An apology for absence was received from Councillor Wharton.

Councillor Michael Green declared a personal interest in Item 5 as an elected member of Lancashire County Council in so far as the ensuing discussion might refer to the county council. Councillors Mrs Ball and Titherington both declared personal interests in Item 5 as private landlords.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
that the minutes of the meetings held on 26 January and 4 February 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It was agreed to remove all the matters from the list, with the exception of the following:

23/06/15 ? Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? year end 2014/15 (April 2014 ? March 2015) ? min. no.5 (7)
08/12/15 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Finance & Resources ? min. no.34 (3 & 5)
26/01/16 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Neighbourhoods & Streetscene ? min. no.41 (3, 5 & 6) ? for (5) & (6) more information was requested
26/01/16 ? Waste Management Partnership ? min. no.42 (3 & 4)
26/01/16 ? Worden Park Vision Plan ? progress update ? min. no.43 (2, 3, 4 & 6)
04/02/16 ? Draft Corporate Plan, Budget and Risk Register 2016-2017 ? min. no.47(2)
?

The chairman welcomed Councillor Michael Green (Cabinet member for Housing & Healthy Communities) and Denise Johnson (Director of Development, Enterprise & Communities) attended, addressed and responded to the committee.

The Cabinet member welcomed the invitation and opportunity to attend to discuss housing which was very important matter for South Ribble and the country. He commented that no one had all the answers and welcomed this initiative which was aimed at shaping housing for its residents. The quality of housing provided affected people?s health and wellbeing and the council was working with partners to meet needs. He added that nationally, increasing house prices meant that buying a house was out of reach for more people.

Councillor Green added that the council?s recently approved Housing Framework was a new document and was aimed at taking housing forward to which the council had allocated approximately ?3m to deliver with others. The council wanted to ensure that its residents had access to high quality homes of the right size/types, increase the standard of privately rented property, creating a vision for South Ribble whilst maintaining growth and properties for its residents.

Councillor Green indicated that due to the moving situation around housing, such as extended work on empty properties, changing finance streams, central government policy the council needed flexibility. This it had with a framework as opposed to a strategy. Whilst there were no targets/achievements, as indicated in the report the framework had outcomes over a three year period. Most of those in year 1 could be referenced in the corporate plan.

The Cabinet member responding to an enquiry about need, commented that a lot of data was required and building on a previous Housing Needs Survey for more robust information, up to date and fit for purpose another survey had been authorised.

In respect of accessibility to affordable and quality housing, the Cabinet member stated there were three priorities namely; delivery of new homes, supporting the health & wellbeing borough residents and, maintain the quality of existing housing with improvements where possible. He added that information from the Office of National Statistics indicated the borough?s population growth was about 8%, a first time buyer was looking at about ?120,000 which for value to income represented x5.7 (when a mortgage was x3), the borough owner occupation was about 80%, affordable rent 11% with a waiting list of 1075 (predominantly Leyland, Bamber Bridge & Penwortham). An ageing population was forecast (such as those aged 85+), the waiting list for disabled facilities grants (DFGs) had reduced from 90 to 55 with budget allocation in 2015/16 ?334,000 and 2016/17 ?543,000 which allowed more to be done, there were 28 shared schemes but to date there was not an extra care scheme in South Ribble on which the council needed to work with partners. Work was ongoing to maintain and improve the condition of existing homes and the number of none decent private rented stock in the borough was 10% below national average.

Councillor Green indicated that prior to the production of the framework the council?s liaison had included the HCA (Homes & Communities Agency), fellow councillors, survey of empty properties/DFGs, occupational therapists and being aware of requirements for providers. The HCA had also looked at the framework as a critical friend. Unfortunately to date there had been a poor response. The council would also raise at its Neighbourhood Forums, use social media and its website. The Cabinet member commented that if members were aware of any other group, please encourage them to participate. He acknowledged that the deadline was imminent but stated that any additional views/comments would not be ignored.

The Cabinet member pointed out that the council was not simply looking at the number of houses for the future but their quality was also important. He added that houses (including affordable houses) were coming forward with the highest number of completions for 9 years. He referred to the actions on page 3 of the report, it was proposed that those in bold be carried out this year including the intention to improve the quality/standard of housing. Personally, Councillor Green commented that with an ageing population he would like to see bungalows being built. The committee suggested that whilst wanting quality, quantity was also needed with quality that met the needs of residents.

It was confirmed that there were links with the City Deal and Local Plan. The Local Plan had figures for housing going forward. There was a fund in the City Deal for housing. The council wanted to see the right mix (and quality) of housing. Changes to the benefit system had an impact on the need for housing and impact would be looked at again to ensure policies were still right for the needs of residents. At present there was a lot of change on the national policy towards housing.

In respect of timescales, as indicated there was a lot happening and changing including at national level such as with partners, finances/funding and legislation. Therefore it was difficult to give a timescale on the action plan. In the next 12 months it was envisaged to address empty properties for which monies had been included in the capital programme.

Turning to extra care scheme(s), the Cabinet member felt that this was very important, particularly as there currently was not such a scheme in the borough and there could be a need of 2-3 schemes. However whilst important, this could not be delivered by the council without a partner. Funds had been allocated in the capital programme to start such a dialogue of which the inclusion/participation of the county council would be key. Councillor Green indicated that he would like the first extra care scheme to possibly be an 80 bed unit (maybe with a dementia centre attached). The council needed a mix of provision such as extra care, supported living and bungalows to cater for the differing needs of residents but this was not easy. There were plans to move to being the most dementia friendly country by 2020 and the council would tap into the benefits of this where it could.

The Cabinet member confirmed that the council (both he and officers) had dialogue with registered social landlords all the time. Some of these had been providers in the borough for a long time. Models were changing and some existing providers might move out of the borough and others come in. He acknowledged they placed a very important role in the provision of housing for the borough?s residents. As previously indicated housing was currently a moving topic. Councillor Green accepted that there would always be a demand for rented property, the private rented sector in South Ribble was below the national average. Whilst this sector provided a good service it also tended to be where the quality of housing was lower. Councillor Green also confirmed that in respect of the proposed new housing legislation this council had made representations to both the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Housing Minister.

It was confirmed that legislation set the decency standard for housing. This borough was fortunate in that its housing stock was above average in meeting this standard but there were some that required attention and funds had been included in the current capital programme to reduce the number of non-decency properties (currently 19%).

The council would be looking to help homeowners bring empty properties forward to reduce homelessness.

To achieve the right mix of properties, the council would need to use differing methods (carrot & stick), bringing pressure, demonstrating need (sustainability), and robust planning policies (maybe around such as provision of affordable housing). As the definition of this was changing the council needed now to review its policy. Local planning policies need to be robust enough to ensure the council was able to ensure the types of housing needed were delivered by developers etc.

?

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Cabinet member for Housing & Healthy Communities and the Director of Development, Enterprise & Communities for their attendance and responses to the committee;
2. the committee welcomes the council?s Housing Framework and endorses the three priorities;
3. the committee asks that the final framework outlines the process and data/evidence it uses to develop the Housing Framework;
4. the committee looks forward to seeing action plans and measuring the progress on the three priorities in the Housing Framework; and
5. the committee welcomes the Cabinet member?s assurance that the period of consultation on the Housing Framework will be extended to enable feedback from all the council?s My Neighbourhood Forums.
?

Councillor P Smith (Cabinet member for Regeneration & Leisure) and Denise Johnson (Director of Development, Enterprise & Communities) and Mark Gaffney (Director of Neighbourhoods, Public Health & Asset Management) attended, addressed and responded to the committee.

The Cabinet member commented that the report largely worked on the committee?s guidelines. He felt the report showed areas of significant progress which could be easily measured. A separate report would be presented in a few months on the work/progress of the South Ribble Leisure Partnership. A lot of the portfolio?s activity had been on work associated with the City Deal which had had a significant impact on the council?s teams. Over the next three years he would like to see the current schemes for Bamber Bridge completed and then work on Leyland, Penwortham and Lostock Hall. Also ideally, through City Deal the completion of the Penwortham Bypass. Councillor P Smith confirmed that the council had appointed consultants to deliver the master plans. Leyland and Penwortham were almost ready to go to tender. Unfortunately it had not been feasible to work on those in the current capital programme (2015/16). Although some work had taken place in Leyland on entry points.

Councillor P Smith confirmed there was a lot activity taking place through the council?s Economic Development Team meeting with and informing/helping businesses both small and large, including what the City Deal might mean for them. He added that in the Boost Programme 124 businesses were assisted and 48 jobs created. Whilst run by the county council this council had input, and there was increased dialogue/communication between this council, county council and the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership (LEP). One of the main events was the jobs fair, which had businesses offering real jobs. Whilst confirming the Boost Programme had finished in 2015, it was understood Boost 2 was on its way.

The Cabinet member confirmed that whilst it had previously appeared that Serco (as a group) was withdrawing from involvement with leisure activities (including the council?s leisure partnership), this was not now happening and Serco were fully committed. The current partnership was scheduled to end in 2021 and the council would over time be looking at options such as whether to run leisure in house or through a trust.
The committee applauded the Cabinet member and those involved on the creation of the Borough War Memorial.

The Cabinet member explained that the key action relating to the leisure trust offering high quality, accessible sports and leisure facilities with a success measure of 60% was based on the former Place Survey. This had not been conducted for two years and it covered all leisure facilities in the borough not just those provided by the council. The figure was now meaningless and the council?s new corporate plan had a target of 93%.
In respect of the GP Referral Scheme, Councillor P Smith explained that this had not simply been free access to leisure facilities but targeted/specific based on a patient?s health/condition. The scheme had been funded through the Chorley & South Ribble CCG. Whilst a measure of success was that patient?s health, the council/Serco understandably had no access to medical records.

Regarding the borough?s Air Quality Action Plan, this was currently with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for approval. It was almost a planning document as this would be taken into account when the council considered planning applications in the future. Turning the recent case at Huntley?s, the council had made regular visits and advised on how to run their operation. It was understood that the costs awarded and fine imposed were one of the highest, one reason being the failure to follow professional advice. Then looking at the proposed ?100,000 budget saving in environmental health, it was not felt that this would have an adverse impact on the frontline/statutory services. Part of the saving would be through employee costs, such as the post of contaminated land officer which had been carried vacant for quite some time. A business case was being prepared.

It was confirmed there was a holistic approach to housing enforcement with the environmental health and housing teams dealing with any case reported to them. In addition like dealing with homelessness this fitted in with the council?s new Housing Framework.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Cabinet member for Housing & Healthy Communities and the Director of Development, Enterprise & Communities and the Director of Neighbourhoods, Public Health & Asset Management for their attendance and responses to the committee;
2. the committee congratulates the portfolio holder on the progress and achievements in the report;
3. the committee looks forward to measures being introduced to enable an assessment/measure of the impact of the council?s Economic Development Team;
4. the committee welcomes measurable outcomes of the Boost Programme and looks forward to being made aware of the second programme;
5. the committee congratulates the portfolio holder and those involved with the creation of the South Ribble memorial to World War 1;
6. the committee looks forward to receiving a copy of the Air Quality Action Plan document or summary following feedback from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA);
7. the committee would like to see the business case for the efficiency savings proposals for environmental health; and
8. the committee recommends more promotion of the council?s achievements/successes.
?

a) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ?
Whilst there had not been a formal meeting he had attended a meeting relating to Health & Social Care Integration where discussion included the Better Care Fund.

b) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? Councillors Mrs K Walton and Wharton had attended the Safer Chorley & South Ribble Community Safety Partnership. The Chairman had attended a meeting of the Health Accountability Forum.

c) Scrutiny Work Programme
- Health Steering Group ? update included meeting the Chief Executive of Healthwatch Lancashire and working with this body on a survey of patient access to GP surgeries, attending a meeting of Pendle BC?s Health & Social care Scrutiny Panel, a meeting was scheduled with the Chairman & Chief Executive of the local clinical commissioning groups and, also a visit to the NW Ambulance Service.
- Highways Task Group ? update included the group had met, identified its topic and was currently information gathering and looking at who to speak to.
- Council?s preparedness for major incidents, including flooding ? a task and finish meeting had been arranged to be held on 17 March.
- External use of the Banqueting Suite and Catering Service - a task and finish meeting had been arranged to be held on 31 March.

d) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans ? in respect of the Cabinet Forward Plan, the committee identified Car Parking Review, Ice Cream Kiosk, Waste Management as potential items of interest.
?