Agenda item

Report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the performance information for 2014/15.  

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head which provided an update on the Council’s performance indicators for non-outsourced services at Quarter 4.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee of its role in reviewing the indicators throughout the year for those services which continued to be provided by the Council.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head reported that there continued to be a high demand for housing and that the service was struggling with the supply of accommodation.  The Interim Housing Section Head had started at the beginning of the week.  They would be looking at the service’s performance and would try to balance demand and supply.

Members were advised that the planning service continued to perform strongly and was a strength of the Council.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that the Customer Service Centre indicators showed a strong performance. However, ICT issues caused problems reporting on the Customer Services’ indicators for complaints.  She assured Members that complaints to the Council were being dealt with by the individual services.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that she was able to report that the result for indicator CS2 (improved street and environmental cleanliness) had been received.  The Council had been informed that the service had been rated as ‘effective’, which had met the target for the year.  She explained how the service was monitored and then assessed in order to reach the result.

CS3 – Affordable homes on identified sites

Councillor Khan advised the Scrutiny Committee that he had had a discussion with a developer about the percentage of affordable housing required for new sites.  The developer had said that the current percentage deterred developers from developing their sites.  He suggested that social landlords should be encouraged to develop more sites.  He also suggested that the Council should develop policies enabling it to develop and build housing; it could include some commercial elements in the schemes.

Councillor Martins said that this was an important issue for the Council but also the whole country.  From his experience at Development Control Committee and Development Management Committee, fewer developers wanted to provide affordable housing and they used the viability test to reduce the required number of units.  In addition he had noted that social landlords were becoming commercial landlords and building units for commercial rents.  Members needed to lobby Government and ensure that social landlords developed social housing and not units let at commercial rent levels.

The Chair informed Members that Richard Harrington MP had been invited to the next Housing Policy Advisory Group to respond to questions about this matter.

Councillor Martins suggested that a report should be presented at a future meeting to discuss the issue of social housing and its development.  He added that the MP should be invited to attend.

Councillor Khan commented that he felt, as there was not the accommodation for families, unable to help residents seeking support.  He said that it was necessary to think how the matter could be solved and if there was any leverage the Council could use; whether that was in the form of monetary support to organisations by lending the finances or in building units.  He noted that the Council had withdrawn its connection to the HARI partnership.  He felt that there was land in Three Rivers that could be used for new social housing developments.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head responded that it was a complex matter.  The Head of Regeneration and Development would be working with the neighbouring authorities including Three Rivers District Council and Hertsmere Borough Council.  Each authority had its own housing needs it had to address.  The future-proofing of housing needed co-operation between authorities.

Councillor Rindl noted the reduction in the target for the number of affordable homes in 2015/16 compared to 2014/15.  She asked how this target had been set.  She was concerned that it had been reduced whereas evidence showed that more was needed.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that officers reviewed the approved development schemes and calculated the number of units that should be created.

CS5 – Number of private sector units secured for use under HomeLet

Councillor Joynes referred to a specific case and asked about the Council’s duty of care to families.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head acknowledged that the HomeLet scheme had had problems generating properties for those in housing need.  The service relied on private sector landlords signing up to the scheme.  This would be another focus for the new Interim Housing Section Head.

The Chair suggested that it was possibly difficult to attract private landlords to join the scheme as Housing Benefit was paid directly to the claimant.  There were some tenants who needed support and this was not a sensible solution as they did not pay their rent as required.  She suggested that HomeLet should be added to the future report. 

CS4 – Number of households living in temporary accommodation

Councillor Bell said that he agreed with the previous comments and that practical solutions were needed.  He asked the Partnerships and Performance Section Head if she could provide members with the number of people who had been provided temporary accommodation outside of the Borough.

The Chair felt that as more visitors came to the town and required hotel accommodation, the hotels would not want to release rooms to the Council as they would want the rooms for their own customers. 

Councillor Bell asked if Members could be provided with details of how many hotels were used by the Council.  It was noted that following the previous meeting the Head of Community and Customer Services had circulated a document listing the temporary accommodation within Watford.

Councillor Rindl asked whether officers could provide comparable information with similar towns.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head said it would be possible.  She advised that if the indicator was compared to many of the towns in Hertfordshire it was likely to compare badly because of Watford’s location and economic role in the county.  Comparisons would also be made with other towns outside of Hertfordshire, for example Luton.  The figures for London Boroughs were likely to be high so were not good comparisons.  She commented that Watford had more in common with other urban towns than the majority in Hertfordshire.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head added that it had been unforeseen how high the numbers would rise.  There had been a change in profile of the types of people approaching the Council; for example there had been a significant increase in the number of young men with mental health issues coming forward.  There was not necessarily a clear reason for this.

CS7 – Number of people sleeping rough on a single night

In response to a question from Councillor Rindl, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that this indicator was reported as a snapshot of one specific night.  There had been an increase in comparison to 2013/14.  New Hope Trust kept a regular check on rough sleepers and were aware of the numbers sleeping rough throughout the year.  The organisation was able to analyse who the people were and their reasons for sleeping rough. 

Other comments

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that there was a review of the Customer Service Centre being carried out.  It included the customer service standards and the layout of the Customer Service Centre. 

Councillor Hofman asked whether it was possible to show trends for the indicators over a period of 10 years.  This would help to highlight any long term trends or recent increases. 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that there were a number of indicators which had been reported for some time and she would be able to provide that information.

RESOLVED –

that the Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the performance of the Council’s performance measures for those areas where the Council directly delivers the service/ area of work at the end of quarter 4 2014/15 be noted.