Agenda item

Beverley Mennell in referring to item 5(B) Sheltered Housing Options commented that tenants all wanted the same thing ie the best service possible and that housing should be fit for purpose.  She noted that the Portfolio Holder had indicated that it would not be possible to go back to having on-site wardens but she noted that other authorities did this including Milton Keynes.  She asked that the Portfolio Holder reconsider her position.  She stated that she believed that tenants wanted wardens.

Norman Adams referred to item 5(B) Sheltered Housing Options Report and also noted the Portfolio Holder’s comments in respect of it not being possible to return to having on-site wardens.  He believed that the Overview and Scrutiny report reflected the Portfolio Holder’s views but at the same time said that tenants should have options.  Mr Adams indicated that tenants had told him that the service had not been improved by the reductions in the wardens service.  He believed that there should be scope for some schemes to have wardens and believed that schemes of over 45 units would make a warden viable.  He accepted that there was a cost associated with this but there should be proper options and choices for people to decide upon.  He also noted statements by Government that the public should be able to vote on choices; however vulnerable tenants tended to be outvoted by the majority who did not have the same needs.  He believed that the Overview and Scrutiny report was faulty as it did not accept the possibility for on-site wardens.

Anna King the Chair of Eastfield Residents Association referred to item 6 the Change of Scene project and commented that shortlisting had taken place earlier in the day for a Project Co-ordinator.  Interviews were planned for 22 June.  She also referred to 50 young people who had spent the day at Grendon Hall and who had participated in a number of outdoor activities which had been well received.  A variety of other events and visits were being planned.

(Note: Councillor Malpas declared a personal interest in this address as a County Councillor who had donated a proportion of his empowerment budget towards this project.)

Mr Roberts referred to item 5(B) Sheltered Housing and Housing Options and commented that when his mother and father had gone into sheltered housing part of the contract with the Council was the provision of a warden.  He stated that the residential warden had been withdrawn which had meant that he had to spend more time supporting his mother.  He noted that combined with the withdrawal of facilities by the County Council his father had not had anywhere to go during the day and had given up and subsequently died.

County Councillor Alan Wright referred to item 8, Housing Strategy, and in particular the references within the strategy to the PFI project for Eastfield.  He commented that the PFI project was welcomed by everyone however he had concerns that meetings between Housing Officers and the residents had become confrontational and seemed to work on a top down basis.  This seemed to have come to a head at a meeting on 27 May 2010.  He queried whether a further option might be put forward to refurbish the existing Housing stock to current standards as a majority of tenants would like refitted kitchens, bathrooms and improvements made to waste disposal and car parking.  He commented that a majority of tenants did not want a rebuild and the consequential decanting, compulsory purchase, demolition etc that went with this.  He hoped that a lower level approach could be adopted to the project.

Tony Mallard the Vice-Chair of Eastfield Residents Association referred to item 8, Housing Strategy, and in particular to the references to the PFI Project and commented that due to the national financial situation it would appear that the future of the PFI Project was fluid.  He expressed concern at the lack of consultation with tenants and indicated that he had heard that three tenants representatives had been chosen.  However, Eastfield Residents Association would like to elect its own representatives to the Steering Group.  This process should be seen to be democratic.  He also noted that most of the plans for Eastfield involved the demolition of the maisonettes although they had only been reroofed some two years previously.  He commented that there should be some comparison of cost to refurbish the maisonettes vis a vis their demolition and construction of new housing.

Shayley Watson the Chair of Eastfield Residents Association referred to item 8, Housing Strategy, and to the reference within the report to the PFI Project and commented that she was pleased to learn that the setting up of the Steering Group was being progressed and that a meeting had been arranged for 15 June 2010.  She asked that the refurbishment of the maisonettes and flats should be an option as this was a view expressed by many of the tenants.  She also countered some claims that the Residents Association did not represent residents in that the association leafleted people and recent meetings had been attended by 60 local people.

The Chair commented that clearly the PFI funding could not be guaranteed as the process was about applying for funding.  He noted that the Housing Strategy was concerned about Housing throughout the whole of the Borough.

David Huffadine-Smith referred to item 5(A), The Cost of Consultants, Overview and Scrutiny Report, and item 7 The Parish Partnerships, and noted the possibility of community asset transfers to Parish Councils and suggested that community centres, allotments and small parks could be considered for this.  He noted that the Northamptonshire Council’s Charter proposed nine workstreams which included encouraging local people to get involved with their local communities.  He also suggested that the Markets operation could be transferred to the Market traders.  Mr Huffadine-Smith commented that he had submitted motions to Duston Parish Council to encourage partnership working however none of these had been adopted.

Chris Swinn referred to item 5(B) Sheltered Housing and Housing Options, and commented that resident wardens and on-site wardens should be included as possible options and costed.  He commented that other local authorities still provided wardens and some authorities who had ceased this provision were going back to providing them.  He indicated that in some places tenants paid for the wardens.  In respect of item 8 Housing Strategy he noted recent Government announcements that there would be no money available for social housing construction and in respect of item 11 Voids Lettable Standard that Appendix B appear to be non-specific and not a standard as such.

Eleanor Collins referred to item 5(A) The Cost of Consultants Overview and Scrutiny Report, and commented upon her background of teaching young people to be independent.  She noted that in the Housing Strategy the statement in respect of £70m shortfall to reroof properties to the Decent Homes Standard and queried why the PFI Project was seeking funding of £100m if only £70m was required.  She queried on how the Council measured the value for money it got from the consultants who had contributed to the Housing Strategy.