Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Scrutiny Committee Meeting

Apologies were received for Councillor Golding (Maternity Leave)

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no urgent items.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Portfolio Holder for Homes and Regeneration presented a report which provided a review of the council’s housing allocations scheme for 2021/22.

The committee asked questions which established:

·         A written response could be circulated to provide a breakdown of where the increase in larger properties available during the year had come from e.g re-lets, downsizing.

·         It would be useful if the actual number of households on the housing register could be included in future reports.

·         There were differing figures for the delivery of affordable housing reported in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) and the housing allocations policy review.   The affordable housing target in the AMR related to figures from Hampshire County Council (HCC) which record the number of new properties occupied.  The figure of 399 referred to in the report related to the number of properties delivered, completed and handed over by registered providers.  A majority of development activity occurred in the latter quarter of the year.  There was an expectation that the affordable housing target within the housing strategy would be met.

·         It would be useful for the committee to undertake a piece of work to gain a better understanding of social landlord’s lettings schemes particularly in relation to excluding applicants and rejecting nominations.  It was suggested that as there were a large number of registered providers, it be restricted to Sovereign and Vivid.

·         More applicants were going on to the housing register from people living in the private rented sector due to affordability. There had been an increase in the number of successful bids placed moving from private sector into registered provider accommodation.

·         Concern regarding figures in the AMR for delivery of new socially rented accommodation compared to the amount of housing stock for social rented accommodation. It was clarified that the figures for social rents included re-lets.  There could be a change to the housing strategy in relation to affordable rent delivery which could come through the housing strategy review which would then influence the response to planning applications where affordable rents may be proposed.

·         There were two elements relating to households from Ukraine.  Those entering the country under the sponsorship scheme may not be eligible to join the housing register until they had been here for two years.  Those entering under the family connection scheme would be considered for inclusion on the housing register on an individual case basis.  Work was ongoing with HCC where funding was available to support the placement of households into private rented accommodation.  There was also a proposal for a capital funded programme which may be channelled to housing associations to deliver additional units outside of the housing register.

·         Concern regarding the determination of ‘suitable’ accommodation by registered providers.  Housing young families in flats was given as an example of potentially unsuitable accommodation.

·         Concern regarding choice of accommodation.  It was suggested that there were circumstances where accepting a flat as accommodation and therefore being suitably housed resulted in the applicant coming off the housing register and then finding it difficult to move on to other accommodation such as a house.  Officers clarified that an applicant could go back on the housing register if their circumstances changed and individual cases could be assessed.

·         The local connection criteria had not changed since 2015 although the 2 year residency need not apply in cases of domestic abuse or where there was a need to provide care and support.

·         A breakdown could be provided of the number of single people on the register that were living with relatives.

·         Flatted accommodation was a concern.  A high percentage of affordable housing delivered were 2 bedroom flats, more 2 bedroom houses needed to be delivered. 

·         It was suggested there should be a review of the amount and type of social housing that was coming forward.

·         Referring to the newly adopted local lettings addendum to the allocations policy, it was suggested there was a need to better understand the decant requirements for regeneration schemes.

·         A better understanding of the review process of the housing register was required.  Officers clarified that all applicants’ circumstances were reviewed annually and also data was reviewed derived from lettings as set out in the annual review of the housing allocations policy report under consideration.  There was no wholesale review but an annual continual review.

Resolved: The committee

·         Note the report.

·         Agree that a task and finish group be established to undertake a review to understand the issues dealing with housing needs and nominations on the housing register.  Areas for consideration:

·         Registered Provider’s own allocations and exclusion policies.

·         Applicants in Band 1 in underoccupied accommodation.

·         Registered Provider’s decant offers and the regeneration addendum.

·         Determinations of suitability by Registered Provider’s (i.e. which households are deemed suitable for certain property types)

·         Understanding how register applications are reviewed and renewed.

·         How choice operates in practice for register applicants.

The Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets presented a closure report for the Smarter Ways of Working project, a key element of the transformation programme as part of the Fit for the Future council priority.  She advised that future closure reports would be considered by the Performance Panel and provided a summary of the report.

The committee discussed the report and asked questions which established:

·         In relation to measuring how service delivery had improved for residents, a piece of work was being undertaken regarding customer contact and customer experience with the authority.  Following the pandemic, reception was open and face to face meetings were being held but there had not been a big channel shift away from virtual meetings and digital connectivity.

·         The financial aspects of the project were included as part of the council’s regular monitoring reports.  The overall project costs were under budget.

·         Staff surveys were undertaken to ascertain the aspects of working from home.  Productivity was measured by output, measuring key performance targets and meeting objectives as part of the staff appraisal process.

·         The resident’s survey indicated there was a high level of resident satisfaction with service delivery.

·         All staff had received a £300 cost of living payment in January.

·         Some members found it frustrating to know whether staff were physically in the building.  Some members had experienced issues being cut off from phone calls when contacting staff.  It was clarified that officers were looking at a protocol for staff when calling out of the office and all incoming calls if unanswered should go through to a voicemail so a message could be left. 

Resolved:     To note the report.

The Chair of the Performance Panel provided an update on the panel’s discussions at its meeting on 12January 2023.  The panel discussed the Quarter 2 key performance indicators (kpi’s) with focus on the indicators that had a non-green RAG status.  The panel acknowledged that performance measures at this point of the municipal year would not be changed but agreed that reviewing the measures could be discussed at a future meeting to scrutinise and ensure that the most appropriate targets and measures were being used.

The main points discussed were:

·         Definitions regarding litter collection - Positive litter (collected in bins) as opposed to negative litter (litter discarded on the ground)

·         Decreasing garden waste collection attributed to the temporary suspension of the service in quarter 4 and new customers not being able to subscribe to the service  between October and April.

·         The increase in the number of homeless households due to the cost of living crisis and full removal of post-covid eviction restrictions.

·         Planning measures – The RAG status for Manydown North would be green once the land transfer deal was agreed.  Manydown South had complex interdependencies e.g new hospital, highways infrastructure, Local Plan Update.

·         The red RAG status for sundry debt collection was due to the dispute of two invoices which was being resolved.

·         Although showing a RAG status of Amber for council tax collection, the panel had no concerns.

The committee noted and reviewed its work programme.

In relation to the review of public transport, the Chair informed the committee that a briefing open to all members was being held by HCC where Stagecoach would be present.  It was agreed that following the briefing the committee would discuss how to progress a review and decide whether to invite Stagecoach to a future scrutiny meeting.