Agenda and minutes

(a) To approve as an accurate record, and the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Housing, Health & Adult Social Care Select Committee held on 21 January 2014.

(b) To monitor the acceptance and implementation of recommendations as set out at Appendix 1.

(c) To note the outstanding actions.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2013 were approved as an accurate record of the proceedings subject to the following amendment:

46. Housing Revenue Account Financial Strategy and Rent Increase Report 2014/2015: fourth paragraph:

Ms Corbett responded to Councillor Graham’s query that it was likely that the rent would have to be more than doubled based on the current capital programme phasing in the business plan with no increase in debt, should it not have been possible to contribute to stock maintenance through the Expensive Void Disposals Programme.

The Opposition expressed no confidence in this analysis.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

This report sets out the background to the Care Bill which was introduced into the House of Lords in May 2013 and summarises the potential financial impact upon the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

Ms Bruce presented the report, which set out the background to the Care Bill and summarised the potential financial impact upon the Council.

The Care Bill would take forward a number of separate commitments around social care inlcuding:

·         A full review of adults’ legislation;

·         Driving up the quality of care following the findings of the Francis Inquiry which identified failures across the health and care system;

·         Delivering commitments made in the ‘Caring for our future: reforming care and support’ White paper to put in place a modern care system that enables people to prevent and postpone the need for care and support;

·         Strengthening the rights for carers to access support;

·         Introducing a new adult safeguarding framework; and

·         Taking forward  recommendations made by the Dilnot Commission (on the funding of care and support) to introduce a cap on the costs that people will have to pay for care in the future.

 The Care Bill, if inacted, would implement the following key changes to the current care and support system:

·         A financial cap on the costs that people have to pay to meet their eligible care needs  set at £72,000 in April 2016 for people of state pension age and over.

·         The provision of means tested financial support to more people to help with care home costs. The lower threshold is set to increase from £14,250 to £17,000. The upper means-tested threshold is set to increase from £23,250 to £118,000 where property is included in the financial assessment and £27,000 where no property is included.

·         The option to defer paying for care costs until after a person’s death (from April 2015).

·         A personal contribution to living costs of around £12,000 a year will be introduced from April 2016, which will not count towards the cap.

Whilst some analysis and modelling had been undertaken locally in order to derive some early estimates of the likely impact upon the Tri-borough, there were a large number of variables and ‘unknowns’ and therefore these estimates were being treated with caution, particularly in relation to self funders.

Should the current Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) system be widened, this would have a major resource impact on Hammersmith & Fulham and Westminster City Council which do not currently provide support to all those with moderate care needs.

Ms Bruce stated that the financial implications were significant and the time scales were tight (the Care Bill was currenlty in the process of going through Parliament). Under the new burdens principle, Central Government was expected to provide funding to meet any increased costs on local authorities arising from legislative or policy changes. However, the detail of how the reforms would be financed in practice were not clear. There were risks in respect of the Council carrying increasing debt and the impact of deferred charges on the housing market.

In response to Members’s queries, Ms Bruce confirmed that significant additional funding would be required. Modelling had been used to provide an indication of the likely scale and extent of the financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

This report provides a review of the welfare reform legislative changes that have been implemented by the Coalition Government and the Council’s responses to them.

Mr England summarised the welfare reform legislative changes and the Council’s response.

Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

There had been minor variations in the private sector housing benefit claims within the borough. In April 2011, when the LHA charges had been introduced, there had been 3109 claims paid through LHA; in December 2013, the equivalent figure was 3035.

The report set out the most recent update (April 2013) for the HB Assist team, which had been established to look at mitigating the effects of the LHA.

Overall Benefit Cap

The capping process had begun in August 2013 and by mid-October most of the initial wave of benefit cap claims had been received from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP). The total number of households then stood at 414, considerably fewer thant the original estimate. In January 2014, the number had fallen to 385. The report set out the total breakdown by individual tenure.

Since capping had begun, a total of 569 households had been subject to the restriction, with a significant number moving into and out of it in any one month. Officers were seeking to build a statistical picture of this movement within the HB Assist project. In  January 2014, the project was aware of 179 cases where a ‘resolution’ of the household circumstances had occurred. Of these, 85 households had moved into employment and were therefore not subject to the cap; 19 had been resettled or moved into different accommodation; 7 had become exempt from the cap and in 68 cases the reason for resolution had yet to be confirmed.

Housing Benefit Size Criteria Restrictions for Working Age Claimants in the Social Housing Sector

It was currently estimated that there were 677 under-occupying cases claiming housing benefits in the Council housing sector affected by the Housing Benefit changes. This was a a reduction from the total of 834 at April 2013. Within the Registered Provider (Housing Associations) sector, it was estimated that 644 tenants were affected.

The Council had awarded a total of 198 Discretionary Housing Payments to assist the most vulnerable tenants affected or those who had committeed to downsizing. In addition, officers were visiting tenants affected by the benefit restrictions to ensure that they are fully aware of the available options.

In January 2014, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed that they had discovered a gap in the law such that those claimants who had been continuously entitled to benefit and continuously resident in their propoerty since 1 January 1996 should have been exempt this change. This gap would be closed with effect from 3 March. The Council was working to identify those claiments who could benefit from this.

Universal Credit

The national roll-out of Universal Credit (UC) had begun at Hammersmith Job Centre on 28 October 2013. Initially only a restricted cohort of claimants were affected: broadly single, newly-unemployed people who were not previously claiming benefits, estimated to be 100 claimants per month. The Cabinet had authorised an agreement between the Council and DWP  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

This report considers the impact of the HRA Transformation Programme on the cost of Housing Management for the Council’s Housing stock held within the HRA.

Ms Corbett presented the report which considered the impact of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Transformation Programme on the cost of the Housing Management for the Council’s housing stock held within the HRA.

The Council’s direct housing management cost per property was within 1% of the top quartile cost, despite the Council spending more than the peer group on managing antisocial behaviour.

RESOLVED THAT:

The report be noted. 

This report provides an update in relation to procurement of a private sector partner to establish a housing and regeneration Joint Venture.

Mr Miah presented the report which provided an update in relation to procurement of a private sector partner to establish a Housing and Regeneration Joint Venture.

The Cabinet, at its meeting on 3 February 2014, had approved the appointment of Stanhope plc (subject to standstill period) as the Joint Venture partner. The report set out the key benefits of adopting a joint venture approach.

Stanhope plc  had submitted a detailed Site Specific Development Plan for Watermeadow Court and Edith Summerskill House (‘Opportunity Sites’), which would be adopted by the Joint Venture on its establishment. This would lead to the development of around 301 homes on the two sites, of which it was anticipated that 119 would be affordable (low cost home ownership).

The key benefits included the creation of approximately 350 new construction jobs and 14 apprenticeships, with 15% of the construction workforce to be taken from local residents and 10% of building contracts to be let to businesses in the borough.

Mr Miah responded to Members’ queries. The process had been set out at the beginning of the procurement exercise and  had been applied rigorously with  external advice in terms of selecting the final bidder. It has been set out that when this stage was reached, there would also be a reserve bidder in case negotiations with the preferred bidder were not concluded successfully.  On the basis of the scores and evaluation, Berkley Group plc and Barratt London (BDW Trading Limited) had been selected as the second and third place Bidders.

The bids had been based on the Council’s planning policies and in relation to the housing strategy. It was currently proposed that 40% of the homes would be affordable housing and the remaining 60% market value in order to provide a viable scheme.

Councillor Cowan queried whether any checks were proposed to ensure UK residents were able to buy those homes or would it be a free market approach whereby homes could be purchased by overseas investors purely for investment gains. Councillor Johnson responded that whilst there was nothing which the Council could do or should do to restrict foreign ownership of assets in the United Kingdom,  a flat sales structure allowing UK residents and overseas investors an equal opportunity to buy through the free market was the preferred solution.

Councillor Cowan referred to recent off plan sales of Sovereign Court by St. Georges, a subsidiary of the Berkeley Group. Councillor Cowan stated that Councillor Graham was conflicted in respect of St. Georges. Councillor Graham asked that Councillor Cowan either substantiated this remark or withdrew it.  Councillor Cowan responded  that Councillor Graham had supported a St. Georges development within his ward.  Councillor Graham responded that this was whilst he was on the Planning Committee and did not mean that he had a conflict of interest. Councillor Cowan stated that he wished to record that he considered that Councillor Graham had a consistent record of advocating on behalf of St. Georges. Councillor Graham stated that he rejected this and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The Committee is asked to give consideration to its work programme for this municipal year, 2013/2014 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

Details of the Key Decisions which are due to be taken by the Cabinet at its next meeting are provided in Appendix 2 in order to enable the Committee to identify those items where it may wish to request reports.

RESOLVED THAT:

The work programme be noted.

The Committee is asked to note that the date of the next meeting is:

2 April 2014