Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.

The following substitution was made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules:

Councillor S.McNamara for Councillor R. Trigg

Apologies for absences were received from Councillor S. Kasumu and Councillor R. Trigg.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2021 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2021 and 3 March 2021 (previously circulated) were approved as correct records.

To receive progress reports and/or recommendations from Scrutiny Task and Finish Panels (T&Ps), if any.

Housing Maintenance and Repairs Task and Finish Panel

Members received a verbal report from Councillor H. Quenet on behalf of the Housing Maintenance and Repairs Task and Finish Panel. Members noted that the Panel would convene on 22 November 2021.  Councillor Quenet confirmed that Officers had produced a heat map illustrating where the properties suffering mould and damp issues were located which the Panel would analyse; consultants had also been commissioned to undertake an Asset Grading assessment which would take some time to complete; and a list of Void properties had been produced and the Panel would look to agree a sampling methodology at the meeting on 22 November to investigate further

Budget Setting Task and Finish Panel

Members received a verbal report from Councillor G. Hayes on behalf of the annual Budget Setting Task and Finish Panel.  Members were informed that the Panel met on Monday 11 October 2022 and went through an overview of the budget. Councillor Hayes invited Members to send through suggestions for consideration by the Panel. It was confirmed that a full report would be provided at the next committee meeting in January.

Officers confirmed that the Budget Setting Task and Finish Panel would next meet on Tuesday 16 November 2021 and the Housing Maintenance and Repairs Task and Finish Panel would next meet on Monday 22 November 2021.

Report of the Corporate Director (Housing and Communities) on the rationale behind the Council’s commitment to maintain circa 9,000 affordable housing properties in the Borough, and the context in which changes would be considered.

Members received a report which considered the objective to maintain the council’s circa 9,000 stock of affordable housing within the Borough. The report set out the origins of the objective and noted the policies and strategies underpinning achieving that objective. 

In particular Members noted that a Delivery Plan for the Affordable Housing Programme was agreed by Cabinet in 2016, which contained the 9,000 objective in response to the depletion of the affordable housing stock as a result of the popularity of the Right to Buy Scheme.

This Delivery Plan was then superseded in 2019 by the Housing Delivery Strategy 2019-2025. The Strategy reflected in part a report the Council commissioned from Savills to identify affordability and demand issues in Welwyn Hatfield. The findings of the report also contributed to the decision to establish a separate housing company.

Members also noted the challenges with increasing the stock of affordable housing, with issues with securing sufficient funding, locating appropriate plots, capacity issues in the construction sector and competing priorities within the council (including investment in the existing housing stock).

The following points were raised and noted:

·       Members enquired as to whether the waiting list had grown since 2014.  Officers confirmed that demand and the waiting list had grown since 2014. However, it was difficult to compare figures between now and then as eligibility rules had changed. Officers agreed to provide exact figures to Members following the meeting. Members noted the need to consider the growth in demand when reviewing the proposed Local Plan.

·       Members noted that the report did not consider population growth, with some forecasts suggesting a 31% rise in the population of the Borough, mainly from migration from London. This would indicate a need to increase ambitions to meet this housing need.

·       Members suggested reviewing the Council’s ambition was a role that Cabinet should consider taking on given the complexity and resource requirements such a review may require, and the budgetary impacts that would need to be considered.

·       Members also asked whether the Council could be more ambitious with Now Housing. Officers confirmed that the new strategy had a target of 400 new homes to be deliveredover the next five years. Whilst Now Housing fulfilled a slightly different function, the homes it delivered would benefit those on the waiting list by either providing more affordable housing options than the open market or freeing up properties in the council’s affordable housing stock.

·       Member enquired as to whether the Council had made offers to landlords and homeowners whose properties were being neglected.  Officers confirmed this had been an option used in the past, but the team were limited by budget and opportunity. Members were invited to notify officers of any vacant properties they were aware of.

·       Members noted that the need to provide more affordable homes was accepted, but the Council was limited by the available resources and competing priorities.

·       Members also noted that there was a risk that the Council increasing its housing stock through the open market may reduce the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Presentations from Officers on how the Council deals with reports of anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance and pest control issues affecting residents in their home.

Members received presentations from Officers from the Neighbourhood team and Environmental Health.

Anti-Social Behaviour and Nuisance

Officers explained the areas covered by the anti-social behaviour team, and how the team was structured. Members noted the statistics indicating the workload of the team and performance against key performance indicators (KPI). This included that 111 cases had been classified as being “open”, with 20 cases having been open for over 6 months, and of those 12 had been open for over 12 months.  Officers explained this was partly due to the delays in the enforcement process, with court hearings being delayed significantly.

Officers outlined the legislative framework, most notably the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policy Act 2014 and Neighbourhood and Community Standard 2012.  Members were informed that each case was dealt on its own merit, but the team worked towards Key Principles. These were to 1) provide a high quality and responsive service to tackle anti-social behaviour and hate crime; 2) take a harm-centred and victim first approach and consider impact as well as seriousness; and 3) work in partnership to prevent anti-social behaviour, manage cases and sustain thriving communities.

Members noted a matrix demonstrating the different case severities that existed, with example of behaviours causing complaints and potential responses. Officers also set out the Case Management Principles and the partnership working which takes place. 

Officers informed Members of the challenges that the team faced. These included delays to court action; the fact that perpetrators often came from vulnerable client group and had complex needs themselves; under capacity issues with community mental health teams, as well as drug and alcohol services; an increased level of reporting with more people staying at home and working from home; and increased difficulties in managing the expectations of those reporting issues, with increased levels of abuse aimed at staff.

The following points were raised and noted:

·       Members asked whether the telephone reporting service gave an indication as to how long it would take for the team to respond.  Officers confirmed this was not the case and that there had been technical issues to overcome with the team working from home and the introduction of new systems

·       Members enquired as to whether derelict homes could be classed as anti-social behaviour given the impact it did have on neighbouring residents. Officers advised that the legislation defined anti-social behaviour in a specific way and this would likely be classified as nuisance. In practice, the team would look at the powers at the Council’s disposal to best deal with the issue and assign it to the most appropriate officers to resolve. In this case the Council may be required to use powers under regulations covering planning, environmental health or housing.

·       In response to a question, Officers confirmed that they also covered privately owned homes.

·       Members enquired how anti-social behaviour issues which was not linked to a particular property were dealt with. Officers confirmed that they do receive reports and would work closely with the police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The pro-forma sets out a draft of the Committee’s work programme for comment. The work programme enables forward planning of items to be considered. In addition, the Forward Plan and Key Decision List are attached for Members to consider. The Scrutiny Scoring Form is available to assist in determining the value of any potential scrutiny.

Members noted the proposed work programme which had incorporated items identified by Members in September, as well as two statutory reviews that the Committee was required to undertake on an annual basis.  Members also noted the Forward Plan and Cabinet Decisions documents which had been circulated in line with the process set out in the Constitution.

Members were invited to consider what further areas should be considered for scrutiny.