting, but that she had been advised at that time that it would be more appropriate to submit a report to the April/May 2005 meeting, in time for a recommendation to be submitted to Council that the revised Constitution be formally adopted.

Noting this clarification and further reassurance from Bill Shaw, Best Value and Performance Manager, that the (yet to be approved) new tenant participation Code of Conduct had, in the main, incorporated clauses from the HCP draft revised Constitution, Mr Shirland nonetheless reiterated that the Leaseholder Representatives had no objection to the revised HCP Constitution being approved.

Clarification was then given that as the new HSPP Code of Conduct and Constitution would be recommended to the PHP Board for consideration, its approval was not subject to Council meeting timetables. Bill Shaw, Best Value & Performance Manager explained that as the operation and management of tenant participation had been delegated to PHP, there was no obligation to submit such proposals to Council.

The Panel then went on to discuss the need for Tenant and Leaseholder Panel representatives to be closely involved in the devising of the Terms of Reference and Constitution for the new HSPP, and clarification was given on how members of this new Panel would be elected. Reassurance was given that that Panel members who currently undertook two roles, i.e. leaseholder representatives and representatives of residents would be able to, with greater ease, undertake this dual role in the new structure through the different levels of participation forums that would be introduced.

Concern was then expressed that, whilst the Best Value Review Group (Tenant Participation), had fully supported proposals for the new structure, Mr Shirland nevertheless maintained one reservation that, as the HSPP would need to be supported by Area Panels and Sheltered Housing Groups, these new Panels and Groups should be up and running in advance of the HSPP.

The Chairman echoed these comments.

In conclusion, the Panel were minded to unanimously support the revised HCP Constitution, noting that its record of support would need to be ratified at the next HCP meeting.

RESOLVED that the revised Constitution for the Housing Consultative Panel be approved.

UNANIMOUS

5.ROLES OF TENANT AND LEASEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT

Bill Shaw, Best Value and Performance Manager, presented the Report explaining that, as this had previously been presented to the February 2005 HCP meeting, he simply required the Panel to comment on the proposals prior to a final recommendation being submitted to the PHP Board.

The Chairman then suggested that, in view of the fact that the interim meeting requested to discuss the implications of this Report had yet to be held, it was difficult for the Panel to respond to the proposals in an informed way.

General confusion was then expressed by the Panel members present, and concern raised by Mr Shirland that the HCP was being placed in an inappropriate position to grant approval to another Panel’s Code of Conduct.

In response, Councillor Wretham and the Best Value and Performance Manager offered reassurance that the Panel was not being asked to approve the Code of Conduct, but to merely to express whether or not it supported the implications of the proposals.

In conclusion, Panel members felt ill-equipped to comment on the proposed procedures for the new Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedure for Tenant and Leaseholder representatives, and asked that their general confusion be noted.

RESOLVED that the Housing Consultative Panel’s general confusion concerning the new Tenant & Leaseholder Representative Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedure be recorded.

UNANIMOUS

6.ACTION PLAN UPDATE – RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDIT INSPECTION REPORT

Bill Shaw, Best Value and Performance Manager provided a verbal update on the progress made against actions listed on the Plan, which had been drafted in response to the Audit Inspection Report and distributed copies of the Audit Commission Inspection Action Plan (attached on pages x – x).

Whilst explaining that the Plan was only in the 3rd month of its six year programme, Bill Shaw proceeded to highlight a number of key actions listed in the plan, to explain what progress had already been made, which included:

  • Page 1 – sixth listed action: progress had been made on this and a team was now in place to support this action
  • Page 2 – various actions relating to tenant participation: some slippage in terms of timing had occurred, but officers were currently working hard to achieve these actions within a reasonable timescale
  • Page 3 – 5th listed action: it was explained that 5% of the overall ALMO funding, which equated to £1.5m had been set aside for environmental improvements on estates and a discussion then ensued on local matters relating to this issue
  • Page 3 – 2nd listed action: the Best Value & Performance Manager explained that a review of Service Level Agreements between the Council and PHP were currently underway and that a major finding so far was that current services provided by the Council were offering very good value for money and that there was little intention to externalise services at this time
  • Page 4 – 3rd listed action: the Best Value & Performance Manager explained that the HCP would be consulted on the performance management arrangements for tenancy management. In noting that this action referred to data on the handling of anti-social behaviour, the Chairman referred to a question that had been raised by Mr Shirland at the February 2005 meeting, seeking statistical information on the number of ASBOs applied to private estates compared with those applied to Council estates. In response the Principal Democratic Support Officer explained that the Anti-Social Behaviour Co-ordinator was currently undertaking a review linked to this matter with the local Police, and that the HCP would be appraised of the findings of this review in due course.

During the ensuing discussion, clarification was given that the Audit Commission would not be monitoring the progress of the Action Plan until the undertaking of its review in three years time. The Chairman expressed concern at this matter, believing that there needed to be some independent/external monitoring. Also on a particular improvement that had been requested, relating to the requirement that new tenant participation arrangements be in place within three months of the inspection, it was clarified that no external monitoring of this would be taking place.

However, Councillor Wretham explained that the Council and HCP had a monitoring role with regard to the Action Plan.

Grateful for this update, the Panel were minded to note the verbal Report.

RESOLVED that the verbal update of the Best Value and Performance Manager on progress made against the Audit Commission Inspection Action Plan be noted.

UNANIMOUS

7.REINVESTMENT PROGRAMME 2005-2010

Steve Ransley, Asset Manager, PHP, presented the Report, explaining that it provided an update on PHP’s partnering contract arrangements, engaged to complete the reinvestment programme to residents’ homes. He explained that the process of appointing the contractors was now complete and that a Contractors’ Conference had been held on 1st February 2005 to introduce the elemental contractors to each other and to communicate PHP’s aims and objectives.

The Asset Manager provided reassurance that each of the contractors now shared a common approach to the completing of the reinvestment programme, which, he suggested, would help to ensure that works were logistically carried out and the timetables of each contractor shared and complimented.

A full explanation was then given relating to paragraph 3.5 of the Report, regarding the five “benchmark properties” that had been identified for refurbishment works, prior to the main programme commencing. It was explained that these properties were void properties which would be used over a period of 4-5 weeks to complete the works and then used as show homes for a limited period. Reassurance was sought from the Chairman that the Council would not incur losses in respect of Council Tax or rent in the using these five void properties. In response, it was explained that all costs would be recouped, and that Council Tax could not be levied on properties which had been void for more than six months.

Further reassurance was given that, mindful of the Audit Commission’s request that voids should be minimised in Poole, PHP had met all auditing requirements in this matter and that the “benchmark properties” initiative and reinvestment programme itself would prove to be very cost-effective.

During the ensuing discussion on this matter, the Panel expressed general support for the reinvestment programme and noted the areas in which the five “benchmark properties” were situated.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

UNANIMOUS

8.URGENT BUSINESS

a) Expenses and Incentives Policy for Representatives

The Chairman updated the Panel that, following the presentation of the Expenses and Incentives Policy for Representatives to the PHP Board, the matter had been deferred pending the discussions of a Working Group, commissioned by the Board to consider the proposals. The HCP Chairman explained that this Working Group would include three Board members, the Chairman of HCP and a Leaseholder Representative, and that the findings of this Working Group would be reported back to the PHP Board in two months time.

In discussing this matter, clarification was given that the Company Secretary for PHP would be finalising the arrangements of the membership of this Working Group. Councillor Bulteel then explained that, whilst the Board had considered that action needed to be take to regularise expenses paid to Panel members, there was some concern over the practicalities and amounts which needed to be further discussed.

The Chairman then went on to explain that at the meeting, Councillors appointed to the PHP Board had been very supportive of the proposals, but that a number of the other Board members had appeared not to appreciate the role and responsibilities of HCP members. She also stressed that the Board had wanted it to be made clear to the HCP that it was not looking unfavourably at its proposals, but that it wanted to have an opportunity to further discuss the proposal’s practicalities and the rate of expenses paid.

One final matter was clarified that, following the decision of the Board on considering the findings of the Working Group, whatever Expenses Policy was confirmed, the amount and terms of payment would apply to both HCP members and to the successive HSPP members.

b)Tenant Participation Strategy Report

The Chairman updated the Panel that the Report, which had been considered by the HCP in November 2004 would be considered by Council on the 12th April, and that it would be beneficial for Panel members to attend this meeting.

During the ensuing discussion, Councillor Wretham explained that this item had been considered by the Community Support Overview Group at a recent meeting when it had received unanimous support from Members.

Councillor Bulteel then went on to explain that a question would be raised at Council on 12th April concerning the rights of Members to attend Area Housing Forum meetings. In discussing this matter, the Panel concluded that the membership of Area Housing Forums should be flexible enough to permit the attendance of elected Members, by invitation. The Panel felt that the same principle of flexible membership arrangements should also apply to representatives of Registered Social Landlords.

In discussing this matter, the Chairman explained that there was a need for Panel members to be more closely involved in the devising of the terms of reference of Area Housing Forums.

9.DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

It was noted that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday 22nd June 2005 at 6.30 p.m.

10.EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS

RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

UNANIMOUS

11.REQUEST TO PURCHASE HOUSING LAND

The Panel discussed the points listed in this Report, noting that the current occupier of the property in question had submitted this request in an attempt to formalise the, currently unauthorised, ownership of land adjacent to the property.

Members of the Panel were asked for their views on this matter, but expressed some concern that this would lead to the deterioration of a patch of nearby amenity land, due to it being enclosed as a result of this land purchase. In response, reassurance was given that the Council would continue to appropriately maintain this patch of land.

In conclusion, the Panel was minded to support the proposals.

RESOLVED that the request to purchase housing land be supported.

UNAMINOUS

CHAIRMAN

1