Venue: Mead Room (Rose) - Endeavour House. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTES Minutes: Councillor Hinton was substituting for Councillor Barrett. |
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Minutes: There were no declarations of interests received. |
|
BOS/17/35 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON THE 22 JANUARY 2018 PDF 173 KB Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on the 22 January 2018 be confirmed as a true record.
|
|
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: None received. |
|
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC To consider questions from, and provide answer to members of the public on any matter in relation to which the Committee has powers or duties and of which due notice has been given in accordance with the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rules.
Minutes: None received. |
|
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS To consider questions from, and provide answer to Councillors on any matter in relation to which the Committee has powers or duties and of which due notice has been given in accordance with the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rules. Minutes: None received. |
|
BOS/17/36 FIVE-YEAR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY PDF 362 KB Cabinet Member for Planning - Councillor Lee Parker
Members to receive a report based on the scoping exercise conducted on the 15 February 2018 Additional documents:
Minutes: 77.1 The Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning introduced report BOS/17/36 and explained that that the calculation of the Five-year Housing Land Supply was a complex and time-consuming exercise.
77.2 Planning permissions granted for developments did not always indicate that building would commence within the timeframe to be included in the calculation for the Five-year Housing Land Supply.
77.3 Members queried the role of Councillors in relation to developments in their areas. Officers explained that it was in a response to questions raised during the scoping exercise that they had outlined the possible actions councillor could take. If councillors choose to they could contact developers and liaise about the developments in their communities as long as maintained a professional attitude and worked within their code of conduct to the benefit of their constituency. It was not a recommendation from officers, but it was an option for Members is they felt it was appropriate.
77.4 Members raised the concern that the Five-year Land supply was only calculated on an annual basis and would like to receive a regular review of the Five-Year Housing Land Supply to obtain an indication of how the Council was performing throughout the year. They were not expecting a full review but a professional judgement to ensure that the Housing Land Supply was heading in the right direction. This was a sensitive subject in the community and Members felt that a regular review would improve the broader understanding for planning issues in the community.
77.5 Officers explained that it was the time it took to accurately validate the date available, and that each development had to be validated individually to provide a robust judgement of deliverable housing. Information had to be gathered from various sources and these were not always up to date. The Council had to rely on this information as developers were not required to supply the council with date on completed housing developments.
77.6 Members asked for clarification of which of the two calculations, the Core Strategy calculation of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (page 12-13) and which was used by the Government to set targets for the Council. Officers respond that the Government use the most up to date calculation and in this instance, it was the calculation for SHMA
77.7 Questioning continued, and officers was asked to explain the 20% buffer on the Five-year Land Supply, which in effect added another year to the land supply requirement and what the criteria for only having a 5% buffer were. Officer responded that the Council needed to achieve the annual target of 350 completed houses for a minimum of one year for the buffer to be lowered, as it was a question of actual deliverable houses. This was a simplified explanation of what had to be achieved to meet the required targets set by the Government.
77.8 Some of the target were likely to change once the new National Planning Policy Framework was published. Currently the policy was undergoing a consultation process, but the ... view the full minutes text for item 77. |
|
BOS/17/37 ALL TOGETHER PROGRAM PDF 324 KB Kathy Nixon – Strategic Director
Members to receive a report on the All Together Program Additional documents: Minutes: 78.1 The Chair and Members of the Committee began by congratulation the Chief Executive and the Council staff by achieving the ‘Council of the Year’ and ‘Working Together’ silver awards.
78.2 The Chief Executive introduced report BOS/17/37 and explained that the over 10 years the approximately saving would be £5.8 million split between Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council.
78.3 There now existed seven Touchdown Points and two Depots (Creeting Road and Great Wenham) three Public access points in Stowmarket, Sudbury and Hadleigh. The Stowmarket office also housed the call centre. It was possible for officers to book desks at the Touchdown Points and at the Customer Access Points.
78.4 Members asked for clarification on the increase in the Recurring Costs (page 37, point 4.3.1) and the difference between £268,000 in 2017/18 and £680,000 in the 2020/21. Officers explained that for the first couple of years an upfront discount deal had been negotiated with Suffolk County Council (SSC), which terminated in 2020/21, which accounted for the increase in the recurring costs. In 2021/22 the contractual Disturbance Allowance for the Councils’ staff would come to an end and this explained the zero entries for mileage disturbance and car parking permits.
78.5 Stowmarket had manged to negotiate a better deal for the rent and service charge for the Customer Access Point with Stowmarket Town Council, but this was partly because the Customer Access Point in Sudbury was different set-up than Stowmarket.
78.6 The Committee gave thanks to Members and Staff for producing the report.
78.7 The Chief Executive explained in response to Members’ questions that there were a Touchdown point in Hadleigh and that negotiations with Hadleigh Town Council were taking place to broaden ‘front of house’ service they already provided to include access for the public to use computers with limited staff to support them. The Assistant Director – Customer Services were looking at other opportunities for Customer access such as libraries.
78.8 Members were concerned about the capital cost for the remodelling of the two headquarters sites (page 36, point 2.1), which in total was just over £6 million for the two sites. This was the estimated cost if the Councils had remained at their respective headquarters, including any work for updating the existing buildings and ICT to enable the Council to run effectively. This cost was the original cost proposed in the 2016 Business Plan proposal for the move to Endeavour House,
78.9 Members wanted to know what was included in the above estimate, as they felt the saving of £290,000 per year was not significate. However, if the HQ required a huge capital expenditure for substantial repair work and remodelling over the next 10 years than the above annual saving of £290,000 made better sense. The Chief Executive responded that that this was a historical discussion which made place in 2016.
78.10 Travel cost included both the Disturbance Travel costs and the cost incourred by staff for work. Agile work had actually reduced the estimated Distrubance costs as ... view the full minutes text for item 78. |
|
PRESENTATION ON VOIDS Councillor Gasper will be presenting the Service Improvement Plan for the Void Improvement Project Minutes: 79.1 Councillor Gasper presented the Service Improvement Plan for the Void Improvement Project. He made Members aware that he had added extra slide, beginning from the slide named ‘Councillor Visits – Properties Visited’.
79.2 Members asked question of the officers and the responses included
· The government had moved away from the Decent Home Standard. However, the standards were still high for Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils. · Education and training of tenants were important to maintain high housing standards · A 20% Stock survey rolling over a five-year period would ensure all tenant houses were visited. · The development of Housing engagement model · The Support of individual in fixed term tenancy · The Housing Service team were currently working repairs on 150 - 160 houses · Tenants to take responsibility for the standard of housing through the new tenant agreement · Social care responsibility needed to be met too.
79.3 The number for voids in Babergh were as follows for the past three months:
December 2017 – 71 voids January 2018 – 53 voids February 2018 – 49 voids
As could be seen for above, void times were being reduced and it was predicted that by May 2018 the turn round time for voids were to be 33 days.
79.4 Officers said that the team were focussing on reducing voids, and it was the intention to reach a target of 10 working days for the turnaround time for most voids and that this was being conducted through a six months project.
79.5 The Cabinet Member for Housing said that she and the Assistant Director met monthly to discuss the way forward and that she was confident that the Housing Team was able to reach the original target for voids, which had been 21 – 22 days. However, there was still a lot of work to do including:
· To achieve regular inspections; · To enforce the tenant agreement, but also to provide support for those tenants who needed help · Early intervention for tenants who were struggling · Ensure there were enough resources for the team to be able provide the above work
79.6 The discussion continued of the influences on voids, how to reduce the void time and current increase of the time it took to turn around voids. But it was also recognised that there had been issues with the creation of BMBS and that these issues were still being addressed. Both Members and Officers were in agreement that the reduction of the voids were a common goal for the Council.
79.7 The requisition of new houses was conducted by a different team and a different budget within the Council and that the Right to Buy scheme could not be used to pay for housing repairs. These were paid for by the HRA budget. It was recognised that the BMBS team were responsible for repairing houses they had not been involved with purchasing process. Therefore, acquisition process was currently being reviewed by the departments involved to allow for the capital purchase to included consideration of the cost ... view the full minutes text for item 79. |
|
INFORMATION BULLETIN The Information Bulletin is a document that is made available to the public with the published agenda papers. It can include update information requested by the Committee as well as information that a service considers should be made known to the Committee.
This Information Bulletin contains updates on the following subjects:
There is no Information Bulletin
|
|
BOS/17/38 FORTHCOMING DECISIONS LIST PDF 260 KB To review the Council’s Forthcoming Decisions List and identify any items to be brought before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Forthcoming Decisions List be noted. |
|
BOS/17/39 FORWARD PLAN PDF 184 KB To agree the Forward Plan Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Forward Plan be noted. |
|
BOS/17/40 MSDC OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY FORWARD PLAN PDF 166 KB For information Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Plan be noted |