Minutes of North Area Panel 16 March 2005

NORTH AREA PANEL

Meeting held 16th March, 2005 at Deepcar Village Hall, Helliwell Lane, Deepcar

PRESENT:		Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), Alison Brelsford, Martin Brelsford, Kathleen Chadwick, Martin Davis and Patricia Fox.

		Also in attendance:- Councillor Peter Rippon - Cabinet Adviser, Housing.

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Ruth Granger - Sheffield West Primary Care Trust
		Mick Gosney - Sheffield Homes
		Sylvia Parry - Elders Congress
		Andrew Cooke - Stocksbridge Town Council
		Jon Lovibond – Sheffield Homes Tina Gilbert – Sheffield Homes
		City Council Officers:-
		John Charlton - North Area Lead Manager
		Matthew Rush - Area Action
		Stuart Bolton - Regeneration and Partnership
		Jason Dietsch – Committee Secretariat

		5 members of the public including representatives from community organisations attended the meeting.

…………

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Arthur Dunworth , Alan Hooper and Graham Oxley.

2.	MINUTES
	The minutes of the meeting held on 16th February, 2005, were agreed as a true record.

3.	SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL - LETTINGS POLICY
	The Panel received a presentation from Jon Lovibond, Director of Housing Management, Sheffield Homes, on the review of the Lettings Policy in Sheffield. The presentation outlined the current Lettings Policy introduced in February, 2004.
	Within the current policy Sheffield Homes aimed to let Council properties and fulfil Sheffield City Council's legal obligations, and the Council's responsibilities to people in need, contribute to sustainability, neighbourhood regeneration and social inclusion and to give people the choice over where they lived. Mr. Lovibond outlined the terms of the Lettings Policy and Lettings Bands.
	The main challenges for the Lettings Policy were that there existed a limited amount of stock and there was a need to balance this fact with the City Council's competing statutory, contractual, financial and regeneration priorities and attempting to leave some properties for waiting time applicants. Information relating to supply and demand of Council housing were outlined with a general increase in demand for Council housing and a decreasing amount of rent loss and time for vacant properties to be put back in the supply chain, however, the above meant that people were waiting longer in need. In relation to supply, a programme of demolition had removed stock which was hard to let and had improved performance in relation to vacant properties meant that Sheffield Homes had very few long term vacant properties.
	Trends were also reported relating to supply and demand and the time taken to offer properties to homeless priority cases, which was increasing. For example by 30th December, 2004, the time taken to offer a three bedroomed property to a family with homeless priority was between 18 and 20 weeks, rising from a figure of five to six weeks on 1st April, 2004.
	The review of policy would consider letting bands and letting criteria, priorities and improving advertising and support with the bidding process. With effect from 17th January, 2005, some interim changes had been made to change the lettings criteria so a minimum household size for a three bedroomed property was a family with two children or a household with three adults and the time had been extended for people with homeless priorities and other immediate priorities from two to four weeks. The review of policy had begun in December, 2004, and a final report to Cabinet incorporating full year letting policy outcomes and supply and demand research was planned by June 2005. Jon Lovibond outlined key issues and concerns to be addressed by the review:-

	· Whether it is right or possible to retain a preference to people without priority in high demand areas (50/50 rule). · Whether changes to eligibility rules were needed for single people, small families and for households moving as a result of clearance.

	· Information on advertisements.

	· Increasing support to some people.

	· Possible restriction on the number of bids.

	· Whether a demolition ring fence was still required and whether a super priority should be made for some demolition cases.

	· Whether all tenures should have the same rules.

	· If a policy on over crowding was required for people needing three bed accommodation.

	The following comments and questions were raised:-

	· Whether a proportion of available stock in high demand areas could be ring fenced for local people with a need to remain in the local area for family or work commitments, such as caring for an elderly relative.

	· To address the issue of inappropriately mixing younger tenants with older people because their life styles were not complementary and due to more serious incidents of disturbance and anti-social behaviour.

	· Increasing the discretion available to local Housing Officers so that the potential for problems arising from inappropriately let properties would be minimised.

	· The potential for a distinct lettings policy for communities in the North area as outlined above. Concern was expressed at the increased waiting time for homeless people for properties.

	· How soon people registering on the Housing Register could then go forward to make bids for properties.

	· What action the Council was to take generally regarding the decreasing amount of Council stock available.

	· Whether assistance could be given to young people wishing to obtain a mortgage.

	In response, Jon Lovibond stated that once people had gone on to the Housing Register they could then bid for properties immediately under the current policy. In relation to people who were homeless these were dealt with through a case by case response and an assessment was made as to whether some interim arrangements for housing would be appropriate, for example living with a friend or family member rather than temporary (bed and breakfast) accommodation.
	Responses were made to the remaining questions as follows:-

	Possibility of a Local Lettings/Ring Fence Policy - This was not beyond consideration and in some circumstances a local lettings policy was promoted by central government within a mix of provision. Jon Lovibond felt that the case had been made that the North area was distinctive and the possibility of a local lettings policy could be considered within the review process. There were cases in Sheffield where a ring fence policy had been used but these were to help promote demand for properties in particular areas. The possible counter arguments to a local lettings policy were outlined including that it could be seen as an exclusive policy and was set within the context of a lack of supply.

	Housing Allocation - It was stated that certain Council properties needed to be demolished because, due to their physical condition, it was not thought economic to conduct repairs. The criteria for demolition was strict and a strong case had to be made to demolish a property. As a result of demolitions, people were relocated and in some cases may have brought behaviour to some areas, which was not appropriate or anti-social and had caused distress to existing residents. Where people living in properties cause distress or disturbance to others in that location, work was being undertaken with other agencies such as the Police to tackle such behaviour such as the issue of anti-social behaviour orders.
	In relation to the particular properties mentioned (the Samuel Fox flats) there was a rolling review as to which properties should be designated to which age group.

	Asylum Seeking Families - General, low demand properties were found for asylum seekers which were furnished and funded by grants. In other cases refugees were treated as if they were part of the homeless stream and this was also paid for separately.

	Supply and Demand - The Government had opened the way for Arms Length Management Organisations (maybe as part of a partnership or consortium) to make bids for Social Housing Grant so that the Council had a route by which to build a limited amount Council housing and consideration was being given to such a strategy by the Council, Sheffield Homes and Kier. It was important to find a way of increasing the supply of housing and work was also being undertaken with private landlords and Housing Associations to open up sources of social housing. An agreement had been made with Housing Associations (the South Yorkshire Charter Agreement) so that Housing Associations increase the proportion of lettings which would go to homeless households. Solutions were also being sought to increase the amount of advice and options for people seeking housing from the beginning of the process and work was being undertaken with the voluntary sector and the Housing Aid Service of the City Council so that people were helped to obtain suitable alternatives in relation to housing.

	Demolition - Private Sector Housing
	In response to a question concerning compensation for private sector residents who had purchased their Council house in an area due to be demolished it was stated that compensation would be given to such property owners based on the valuation of their property which would normally be higher than the property’s value if it were to be sold before the demolition was announced.
	Councillor Peter Rippon, the Cabinet Adviser for Housing, thanked Members of the Panel and the public attending the meeting for their comments in relation to the broad nature of parts of the North area and the problems caused by inappropriate and anti-social behaviour for residents in certain areas and he stated that this would be taken into consideration as part of the review.
	The Chair, Councillor Trevor Bagshaw, thanked Members of the Panel and the public for their comments and gave thanks to Councillor Peter Rippon for his attendance.

4.	OXLEY PARK SKATE PARK, STOCKSBRIDGE
	The Chair presented a report on improvements to Oxley Park, Stocksbridge, stating that an Officer from the Council's Parks, Woodlands and Countryside Team was not able to attend the Panel meeting.
	Tenders for the work at Oxley Park had been returned and the contract would soon be let to the successful contractor. Once the contract was let, the contractor would supply the Council with a programme of work. It was expected that work would start on site in April, 2005, for a period of approximately four weeks. The new skate park would be constructed on the site of the old tennis courts with equipment supplied by Lightmain Leisure. The main contractor for the project was Bernhards Landscapes. It was noted that there was not sufficient funding at this time for the multi-games court and floodlights in the current phase of work.
	Members of the Panel expressed concern that there were not sufficient funds for the entire project to be completed and that complete costings for the scheme would be required. It was noted that other partners were funding the cost of the scheme and concern was expressed that people's expectations had been raised regarding facilities which were planned. Members of the Area Panel agreed to request a meeting with the relevant Officer from Parks, Woodlands and Countryside and Councillor Martin Brelsford to further discuss the issues raised and that the findings from this meeting be reported to the next meeting of the Area Panel.

5.	PARISH COUNCIL MATTERS
	Following a question concerning the Cabinet timetable under which regeneration plans for the Stocksbridge area were to be considered, Councillor Bagshaw stated that the development plans for Stocksbridge were due to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 24th March, 2005.

6.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	Councillor Trevor Bagshaw reported that, in response to public questions and comments raised at the meeting at Ecclesfield on 19th January, 2005, in relation to highways matters at Stannington Infant School, High Green, Wortley Road and Low Road, Oughtibridge, it had now been confirmed that following discussions with the Lead Manager, John Charlton, Officers will report to a future meeting concerning progress made.
	The Stannington School issue would be assessed for the 2005/2006 programme. In relation to Low Road, Oughtibridge, investigation had been made previously into reports of drivers ignoring the No Entry signs and this was a matter for the Police Enforcement Division. John Bann, Assistant Head of Development Services (Head of Transport and Highways Division) had stated in correspondence that if drivers were using footways in Oughtibridge, more details were requested and the Highways Division could look at installing bollards at that location. This response would be passed to the Parish Council for consideration.
	A public question was asked concerning Acorn Corner (junction with Burncross Road) and whether any moves had been made to improve the safety of this junction as it was not included in the highways upgrade of Burncross Road. The Chair stated that progress would be investigated and reported back to the Panel.


7.	IN BLOOM COMPETITION
	John Charlton, Lead Manager for the North Area reported that there had been a pleasing response from areas in the North in relation to the In Bloom Competition and villages including Bolsterstone, Ecclesfield and Grenoside were participating in village categories of the competition.

8.	DATES OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Wednesday, 20th April, 2005, at Grenoside Community Centre, at 7.00 p.m.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |