Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 21 October 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

·         Page 2, Item 46, Paragraph 7: Councillor Roger Hunneman stated that the statistics did not include those of the North West Reading CCG but rather those of the Newbury and District CCG only.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

Councillors’ Bedwell, Brooks and David Lowe would meet with the Chief Executive on the 8 December 2014 to discuss the affordable housing lesson learnt from the Parkway development in particular.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from 17 December 2014 to 31 March 2015 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan (Agenda Item 5) for the period covering 17 December 2014 to 31 March 2015.

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission for the remainder of 2014/15.

The Commission considered its work programme and the proposal to include an item which would seek to review the operations of the Royal Berkshire Hospital maternity unit which provided both pre- and post-natel services to local residents.

Members concluded that the review could offer significant value to local residents. Therefore, the item would be added to the work programme and scheduled for discussion in March 2015.

Councillor Roger Hunneman proposed that the item incorporated a review of staff resources and maternity cover in general. The Commission supported the proposal.

Councillor Garth Simpson advised that the BID was conducting a review of on-street parking in Newbury (OSMC/12/149); He suggested that, following completion of the review, the topic would be considered by the Commission.

Resolved that:

‘Maternity Cover in West Berkshire’ would be added to the work programme.

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

There were no petitions received at the meeting.

Purpose: To conduct a review of the effectiveness of the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy 12 months post implementation.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning a review of the Housing Allocations Policy.

Cathy Dodson thanked the Commission for inviting her to provide an update on the housing allocations policy, 12 months post implementation, and to raise awareness of the proposed future amendments.

Members were reminded that the Council’s current Housing Allocation Policy was adopted in October 2013. The Commission had agreed to assist in the development of a new policy and subsequently established a task group.

Cathy Dodson advised that the task group approach was a positive experience and extended her gratitude from the Housing Service for their assistance in formulating the policy. The Committee were advised that the input from Members was well valued and ensured that the final outcome was robust and appropriate.

An extensive test was undertaken, prior to the implementation of the Housing Allocation Policy, to confirm that those in most need of housing would still be eligible. Cathy Dodson stated that the service was satisfied that the Housing Allocation Policy continued to support applicants who were vulnerable and considered to be in the greatest housing need.

As part of the implementation all existing Common Housing Register (CHR) applicants were required to complete an online re-registration form. The new application form required significantly more information than was previously gathered. The information which had enabled the team to map service users more effectively.

In order to include vulnerable applicants the service offered either face-to-face appointments or telephone support in order to complete the re-registration process.

All applicants on the CHR who completed the re-registration process were provided with an online personalised housing options action plan. The plan summarised the available options based on the responses provided in the application. The provision of the plan continued to be an ongoing feature and one which generated positive responses from both service users and partner organisations.

All applicants who completed the re-registration process were sent a letter confirming their status on the CHR and their allocated number of housing need points. The letter advised applicants of their right to request a review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome. Cathy Dodson advised Members that the service had received 20 requests, post-implementation.

Members were asked to consider section 2.7 of the cover report. It detailed the current number of applications on the CHR.

Cathy Dodson summarised the implementation process as being efficient and well received by the majority of applicants. The new policy effectively allocated social housing to those households considered to be in the most housing need. In addition, the deferral process within the Housing Allocations Policy had been effective at prompting some applicants to address their former rent arrears and pay other monies owed to the Council.

Members were advised that, in December 2013, the Government published new statutory guidance - Providing Social  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Purpose: To review the current level at which the Self Insurance Fund has been set, balancing the level of risk with the size of the reserve.

Councillor Alan Law introduced the report (Agenda Item 11) concerning the Self Insurance Fund. Councillor Law reminded the Commission that he had asked for a review to include:

1.    The identification and recommendations on the required level of reserves to be held in the fund;

2.    To recommend the balance that should be held between the assumed level of risk and size of the reserve;

3.    A review the last 3 years of claims and performance.

The Commission heard that an actuarial review was completed in July 2012 and again in October 2014. In between the two reviews the forecast funding requirement had changed from £1.5m in 2012 to £2.4m in 2014. But, it was not clear why the review had required a reserve fund of £1.24m and a further provision of £1.17m.

Councillor Law explained that previous claims information was not easily available, as evidenced in support of an increase in reserve but such detail was critical in order to understand the level of risk.

The Commission was asked to review the topic and consider the accuracy of the recommendations provided by the actuary.

Councillor Jeff Brooks stressed that he could not consider the topic in full without historic data. The information would influence the Commission’s understanding of liability and risks which were essential elements of the review.

Ian Priestley advised that the actuarial review considered the date on which a claim was made rather than the completion date. The data was not available in full because it covered a wide cross section of dates. Councillor Brooks challenged the Officer’s response and suggested that irrespective of dates it could still be possible to consider trends and inform the review.

In response to questions asked by the Commission, Ian Priestley advised that service areas had reserve funds to cover insurance claims. The Self Insurance Fund was retained in order to manage overspend.

The Commission challenged the processes between calculating perceived risk and planning risk which in turn influenced the reserve fund. However, they concluded that without historic data it had not been possible to review the topic in full.

The Commission requested that the review took place in the form of a task group. David Lowe advised that an attempt had been made to conduct a task group review but due to limited resources it was not possible. He would liaise with the Head of Strategic Support to agree the most effective method of supporting the Commission with their review.

Resolved that:

(1)       The topic would be deferred until such time when the historic data would be available to consider liabilities and actual risk.   

(2)       The topic would be considered in the form of a task group.

The Commission considered the Scrutiny Update Report (Agenda Item 12).

Resolved that the report be noted.