Agenda item

To consider the Housing Management Model report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 13 April 2022.

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Karen Rampton, Portfolio Holder for People and Homes

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Portfolio Holder for People and Homes presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder and Chief Executive of Poole Housing Partnership (PHP) addressed the points raised by the Board, including:

·     A Board member sought clarification on the numbers of residents supporting the proposal. It was confirmed that those numbers outlined in the executive summary included tenants and leaseholders of both Poole and Bournemouth. Overall 51 percent of residents agreed with the proposal but when this was broken down into areas there were 56 percent in agreement in Bournemouth and 46 percent in Poole. There was also a further 27 percent who neither agreed nor disagreed.

·     Communication was raised as an issue in the consultation. A Board member asked about the plan to improve this within the new structure. There was a need to make sure communication was improved and it was important to let people know what was happening even when there was nothing to communicate. One of the panels within the resident involvement structure would be for communications. The Panel would have a wide remit to look into the best means of communication.

·     In a related question the Board asked whether there would continue to be in person hubs or contact points for residents. It was explained that from the date of the service provision change residents would continue accessing services in the same way as previously. Most communication was by telephone. There was a commitment to residents that they would be able to access housing services through many different channels.

·     It was suggested that since local government reorganisation some people had wanted to bring PHP back within the Council. There were concerns raised about this as PHP provided a good service and this may be affected by bringing it back into the Council. There was a concern that by being a small part of a much larger organisation there may be a lack of focus and funding. It was noted that the Housing Revenue Account was ringfenced and therefore any efficiencies achieved were reinvested.

·     A Board member asked for assurance that the culture and positive behaviours of PHP will be expanded and absorbed within the Council. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was not sustainable or equitable to have two housing models going forward. PHP was a great model and residents were very satisfied with it but Bournemouth residents were also very satisfied with their housing service. HRA is ringfenced any efficiencies are reinvested.

·     Although some teams would not be in Bournemouth Homes but part of the corporate model, the customer service team would be providing the same service to residents following the transition from 1 July. It was noted that the intention of the new model was to provide the best of both existing housing services. The Service also wanted to ensure that there were no artificial barriers put in the way of communication and residents were provided with all the support they required.

·     A Councillor asked about how anti-social behaviour would be dealt with moving forward. It was noted that if behaviour of tenants absolutely disrupted the lives of those around them their tenancies would be ended. However, this was a last resort as in general this action would just mean moving a problem elsewhere. Most issues experienced by residents were low level disruption which had become worse over the pandemic. This was an issue nationally as well as locally. The Chief Executive felt positive about the measures for addressing anti-social behaviour which were already in place but there was an issue with addressing how this was communicated as it wasn’t always appropriate to share details with those who had made complaints. It was suggested that the issue should be dealt with in a more holistic way as often the problems were caused by certain needs not being met.

·     Finance – It was noted that there was no direct comparison on finances within the paper. A Board member queried why these were not know as there should be readily available comparators.  There were a number of issues from the paper which were unclear.

·     Corporation tax issue – It was noted that this was in the hands of HMRC. The maximum risk was just over £5k and was therefore not considered to be of a significant impact in terms of the overall level of savings or costs going forward.

·       In response to a question, it was noted that the new service would be responsible for 10,000 rather than 5000 properties which would allow for some economies of scale. However, there were some unknown issues on how services would be aligned and streamlined and until the officers were working together to deliver these efficiencies, some aspects would be unknown. Moving the two HRAs into one would be certain to deliver savings but the precise level of savings would need to be fully developed.

·       A Councillor commented that the new name, BCP Homes was a positive move from the separate PHP and Bournemouth services but questioned what would happen if new homes were built within Christchurch. It was noted that any new builds of social housing in the area would fit into the HRA package and would probably be allocation to the nearest team which was probably located at the Kinson Hub. The Portfolio Holder advised that there was a clear steer from residents that the name should be linked closely to the Council and did not want it to be linked to a housing association.

·       In response to an enquiry from the Board it was confirmed that the social housing in Christchurch had been previously sold to Sovereign Housing Association, which was one amongst many across the conurbation. Sovereign had approximately 6000 properties and all affordable housing was valuable to the provision in the sector.

·       A Councillor not on the O&S Board commented that it was encouraging that current officers would be retained and that there would be staff to answer the phones.

·     A Councillor not on the O&S Board commented that four tenant representatives on the Homes Advisory Board was not enough and representation should include all different types of tenants across a geographical spread. It was suggested that independent representation was not necessary and that the Council representatives did not provide much of an input. A request was made to consider having additional resident representatives on the panel. The Board was advised that there would also be the residents board comprised of 15 members. It was also noted that one of the resident representatives would be a Co-Chair on the Board. This model was supported at resident group meetings. It was noted that other councils were also bringing ALMOs (Arms Length Management Organisations) back in house and current external advice was not to make the Advisory Board too big.

The Vice-Chair requested that the BCP Homes team report back to the O&S B0ard in future to specifically consider issues concerning anti-social behaviour.

The meeting adjourned at 3:58 pm and resumed at 4.06pm