BOROUGH OF POOLE

MINUTES OF THE HOUSING CONSULTATIVE PANEL

HELD ON WEDNESDAY 6TH OCTOBER 2004

IN THE COMMITTEE SUITE, CIVIC CENTRE, POOLE

The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and concluded at 8.30pm.

Members of the pubic present at the meeting – 8

Present:

Mrs A Warren (Chairman)

Tenants Representatives:

Mrs A Dixon, Mrs Guile, Mrs D Knight, , Mr T Stevens and Mrs S Tate

Leaseholder Representatives:

Mrs P Robinson, Mr K Shirland, Mr D Robinson and Mrs E Hancock

Poole Housing Partnership Board Member

Councillor Mrs Hillman (substitute for Cllr Bulteel) , Mrs A Deacon and Mrs N McLaughlan

Councillors

D Gillard (substitute for Cllr Belcham) and Miss L Wilson

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Stan Brown, Councillor Bulteel, who was substituted by Councillor Mrs Hillman, Councillor Belcham who was substituted by Councillor Gillard and Councillor Collyer.

The Chairman took this opportunity to update the Panel that a letter of resignation had been submitted by Leaseholder Representative Sheila Lamb who, it was noted had resigned from the Leaseholder Customer Service Panel and as a result could no longer sit on the Housing Consultative Panel (HCP). On behalf of the Panel the Chairman publicly thanked Sheila Lamb for her service to the Panel.

Keith Shirland then explained that at the recent Leaseholder AGM, leaseholder representatives were recruited and that, subsequently, at the next Leaseholder Panel meeting a replacement for Sheila Lamb would be appointed.

2.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Mrs Hillman declared a personal interest as a member of the Poole Housing Partnership (PHP) Board.

3.TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON THE 21ST JULY 2004 AND THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2004

The following matters arising from the minutes were noted:

Minutes of the 21st July 2004 – Page 7

Regarding the action point listed immediately above M.10, the Chairman clarified that an item regarding travelling expenses and attendance allowances had not been included on the October meeting’s agenda, due to other pressing items which needed consideration. She explained that this matter was however being progressed.

Minutes of the 6th September 2004 – Page 5

Regarding paragraph 2, it was requested whether or not any plans existed to increase the number of housing officers. David Mullany explained that this matter was currently being reviewed with a view to clarifying ambiguities surrounding the Housing Officers role and to streamlining and improving this particular aspect of service.

Regarding the final sentence of the minutes, the Chairman questioned why a list of those members which sat on the Best Value Review Board had not been included in the Tenants Participation Best Value Review report at Item No. 5. In response David Mullany apologised for this omission and explained that this could be provided at a later date.

AGREED that the minutes of the meetings held on the 21st July and 6th September 2004 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as true records.

4.PETITION FROM RESIDENTS OF THE SHELTERED HOUSING SCHEME AT TRINIDAD HOUSE (B)

The Principal Democratic Support Officer explained that a petition had been submitted by residents of this sheltered housing scheme from those living in Trinidad (B) and it was noted that this had been referred from the Council meeting of 27th July 2004. The statement written in the petition was read out as follows:-

“We the undersigned wish to have the bench seat situated by the walled flower bed by the disabled bungalows at Trinidad (B) moved. The reason being that groups of boys and girls congregate their smoking, drinking and causing a nuisance. It is very intimidating for people of our age. We come to sheltered housing schemes to live in peace and quiet.”

The Principal Democratic Support Officer explained that, in line with the protocol of the Council, the first named petitioner had been invited to present the petition but also that Councillor Wilson, who had referred the matter to Council, had also been invited to comment.

Before he did so, Mrs Knight clarified that residents in Trinidad (A) had not been included in consultation regarding the request made in this petition.

Councillor Wilson then proceeded to make the following points:

  • On raising these concerns earlier in the year with PHP, but then not receiving any definite response, Cllr Wilson had referred the petition to Council, who had subsequently referred the matter to the HCP.
  • Consultation with residents at Trinidad House has been requested on this matter in June 2004, but this had not been actioned.
  • There were many positive activities taking place at Trinidad House and it was important to harness this enthusiasm and ensure that nuisances, such as had been highlighted by the petition, did not jeopardise this.
  • The solution was not necessarily to remove the seat, but to take a more fundamental approach to try to address the underlying anti-social behaviour of youths congregating by/on the bench.
  • Following a social event at Trinidad House, Councillor Wilson had inspected the various access points to the site with James Taylor and Robin Morgan. However, there was a need for a more formal inspection to be carried out by Housing Officers.
  • regular formal meetings, involving residents, Officers and Ward Councillors should take place at Trinidad House in order to provide an appropriate forum to discuss matters such as this.
  • This was not just a problem for Trinidad House residents, as other sheltered housing schemes were encountering such nuisances.
  • Whilst this matter would be informally discussed at the Trinidad Estate Forum meeting on Friday 8th October 2004, Cllr Wilson asked that a report be taken to the board to examine how a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour might be promoted to explore all avenues in tackling the problem

David Mullany thanked Councillor Wilson for highlighting the positive work currently being carried out at Trinidad House and agreed that more attention was needed to address the fundamental issue of anti-social behaviour and the detriment it caused to residents amenity. He explained that a representative from the Youth Service would be present at future discussions regarding anti-social behaviour in the area.

On the issue of formulating more local discussions, David Mullany highlighted that the creation of Area Forums was one of the recommendations of the Tenants Participation Review. He also highlighted that the Council was currently looking at its Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy in order that an appropriate policy could be formulated.

During the ensuing discussion, Panel members discussed a number of short term measures to overcome the concerns raised by Trinidad B residents, such as locking the gates at Trinidad House to prevent youths from entering, or building a more robust gate.

The Chairman then offered to raise this matter with Councillor Plummer, Ian Cooke, as the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Co-Coordinator and Robin Morgan, as the Community Warden, at a meeting on Thursday 7th October 2004.

Keith Shirland then asked for clarification as to what policy the Council was currently following with regards to anti-social behaviour. It was explained that standard guidelines from the Chartered Institute of Housing was currently being followed, but that PHP was currently drafting its own policy.

In conclusion, the Panel agreed that the concerns raised by Trinidad B residents be referred to the PHP Board, in the hope that appropriate action would be taken to resolve this matter.

AGREED that the petition be referred to the Poole Housing Partnership Board with a recommendation that appropriate long-term measures be put in place to address the incidents of anti-social behaviour associated with youths congregating by the bench outside Trinidad House.

5.TENANT PARTICIPATION BEST VALUE REVIEW

David Mullany presented the report and asked the Panel to voice its support for the recommendations detailed in paragraph 3.

He then proceeded to try to address a number of reservations which had previously been made with regards to the recommendations, by asserting that:

  • Area Housing Forums would not create an additional tier of administration or participation, but would replace the existing Tenant Panel.
  • The statement that HCP was currently ineffective was in no way meant as a personal slight, but should be viewed in the context of the PHP’s endeavours to make the Panel more strategic.

In referring to Appendix 2, an amendment was noted that an additional objective should be listed in the Mission Statement to reflect the wishes of the Panel that ‘PHP value the input of tenants/leaseholders in the participation process.’

During the ensuing discussion, the Chairman suggested that possible new housing forums be appropriately named to minimise any confusion that might be caused by the introduction of this new body. Suggestions were made as to how these new forums should be named, with views being expressed that the words “local”, “action” or “residents” be included in the title.

David Mullany suggested that an historic term such as “Housing Action Areas” be resurrected, but then recommended that the actual name be further developed when devising the terms of reference for the local Area Housing Forums and the Housing Policy and Strategy Panel.

The Chairman raised a second point regarding the recommendation that HCP be replaced by a Housing Policy and Strategy Panel (HPSP). The Chairman then asked how frequently the PHP Board met. It was clarified that currently the Board met monthly, with a view to holding quarterly meetings in the future. This helped to clarify for HCP members that the new HPSP would be likely to meet on a quarterly basis. David Mullany suggested that the frequency of HPSP meetings could be decided by the Panel itself as deemed appropriate. The Chairman nonetheless suggested that the success of the new structure would rely upon strict agenda management and the careful time-tabling of HPSP meetings.

She then referred to Appendix 1 of the report, page 6, and to the membership suggested for the new HPSP. She queried why Councillors were not listed as possible members. David Mullany clarified that Councillors could be included on HPSP and on the Area Housing Forums.

On the issue of membership, Councillor Gillard queried whether or not local Police Beat Officers had been invited to HCP meetings, and stressed that their involvement was critical. The Chairman replied that the Panel had not regularly invited Police Beat Officers to meetings, but that it had previously invited Community Safety Officers and other Service Unit representatives.

The Panel then proceeded to consider each recommendation listed at Paragraph 3, making the following comments:

Recommendation 1:General support was expressed.

Recommendation 2:That detailed proposals for the constitution of new Area Housing Forums and the HPSP should be brought back to the HCP prior to Board consideration, to give further opportunity for the Panel to have an input into the formulating of the new terms of reference.

Recommendation 3:Mindful that the time-tabling of reports to Council were subject to change, the Panel agreed to note that a report would be submitted to Council in due course, recommending adoption of the new structure.

Recommendation 4:General support was expressed.

Recommendation 5:General support for the objectives, as amended, in Appendix 2 was expressed.

Recommendation 6:Again, mindful that the time-table was subject to change, the Panel noted that Council approval would be requested in the new year, possibly February 2005, with a view to Area Housing Forum meetings being implemented from February / March 2005.

Recommendation 7:General support was expressed.

Whilst accepting the recommendations in principle, the Panel nonetheless maintained reservations to what was being proposed.

David Mullany concluded that a draft action plan, not only to implement proposals in the report, but to further develop tenants participation in the future, had been devised and distributed copies of this to Panel members, asking them to comment in due course.

In conclusion, the Panel requested that its comments (as detailed in i to vii above) be carefully considered by the PHP Board when discussing the recommendations of the review.

AGREED that general support, in principle, be given for the review’s recommendations, subject to the Panel being closely involved in formulating the terms of reference for the new Area Housing Forums and HPSP.

6.PERFORMANCE REPORT

The Panel formally welcomed Bill Shaw back, noting his previous period of sick leave.

Bill Shaw then presented his report, which he explained was an update on performance planning and monitoring.

The Panel was guided through performance information, and noted the merits of performance monitoring He explained that structure of the monitoring report would improve in time, and asked for the Panel’s comments on its format.

During the ensuing discussion, the Panel remarked positively on the report, agreeing that its format and structure was clear and easy to understand. It was noted that future reports would include explanations from Managers where performance appeared to dip.

The Panel AGREED to note the report and expressed its strong support for its format and layout.

7.COMPLAINTS

Bill Shaw presented this report explaining that monitoring had been improved in response to suggestions from the Audit Commission. He referred to PHP’s new complaint leaflet (enclosed), and explained the different stages to be followed in processing a complaint.

He explained that monthly complaint monitoring complaints reports would be produced and submitted to the Panel on a quarterly basis.

During the ensuing discussion individual complaints were raised which Bill Shaw offered to discuss outside the meeting.

AGREED to note the report and that future complaint monitoring reports would be submitted as part of quarterly performance management reports.

8.POOLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP - SUCCESSION POLICY

David Mullany presented the report, highlighting that the concept of Succession was very complex, and further explained which aspect of the policy PHP wished to formalise.

The Panel noted that the Act allowed landlords to issue possession proceedings against successors if they were left occupying a property which was unreasonably large for their need.

The Panel was then referred to paragraph 4 of the report which listed the recommendations for the policy. David Mullany reassured the Panel that cases of under-occupation by more than one bedroom would be carefully considered on their individual merits, and where successors were able to demonstrate a clear case to remain in the property such requests could be upheld. It was agreed that under-occupation by one bedroom would not normally lead to possession proceedings.

The Panel then referred to a number of scenarios where difficulties could arise in implementing this policy, and David Mullany clarified that it was only in the case highlighted in paragraph 3.2 of the report where possession proceedings could be implemented.

The Chairman questioned what principles were currently in place which this policy would supersede, and in response David Mullany explained that the policy would replace current discretionary powers.

General support was expressed for the proposed policy noting that an incentive scheme was being developed to encourage under-occupiers to move to smaller accommodation in an attempt to distribute housing in a more equitable way.

AGREED to support the recommendations for a new Successions Policy.

9.SHELTERED HOUSING REVIEW UPDATE

Dorothy Allen provided a verbal update on this matter outlining how the residents of sheltered housing schemes had been consulted on proposed new ways of tenant participation.

She explained that one of the proposed new ways of working was that tenants were automatically accepted as members of their schemes’ association, unless they requested otherwise. She explained that of the 26 schemes she had visited the majority had expressed support for this proposal with two schemes expressing some reservations.

During the ensuing discussion a number of Panel members expressed some concern regarding this proposal, whilst others considered it to be an improvement. With regards to an individual matter raised by Terry Stevens, Dorothy Allen offered to discuss this matter with him following the meeting.

Keith Shirland expressed strong concerns with regards to this proposal, which he considered denied residents their fundamental democratic right to choose whether or not they should be members of their scheme’s association..

In response, Dorothy Allen stressed that whilst membership was automatic it need only be voluntarily taken up and that there was an also an opt out clause. She further asserted that all schemes had been brought under this new regime for the case of consistency.