Get documents about "PROGRAMME
Document Sample
Runnymede Borough Council
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
20 November 2008 at 7.30pm
Members of the
Committee present: Councillors P J Waddell (Chairman), Mrs R M Denby (Vice-Chairmen), J R Ashmore,
C J Chapman, R J Edis, P A Francis, R N Jones,
Mrs M Roberts and J J Wilson
Members of the
Committee absent: Councillor H A Butterfield
Mrs J Hill attended as Tenants' Representative
337. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 September 2008 were confirmed and
signed as a correct record.
338. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor H A Butterfield.
339. SERVICE PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 2008/10
Members were asked to consider a comprehensive Housing and Community Services' Service Plan,
appended to the report, covering the period October 2008 to March 2010. The Committee was asked
to examine the targets within it and to endorse them or to otherwise suggest amendments.
The Plan embodied those action points from other Strategies including the Sustainable Communities
Strategy, the Housing Strategy, the Homelessness Strategy, the Private Sector Renewal Strategy
and the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan.
The proposed Plan did not take account of a number of activities which formed part of the day-to-day
functions of the Department but captured the most significant areas of additional work falling to the
Department over the next 18 months.
Officers stressed that performance against the Plan was not included at this stage as this was the
first draft of the new plan. However, assessment of performance against targets would be
demonstrable when the plan was re-examined in a few months time.
It was noted that the Government had amended the Performance Indicators which had been set for
Local Authorities and this had meant that many of the previous Best Value Performance Indicators
for Housing and Community Services were no longer required by the Government. However, four
Indicators remained that fell under the jurisdiction of this Committee and targets for these had thus
been set within the Plan.
The Surrey Local Area Agreement also included a specific target to increase affordable housing
provision and District Authorities would need to contribute to the delivery of this target and regularly
report on performance.
In noting the resource implications for each target outlined within the Plan, Members expressed
some concern as to whether all of the targets could be met bearing in mind the financial constraints
now imposed on the Council. Officers, in reply, agreed that it might prove necessary to identify
additional resources in order to deliver some of the targets whilst some other targets might be
impossible to achieve. Future reports thereon would be brought to Committee as necessary.
- 513 -
Two comments were made:
(i) Page 7 ref. 2.11 Officers would report back, in due course, regarding the future possibility of
the Council building new housing stock;
(ii) Page 17 ref.6.8 Officers would liaise with Surrey PCT to try to establish their targets
regarding the promotion of a range of health and well-being initiatives. This, however, was
thought to be difficult to quantify.
RESOLVED that -
the Housing and Community Services Committee’s Service Plan for the period
October 2008 to March 2010 be adopted.
340. REVIEW OF EXTENSION MADE TO THE COMMUNITY ALARM TELECARE (CAT) DISCHARGE
PROJECT
Members considered a detailed report which:
i) reviewed the Community Alarm Telecare (CAT) project which had previously been extended
to include people who had suffered from a distraction burglary;
ii) considered whether “Careline” should be offered on a free-trial to new customers over 75
years of age;
iii) considered the possibility of working in partnership with Elmbridge and Spelthorne Borough
Councils in order to provide Telecare to residents within the Borough.
Community Alarm Telecare
All 11 District Councils in Surrey had agreed to provide a community alarm free-of-charge for 12
weeks to those residents who had come out of hospital in order to help them maintain their
independence and prevent a swift return to hospital. This was known as the Community Alarm
Telecare (CAT) project. The new alarms purchased for the project were funded by a grant (the
Preventative Technologies Grant as provided by the Department of Health to the County Council.
This Grant was available for a 2 year period only commencing as from April 2006 and had now come
to its end.
In November 2007, Members had agreed to extend this scheme to include residents who had been
subject to a distraction burglary. The Committee asked that the scheme should be reviewed after
one year and also that the possibility of providing free units to those over 75 should also be
considered at that time.
It was reported that the take-up of CAT's alarms continued to be high, with 66 having been installed
in Runnymede since January 2008. Encouragingly, 51 of the clients had decided to keep the alarms
when the free 12 week trial ended. Therefore, despite the funding available from the Preventative
Technologies Grant (PTG) having ended Officers considered that there were significant benefits to
warrant continuing with the scheme.
Of those 66 alarms installed since January, six were as a consequence of burglaries. Five of the six
clients had kept the alarms, but the other client had sadly died within the 12 week period.
Careline Free Trial
As requested, consideration had been given to extending the free-trial period of alarms to those over
75 years of age. However, this would have a number of implications:
i) Income would be foregone for 12 weeks on all new users over 75 who were in the majority of
new clients (approximately 70%).
ii) Those existing users aged over 75 and who did not have a free-trial might feel
disadvantaged.
- 514 -
iii) There was likely to be a need to invest in significant additional equipment in order to cater for
a higher number of installations. Unlike the CATs scheme there was no PTG to cover this.
iv) If there was a surge in take-up this might require an interim staff resource to install units.
v) It would only be worth extending the free trial to all clients over 75 years of age if it could be
guaranteed that the fees lost in the first 12 weeks would be covered by extra fee income
received from those who would not otherwise have had an alarm. Unfortunately, this could
not be guaranteed.
For the above reasons, Officers recommended that the free trial to this group should not be
extended.
However, two other opportunities for enhancing the service had now arisen.
“Telecare” with Elmbridge and Spelthorne
“Careline”, the Runnymede Borough Council Community 24 hour alarm service, was just one of the
technological devices used to help people remain in their homes. Other forms of equipment such as
bed sensors, fall detectors and smoke alarms were also available. These were collectively known as
“Telecare”.
In Runnymede, involvement with “Telecare” had been limited as, although the initial outlay had been
in the past covered by PTG, in the longer term it was feared that it would require additional revenue
resources. However, the two neighbouring Borough Councils, Elmbridge and Spelthorne had
provided “Telecare” and now had extra capacity available which they wished to make available to
Runnymede residents. The terms of their proposal were appended to the report and were noted.
The Elmbridge and Spelthorne scheme allowed those very frail residents of each Borough to have
the option of utilising “Telecare” equipment at no additional cost to their Council.
However, in Runnymede, as the proposal also involved providing “Careline” as part of the suite of
“Telecare” projects it might result in the loss of some “Careline” income. However, it was evident
from the proposal that only a modest reduction in “Careline” use (some 3% at Spelthorne and 10% at
Elmbridge) had occurred and, therefore, the potential loss of income was low. Members also noted
that without “Telecare” clients were, sadly, often taken into residential care and therefore the
“Careline” income would then be lost.
Officers reported the preliminary details of a SCC Social Services initiative. Although still requiring
formal verification, the County Council's Social Care Team had said that they wished to get all of the
older people whom they supported in Runnymede onto the “Careline” scheme. They had stated that
if clients did not have the financial means to cover the weekly charge, SCC Social Services would
pay for the alarm. Their long term aim would be to ensure that all of their clients had the means to
make an emergency alarm call, whether they were self funded, or, part or wholly County funded.
With this in mind, Officers proposed to run the Telecare scheme for a pilot period of 2 years (with an
option to break after 12 months) during which time the impact on “Careline” would be monitored. It
was believed that any marginal impact on Careline income would be offset by the County Council
proposal.
Turning to the financial implications on Runnymede, the Government grant for funding the CAT's
project had ceased and whilst the cost of any additional units supplied would fall to this Council, a
high proportion of clients kept the unit and so became fee-paying clients. For those who returned the
unit it could be utilised, again, in another person's home. Officers estimated that the increased long-
term income generated from new users would match the costs of continuing the CAT's project and it
was, therefore, considered that the CATs project could be continued within existing budgets.
The initial analysis of the proposals for “Telecare” with Elmbridge and Spelthorne and “Careline”
funding from Social Services suggested that they would be cost-neutral if taken together. Although
some income from “Careline” would be lost from clients who took the “Telecare” support option, early
indications were that the losses would be modest and the County scheme would potentially generate
- 515 -
both more custom and income. Further work was required and would be carried out on these
proposals to assess their full budgetary impact before the agreements were entered into.
Members agreed that extending a 12 week free trial to all new customers over 75 years of age could
not be supported as it would lead to a significant loss of fee income and increased expenditure on
units. However, the victims of burglary initiative and the CAT's scheme continued to be successful in
helping vulnerable people to return home from hospital or to remain independent following a burglary
and although the Government grant for new units was no longer available the additional fee income
would be adequate to offset the cost of these schemes.
Similarly, the two new initiatives proposed by Elmbridge and Spelthorne and SCC Social Services
provided an opportunity to extend the service without any cost falling to Runnymede. Members
therefore supported the proposal that, subject to more detailed scrutiny of the terms of the proposals,
these partnership initiatives should be approved.
It was accordingly -
RESOLVED that -
i) the installation of Careline units in the houses of distraction burglary
victims and those discharged from hospital free of charge for a period
of 12 weeks be approved; and
ii) the Director of Administration and Leisure in consultation with the
Director of Housing and Community Services be authorised to enter
into the necessary agreements with Elmbridge and Spelthorne and the
Surrey County Council Social Services team subject to confirmation
that the proposals from these Authorities, regarding the extension to
“Telecare” and “Careline” projects, did not require additional
budgetary resources.
341. HAIRDRESSING AND CHIROPODY CHARGES WITHIN DAY CENTRES
Members received a report comparing the charges for hairdressing and chiropody services within
Day Centres. During the Best Value Review of Community Services which took place in 2004, a
target was set to compare the hire charges which were recovered from service providers for
chiropody and hairdressing services within the Day Centres.
Hairdressing and Chiropody Services in Runnymede
Hairdressing
Historically, there had been a tiered payment structure for hairdressing within the four Runnymede
Day Centres based on the facilities available for the hairdresser to use. The current hire fees were
set at an hourly rate as follows:
Day Centre Hourly Charge
Eileen Tozer £5
Manor Farm £6.10
The Orchard £4.00
Woodham and New Haw £6.10
The average use was 4 hours each day Monday to Friday.
Chiropody
The Chiropodist was charged the same day rate at each Centre and this was currently £19.00 per
day. Both the hairdressing and the chiropody rates were reviewed annually and increased by a little
over inflation.
- 516 -
Comparison of Charges
A comparison of charges with the six Local Authorities who had responded to enquiries had been
undertaken :
(i) Hairdressing
Four Authorities charged by the half-day and day, one had an annual charge and one took a
percentage of the takings. Comparative hairdressing charges at other Boroughs ranged
from £27 to £30 per day and £13.50 - £19.50 per half day.
(ii) Chiropody
Three authorities charged by half-day and day, one by the hour, one took a percentage of
takings and the other had no chiropody service. Comparative chiropody charges in other
Boroughs ranged from £22 to £30 per day.
Results
Officers had considered each of the above approaches to higher charges and had modelled these
against the existing hours of service provided at each of the Runnymede Day Centres. Initially, an
idea of a day or half-day rate for hairdressing appeared attractive because of its simplicity. However,
upon further investigation, it was felt that hairdressing income could actually fall if a day-rate was
applied because the hairdressers would inevitably mitigate their losses and utilise the half-day rate
knowing that they could fill this rather than gamble and stay for a full day. Officers, therefore,
proposed that the Council continued with its current arrangement for hairdressing charges.
It was evident, however, that the charging rate for chiropody at Runnymede Day Centres was low as
compared with other Surrey Districts. Accordingly, Officers intended that proposals for an increase in
charging be introduced as part of the budget setting process for 2009/10 thus leading to a very
modest increase in income.
The Committee duly noted this information.
342. CONCESSIONARY BUS PASSES
Members considered a report which :
i) provided an update on the progress made in implementing the new Concessionary Bus
Travel Act 2007;
ii) presented the latest information about the cost of the new scheme; and
iii) requested Members to decide on any financial contribution to other Surrey authorities as
discussed at a recent Surrey Local Government Association meeting.
A significant proportion of the report had been made to the Corporate Management Committee
meeting held on 30 October in order to notify Members as soon as possible of developments and to
inform the Financial Forecast process. This report to the Housing and Community Services
Committee had been further updated to include the decisions made by the Corporate Management
Committee together with new information received since that meeting.
Members were reminded that the 11 District Councils in Surrey, together with the County Council,
operated a joint-countywide scheme of concessionary bus travel. This was a long established
partnership arrangement. Regular meetings of the county-wide Concessionary Fares Working Group
were held to co-ordinate the scheme.
The Surrey partnership was advised by consultants – the TAS Partnership – who advised on
arrangements with the bus operators and collected and audit data from the bus companies. The
contractual arrangements with TAS had been reported to the Housing and Community Services
Committee in November 2007.
Update on the implementation and operation of the scheme
- 517 -
The new scheme had been implemented successfully. There were now some 9,500 passes
distributed to customers in Runnymede and there continued to be a steady number of new applicants
for bus passes (currently an average of 30 per week).
The Council had a contract with Novacroft to supply the initial bulk issue of passes and the
subsequent new passes. They had been asked to continue producing passes on behalf of the
Council until 31 March 2009 using the Novacroft InNovator card management system to replace the
in-house developed database so that records were immediately accessible by Novacroft for card
issue. The system was being trialled for one year, and, after review if found to be satisfactory then
continued. Officers were pleased to report that, to date, the InNovator system was proving both
robust and effective.
The Surrey Partnership was also looking at the common disability criteria and a draft of their findings
would be circulated to the Surrey Local Government Association (SLGA) Members Group on
Concessionary Fares for consideration. It was likely that where changes affected individuals they
would not lose their pass immediately but at the next reissue of their card (passes had a life of up to
5 years).
Unforeseen costs of the Scheme
The major cost element in providing this service was payments to bus operators this being the
reimbursement for income foregone as a result of accepting concessionary fare passengers.
The arrangements for reimbursing the bus operators and the method that the costs were allocated to
Districts changed on 1 April 2008. Previously, in 2007/08, a Countywide subsidy of £6.208m was
paid to the bus operators in order to reimburse revenue foregone by accepting the permits. The level
of reimbursement to bus operators was based on a mileage rate negotiated with the operators on the
basis of limited (and unaudited) patronage figures available and average standard local fares. This
cost was broadly allocated amongst Districts in proportion to the number of permit holders in each
area. The Runnymede share of the cost of payments to bus operators in 2007/08 was £367,615.
As from April 2008, the method of reimbursement to bus operators had changed to one of actual
usage, with the bus operators being reimbursed 65% of the normal fare for each journey undertaken.
Operators were now obliged to record journeys (previously there was no incentive or requirement to
do so). Each Surrey District was now charged for journeys starting within their Borough boundary
(previously this had been charged to the District where the passholder lived).
In November 2007, TAS had provided a set of initial costings which analysed the potential impact of
the new national scheme, and the changes in reimbursing bus operators and allocating costs to
Districts. TAS had estimated that the sum payable to bus operators by Runnymede in 2008/09
would be £128,095, a significant reduction compared to the £367,615 paid in 2007/08. A provision of
£200,000 was made in the 2008/09 estimates to allow some margin for increased use of buses, and
potential data errors in the initial costings.
TAS had now provided data on the first quarter usage and cost apportionment for 2008/09. The
result was significantly different to their initial estimate for Runnymede. TAS had reported and
explained the variations in detail. These reports were appended for Members’ information.
It was noted that:
● Over 117,000 passes had been issued by the Surrey Districts by April 2008. The total
issued is now likely to be much greater.
● There were nearly 1.7m free journeys starting in Surrey during the first quarter of 2008/09.
● The average cost per journey paid to bus operators was £1.03.
● Bus operators were now estimated to receive reimbursement of £6.87m from Surrey
Authorities, an increase of 7% over 2007/08 costs, and 3.7% over the initial estimate for
2008/09.
- 518 -
● The change in the method of reimbursement to bus operators from the 37 pence mileage
rate to the new scheme based on a reimbursement rate of 65% had led to significant
changes in the amounts paid to individual operators.
● The cost to Runnymede Borough Council for reimbursements to bus operators was now
estimated to be £309,205 in 2008/09. This represented a considerable increase over TAS's
initial estimate of £128,095.
● There was a further risk that the costs would increase as a result of increased fuel prices,
which would impact upon the calculation of average adult fare and, therefore, the value of
concessionary journeys made.
The increase in Runnymede’s payments from the initial estimate of £128,905 to a new
estimate of £309,205 (with the prospect of further increases) was both unexpected and
unwelcome news. It was also well in excess of the provision of £200,000 made in the
2008/09 budget. Allowing for a modest contingency, a revised budget for 2008/09 of
£320,000 was now considered prudent. This was some £120,000 greater than that allowed
for in the budget. The Corporate Management Committee had recently approved a
supplementary estimate in this sum.
The reasons for the wide variations between the initial estimate and first quarter figures.
At a meeting of the Concessionary Fares Working Group. held on 15 September, TAS were
questioned about the wide variations between the initial estimate and the first quarter figures. The
Councils which had seen large increases since the initial TAS forecast (Epsom, Runnymede, Surrey
Heath and Woking) had expressed particular concern at the findings and requested further
information.
TAS had agreed to start operator surveys and audits in order to provide a better degree of scrutiny
over usage and costs. It was noted that there were no electronic “swipe-card” facilities on buses
operating in Surrey. However, TAS did not believe that figures had been manipulated by drivers. On
this point Councillors commented that, ideally, an independent audit should be undertaken in order
to protect RBC’s interests, but, acknowledged that there would be significant associated costs in
doing so.
TAS had further disclosed that their initial estimate had been based on very limited data. In particular,
they had allocated costs in their initial estimate based on a bus route mileage basis, rather than when
the passenger was likely to board a bus. At that time, TAS had limited information about where
people boarded buses since not all operators supplied data and guesses had to be made about the
gaps in data. Therefore, where a route travelled across boundaries, assumptions were made
regarding which Council would be liable for what.
In hindsight it seemed that the geography of bus routes in Runnymede had caused the usage on a
number of routes to be heavily understated. Officers were not aware of this methodology used in the
initial estimate, albeit it was unlikely that they would have realised the impact of this estimation
method too. Further to this, in Runnymede no returns had been received on routes formally operated
by Tellings and Willtax (both now absorbed by Travel London), First Beeline, Peterbus or Dickens
Travel.
Bus operators in Surrey had so far not appealed against the level of reimbursement which they were
receiving. They had done so in other areas, where it appeared that reimbursement rates were lower.
(65% in Surrey) However, there remained a modest risk that bus operators might appeal to the
Department for Transport that the reimbursement offered by the Surrey scheme was insufficient. A
successful appeal would increase the Council's costs still further.
Grant Award
It was reported that the Department for Transport had provided Runnymede Borough Council with an
additional fixed grant award of £162,300 for 2008/09. The new scheme still represented a reduction
in the overall cost over the old scheme since the revised estimate in 2008/09 of £320,000 was still
below the 2007/08 payment of £369,365. TAS had forecast inflationary increases of 5% for 2009/10.
- 519 -
This level of cost increase was also unhelpful given the Council's restrained level of Government
grant and the capping of Council Tax.
Partnership Arrangements
Two inter-authority groups were currently discussing the detailed arrangements for concessionary
fares in Surrey.
The Concessionary Fares Working Group had representatives from all Districts and was chaired,
by agreement, by the County Council. The purpose of the Group was to discuss and achieve an
agreement on administrative issues and decisions for which there was a general consensus.
It was further reported that in November 2007, the SLGA had established a Member Board reporting
to the SLGA to drive forward the delivery of the new scheme and to seek consensus on county-wide
issues and to lobby Government as appropriate. It was modelled along similar lines to the Members'
Group on Waste, namely with one Member representative from each District (normally the relevant
portfolio holder) and 3 from the County Council. The Group had two main aims. Firstly, it would
consider any outstanding operational issues on which it would be necessary or desirable to reach
common agreement before the new scheme came into operation. Secondly, it would keep the
scheme under review and make recommendations for changes (if any were needed) to SLGA and
Member Authorities as the scheme progressed. Members noted that this Group was not an
executive body and it remained for individual authorities themselves to make decisions which were
binding on them.
Members were advised that the latest meeting of the Members Board was on 9 October. The Board
had received another set of proposals for Surrey Districts to consider a scheme to “pool” money from
those Districts which gained in overall terms from the new arrangements in order to subsidise those
that did not. A similar proposal had been rejected earlier. Using the latest data, nine Districts were
expected to be in "surplus" (including Runnymede) and two (Guildford and Surrey Heath) in "deficit".
At the meeting there was no consensus on agreeing the proposal.
The matter was subsequently taken to the Surrey Local Government Association (SLGA) meeting on
22 October 2008. The attendees resolved that, in the interests of unity across the County, that the
costings of the Surrey Scheme should be reviewed at the year end to establish 'floors' to ensure that
no single District would take a “major financial hit” arising from the distribution of funds. (The
representative for Surrey Heath had also given an undertaking that, subject to the resolution being
passed by all Districts, Surrey Heath would join in with the rest of Surrey with an 09.00 start for over
60s passholders.)
There were still a number of details to be agreed before the proposal could be finalised. In particular,
it would be necessary to find an agreed definition of "major financial hit" and the choice of "baseline"
to measure the "deficit" or "surplus".
Runnymede would need to resolve to participate in this proposal, and then decide on the conditions
(if any) which would be expected to be in place before any funds could be released.
After discussion it was –
RESOLVED that –
(i) the SLGA proposal to review the costings of the Surrey Scheme at year-
end to establish “floors” to ensure that no single District would take a
major financial hit arising from the distribution of funds be approved;
and
(ii) the Council await further information as to costs before considering
the level of financial support to be made.
343. THE NEW TENANT SERVICES AUTHORITY AND HOUSING INSPECTION FRAMEWORK
Members considered a report setting out some observations on the implications of the creation of the
Tenants Services Authority as introduced by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The
- 520 -
Committee’s views were also sought on a number of consultation questions, appended to the report,
which the Audit Commission had asked local Authorities to respond to as regards their proposed
short notice inspection regime.
It was reported that the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 created new housing organisations to
deliver and regulate social housing. Part I of the new Act created the Homes and Communities
Agency (HCA) which replaced the Housing Corporation, the Urban Regeneration Agency and the
Commission for New Towns, which operated under the joint name of English Partnerships. The HCA
would focus on delivering more new and affordable homes across all tenures and also invest in
regeneration initiatives too.
Part II of the Act created a new Social Housing Regulator, the Tenants Services Authority (TSA) as
well as setting out its objectives and powers. The TSA would take on all of the regulatory functions
previously undertaken by the Housing Corporation.
The implications for Runnymede of the establishment of the TSA was as follows:
The Government had now established an organisation which would oversee the ownership and
management of all social housing, including local authority housing. It wanted to see parity for the
services delivered to Regional Social Landlords (RSL) and Council tenants and its method of
achieving this was by bringing all housing regulations under one umbrella organisation which it
referred to as "cross domain" regulation.
A specific advisory panel had been constituted by the Government to consider how “cross domain”
regulation would be achieved. The panel had produced a report which made a number of
recommendations. The principle recommendation was that the new Tenant Services Authority
should be responsible for the regulation of landlord services provided by local authorities as well as
RSLs.
It was not anticipated that the TSA would commence regulation of local authorities until Spring 2010
and additional legislation setting out the functions to be regulated would be required before any
proposals were implemented. The Government had given a commitment to full public consultation
on the provisions of “cross domain” regulation and this would provide an opportunity for Runnymede
to express its views.
It was proposed that the new TSA would have the power to commission the inspection of services by
the Audit Commission. It was also intended that they would agree the Audit Commission's inspection
activity for social housing.
The Audit Commission had also published a consultation document entitled "Short Notice Inspections
of Local Authority Housing Services and ALMO's". This document set out their proposals for social
housing inspections and invited responses. Local Authorities had also been invited to participate in a
pilot programme.
It was proposed that the triggers for inspection would be “poor performance”, as measured by
Performance Indicators, and feedback from regulators (TSA) on standards. A mix of Key Lines of
Enquiry (KLOEs) and new standards to be set by the TSA would be used to set the benchmark for
services.
The TSA's remit covered the regulation of landlord and housing management services only and not
the regulation of the other housing services delivered by Local Authorities such as the strategic
housing role, private sector housing, housing needs and homelessness. These services, although
not subject to the scrutiny of the TSA would come within the remit of the comprehensive area
assessment (CAA) which was also being introduced for local public services as from April 2009. A
general comment was made that in dealing with tenants’ complaints the TSA should consider only
those made by properly formed, constituted and representative tenants’ groups.
It was particularly noted that the TSA must first invite the Audit Commission to carry out any
inspections. Inspections were to be risk-based and tailored to local circumstances. The scope of
short notice inspections was likely to vary from a single service area such as Tenancy Management
to a full range of landlord services in a particular geographical area.
- 521 -
The Audit Commission were proposing to pilot short notice inspections in five local authorities and
three arms-length management organisations.
Members noted that there was currently insufficient information available to assess the resource
impact on Runnymede. The Advisory Panel report on the “cross-domain” regulation indicated that a
fee might be payable by Local Authorities to the new TSA but this was yet to be confirmed.
The burden of inspection by the Audit Commission had, in the past, been accommodated within
existing staffing levels and this was likely to be the case for the future. The most likely cause of
additional expenditure was compliance with any new standards yet to be set by the TSA above the
existing levels of service delivery. Clearly, until proposed standards were published it remained
impossible to estimate the full financial impact on this Council.
Members were reminded that at its last meeting the Committee had considered a report which
highlighted the fact that (in 2008/09 alone) the Council would pay nearly £6 million to the
Government in negative HRA subsidy and that, in the longer term, this was likely to have a damaging
effect on Runnymede’s HRA Business Plan. One of the key issues that needed to be addressed, if
“cross-domain” regulation was to deliver the proposed equality of services to RSL and Council
tenants alike, was “fair treatment” in the HRA subsidy system. It was agreed that it should be
emphasised in response to any consultation on the new regime that a much greater share of the rent
raised locally from tenants must be retained if Council social housing providers were expected to
deliver the same standards as RSLs.
The full implications of the new system were still uncertain and further reports would be brought
when additional details emerged.
RESOLVED that -
the Director of Housing and Community Services be authorised to make a
response to the Audit Commission consultation on “short notice inspections”
consistent with the observations discussed above.
344. THE GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL RESCUE PACKAGE FOR HOUSING
Members were advised of the content of the Government's proposed financial rescue package for
housing which was being introduced as a result of the current turbulence in the global financial
markets which directly impacted on the UK housing market.
House prices had fallen, first-time buyers were finding it harder to find a suitable mortgage and
house-builders were experiencing exceptionally challenging business conditions. In particular, those
buyers who had committed to fixed-term 100% mortgages were now having difficulties which could
ultimately lead to an increase in the number of house repossessions. The situation was still very fluid
but mortgage lenders might now be able to pass on reductions in interest rates following the Bank of
England’s recent lead. However, in view of the current uncertainties it was prudent for Runnymede
to identify and plan for those potential pitfalls which might affect the Council.
The Government had recently announced a series of proposals aimed at assisting first-time buyers
and preventing repossessions. The details were still emerging and Members were advised of the
outline of the rescue package:
Mortgage Rescue
This scheme was designed to provide an option to help families with dependent children, the elderly
and other vulnerable households. It might not be able to help households with little or no equity and
was not appropriate where homes were unreasonable for occupation because of disrepair,
overcrowding or risk of violence.
The scheme was being worked up with Councils, lenders, National Housing Federation, Housing
Corporation, RSLs, and with input from Chartered Institute of Housing, Local Authority Associations
and money advice agencies.
- 522 -
Depending on their specific circumstances and an assessment of their case, eligible homeowners
would be offered one of three products, by their Local Authority:
• Shared equity - where the RSL provides an equity loan enabling the householders' mortgage
repayments to be reduced;
• Shared ownership – where the RSL purchases a share (thus enabling the purchaser to pay
off some of the mortgage) and converts the property to shared ownership by issuing a
shared ownership lease;
• Sale and rent back - where RSL clears the secured debt completely and the applicant pays
rent to the RSL at an affordable level.
Councils would nominate suitable cases to the Homebuy Zone Agent. In Surrey, this would possibly
be the Thames Valley Housing Association, whom it was envisaged would use the rescue package
to purchase a share or the entire freehold of the property, thus allowing the existing household to
remain in occupation.
The Government plan to have this scheme in place at the end of December 2008. Officers were
awaiting detailed advice on this proposed mortgage rescue package scheme and accordingly would
report back to Committee in January 2009.
Homebuy Direct
First-time buyers were one of the groups finding it particularly difficult to attain a mortgage. Ordinarily,
they would usually benefit from falling house prices, but, a combination of the higher cost of
borrowing, bigger deposit requirements and weakening credit confidence had meant that this had not
happened.
HomeBuy Direct was a new shared equity scheme concept designed to clear completed or near-
completed vacant properties which house-builders had been unable to sell. The scheme had been
allocated some £300m of CLG funding. It was suggested that this scheme would help up to 10,000
first-time buyers into affordable home ownership.
The scheme would be offered on specific new-build properties brought forward by developers.
Buyers would be offered an equity loan of up to 30% of purchase price, co-funded by the
Government and the developer. The equity loan would be free-of-charge to the purchaser for the
first five years. From Year 6, a 3% charge would be levied. From Year 10 onwards, the Bank of
England Base Rate would be charged, increasing by RPI plus 0.5% each year.
Once launched, HomeBuy Direct would operate as follows:
• Developers would shortly be invited to submit bids to the Housing Corporation to provide
HomeBuy Direct on selected properties and sites;
• The scheme would be administered by the regional HomeBuy Zone Agents. In Surrey it was
yet to be confirmed that the Thames Valley Housing Association would be the Agent.
• General eligibility for HomeBuy Direct would be the same as for the other HomeBuy products
(i.e. households earning less than £60,000 who could not afford to buy a suitable property on
the open market without assistance in the area where they lived or worked).
• Purchasers could redeem the equity loan in tranches, purchasing up to 100% equity, after
their initial purchase, by buying additional equity at the market rate.
• Buyers would be able to sell their HomeBuy Direct home on the open market. When they did
so, they would repay the equity loan by way of a share of the sale proceeds. This repayment
would be shared equally between Government and the developer.
The type of properties available under HomeBuy Direct would depend on the properties that were
brought forward by developers. It was proposed that the first HomeBuy Direct homes should be
available to purchasers in January 2009.
- 523 -
Bringing Forward Affordable Housing Spending
The Government had announced that social housing money should be spent now in order to meet
these immediate economic and social needs and to ensure that more homes were delivered this year
and next, rather than wait up to three years for new social homes to be delivered.
Accordingly, the Government was therefore bringing forward £400m from its 2010-11 affordable
housing budget to be spent on new social housing in this year and next. It was believed that this
could deliver up to 5,500 additional new social rented homes over the next 18 months.
At the same time, in order to respond to the current economic conditions in the housing sector, the
Government had agreed with the Housing Corporation that they would apply limited flexibility to the
efficiency targets to achieve continued delivery of new housing schemes. Scheme bidding would
continue to be undertaken within a competitive framework and it was expected that this would
continue to be a strong driver of “value for money”, with those bids which met the Housing
Corporation's assessment criteria and offering best value for money being prioritised for funding.
The financial implications and general impact on Runnymede
Members were informed that there had been a 29% increase in the number of repossession cases
heard at Staines County Court in the first quarter of this financial year as compared with the same
period last year. The Citizens Advice Bureau had also reported a recent increase in the number of
repossession cases.
Officers were concerned about the level of press coverage that the mortgage rescue package had
been given as there was a danger of unrealisable expectations. The Council had already received a
number of enquiries from members of the public requesting that their properties be purchased. It
was unlikely that the vast majority of homeowners would be eligible for the scheme. Furthermore,
the package had not been finalised and further consultation with Local Authorities would be taking
place over the next few months.
Officers emphasised that the scheme was geared more to assisting those whose incomes changed
i.e. lower self-employment income or one partner losing a job. It would not assist those householders
in negative equity or those with additional charges against their homes but these were the very cases
which Runnymede Council was most likely to have to assist.
These packages did not involve the Council in the direct purchase of property or granting of
mortgages. However, the Council would be involved in assessing the eligibility of applicants. If this
became a major activity then it might have resource implications.
There was also a risk that the referrals generated by the mortgage rescue package would also lead
to a growth in homelessness acceptances. Local Authorities had a duty to give advice and
information to any member of the public about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness
and were also required to provide assistance and accommodation to vulnerable households with a
continuing emphasis on the prevention of homelessness.
Officers would continue to monitor the number of repossessions taking place and a further report on
the financial or other implications of the proposed rescue package would be presented once further
information has been obtained from the Government on the individual elements of the package.
345. 30 - 32 POND ROAD EGHAM - PROPOSED SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE
Members were advised that an opportunity had arisen to use a vacant property owned by the
Council, situated at 30-32 Pond Road, Egham, as supported accommodation for young people.
This was a single property, containing 6 bedrooms and other shared facilities. It had been originally
intended that it would provide a residential care home for clients with learning disabilities. However,
demand for the unit had always been low and there had been several periods of very low occupancy.
It was currently unoccupied and had been so since July 2007 as it did not reflect the current strategy
whereby vulnerable people were assisted to live independently. In September 2007, MENCAP and
- 524 -
SCC Social Services had accordingly approached Runnymede with a proposal to change the
property into independent supported housing for clients with learning disabilities. It was further
proposed that the Golden Lane Housing Association would lease the property, MENCAP would
provide the housing related support and SCC Social Services would provide the nominations and
funding.
Although this initially seemed to be a way forward, problems had then arisen in identifying suitable
clients for this revised model of provision. Despite extensive contact and considerable pressure
being placed on SCC the building remained empty. Officers had now taken the view that an
alternative use for it should be considered. SCC and MENCAP had been notified accordingly.
Members noted that Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 required a Local Authority to consider the
needs and support of vulnerable groups such as 16/17 year olds and those young people leaving
care. It was thus imperative that adequate supported accommodation was available within the
Borough to cater for the needs of this client group. Young people often needed help and support to
access education, employment and training. In addition to this, the needs of 16 and 17 year olds
were often more immediate as they had been rejected from their families and did not have fully
developed coping skills. The current practice of placing young people into the Council's general
temporary accommodation did not meet generally accepted best practice.
There were currently only 223 units of supported accommodation across Surrey for young people but
only 8 of these were situated in Runnymede. The Surrey Supporting People Strategy had
acknowledged that this level of supply was inadequate and had identified the provision for young
people as an area of priority. Accordingly, other types of accommodation were now needed in
Runnymede in order to support this vulnerable group. The use bed and breakfast accommodation
for young people, in an emergency, was limited to a period of no longer than six weeks and Members
were further advised that the Government had set a target to end the use of bed and breakfast
accommodation entirely, for 16 and 17 year olds, by 2010.
Cemetery Lodge in Englefield Green provided three of the eight units situated in Runnymede. This
unit was run by In Touch, the supported housing function within Hyde Housing Association. The
accommodation was temporary in nature with the aim of supporting and assisting the client into
independent living, but, on average, young people stayed for up to two years in this accommodation.
Whilst the scheme at Cemetery Lodge had worked extremely well there was often a long waiting list.
Officers had, therefore, negotiated with Supporting People and had now managed to secure funds to
expand the existing service provided by In Touch, initially, for a three year period. The expanded
service would enable five extra young people to be supported in Runnymede. However, a suitable
property was needed to provide the accommodation.
Accordingly, Officers proposed that 30-32 Pond Road, Egham should be utilised for the expansion of
this scheme. The property could be used in its current layout and In Touch had both the funding and
staffing required. Officers had also already identified suitable clients for the scheme. It was further
proposed that, as with the Cemetery Lodge scheme, a responsible tenant would live within the
scheme and provide the necessary on-going support to the young people. The proposed use of the
building remained in line with the original planning consent. This property was accounted for in the
Housing Revenue Account.
The lease with In Touch would be for a term of 3 years and on similar terms to that previously held
with MENCAP. In Touch would be expected to negotiate with the Supporting People Team to obtain
an extension to the grant after three years. As provision for young people was a high priority for
Supporting People it was hoped that funding would continue in subsequent years. However, if this
proved not to be the case then the lease would be terminated and the future use of the unit would,
once again, have to be reviewed.
Tackling homelessness was a key responsibility for Runnymede as identified in the Strategic Plan
2005-2010 'Building on Excellence'. The Council's Homelessness Strategy also aimed to minimise
homelessness by providing appropriate assistance to vulnerable people as well as helping to prevent
homelessness. The need to provide additional supported housing for young people in particular was
also recognised in the Supporting People Strategy.
- 525 -
The opportunity of using this unit was felt to be extremely timely as if it had not arisen then five of the
eight young people who were currently homeless and being assisted by the Council would have had
to be placed in general housing without support.
Members approved this initiative and expressed their support.
346. SHARED OWNERSHIP POLICY
Approval was sought for the introduction of a “local rule” shared ownership policy to enable
applicants to purchase a property which had one bedroom surplus to their household requirements.
Members were reminded that the choice based lettings scheme in partnership with Spelthorne
Borough Council, Elmbridge Borough Council, A2 Dominion and Elmbridge Housing Trust was to be
launched in 2009.
The common lettings policy had already been approved and Officers were now in the process of
implementing the banding scheme in Runnymede.
Since parts of the common lettings policy made reference to "local rules may apply" it was essential
that the Council had these respective local rules in place in order to deal with, for example, local
lettings policies or property-size eligibility for shared ownership.
The first such local rule now required the Committee’s approval.
When allocating a social rented unit the Council assessed the need of the applicant and determined
the size of property suitable to meet the needs of the household e.g. a family with one child would be
eligible for two-bedroom accommodation.
Shared ownership allowed the purchaser to buy a share of a property whilst paying a rent on the
equity that they did not own. If they chose to do so shared owners were then able to buy larger
shares until they owned the entire property outright.
In the case of shared ownership the significant investment in the property made by the applicant
made it more difficult for the applicant to move to alternative accommodation should circumstances
change.
The current Council policy allowed a single person to purchase a one-bedroom property only.
However, Officers now suggested that as the applicant was investing in the property it made sense
for the purposes of sustainability that, if they had the financial means, they should be allowed to
purchase a property with one extra bedroom in addition to their household requirement, for example,
a single person and couples could purchase a two-bedroom property.
This view was supported by the Housing Corporation and their capital funding guide offered the
following information:
"As a guide, one bedroom more than required based on current household composition is likely to be
suitable. Generally this would mean a two-bedroom property for a single person or a couple, or a
three-bedroom property for a family with one child. However, there may be exceptional
circumstances when the above guidance may be treated with a degree of flexibility to meet a genuine
need. It should be remembered that publicly funded low cost home ownership products are not
designed to enable an applicant to obtain a home of a higher standard than they would be able to
afford without such assistance".
Although the guidance referred specifically to new build, it could equally apply to resales or, indeed,
any product which had been publicly funded. Whilst the Guide mentioned the possibility of
exceptions, such exceptions did not extend to a home of a better or larger standard than the
household justified.
Clearly, it would not be appropriate to offer a family unit to a couple where there were applicants with
children in need of it. It was proposed therefore, where there was a family which qualified for the size
of a property, i.e. where there was a two-bedroom property available and a family with one child
wished to purchase it, they would be given priority over a single person or couple. However, in the
- 526 -
absence of such a family it was proposed that an applicant who could afford to purchase a unit with a
spare room should be allowed to do so.
Officers further advised that the above proposals accorded with Government objectives for long term
sustainability and that the introduction of this policy was not expected to require new funding from the
Runnymede housing capital programme.
After discussion, it was agreed that in order to ensure sustainability and compliance with the Housing
Corporation guidelines a policy should be introduced to enable applicants who purchased a property
through shared ownership to be able to purchase a property with one extra bedroom more than their
household requires.
RESOLVED that –
the Allocations Policy be amended to include provision for shared ownership
units to be offered initially to households of the appropriate size for the unit,
but, if there are insufficient applicants of this type, to households who would
underoccupy by one room.
347. FINANCIAL MONITORING STATEMENT
The Committee received the latest budgetary projections and performance indicators for significant
budgets within the Housing and Community Services remit based on figures up to the end of October
2008.
Chairman
(The meeting ended at 8.41pm)
- 527 -
