Agenda and minutes

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 17 September 2024 (copy enclosed). 

The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 17 September 2024 were agreed and signed by the Leader.

(Where a Councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest the Councillor must declare the interest to the meeting and leave the room without participating in any discussion or making a statement on the item, except where a Councillor is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of dispensation.)

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

To provide Cabinet with an update on progress made towards meeting the outcomes of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, including revised consumer standards (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which provided an update on progress made towards meeting the outcomes of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 including revised consumer standards.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing presented the report, and the following issues were raised:

·       Should an inspection of SHDC’s housing stock take place presently, what grading could the Authority hope to achieve?

·       It appeared that more responsibility on housing issues was being placed on members – was this the case?

·       With regard to the issue of damp, condensation and mould, to what extent was the Council responsible for what could be perceived as ‘lifestyle’ factors (such as drying washing indoors and not heating the home) that could contribute to these problems?  Were any measures being taken to mitigate this?

DECISION:

That the work underway to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To adopt the Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2024/25 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which sought adoption of the Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2024/25.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing presented the report, and the following issues were raised:

·       Would there be any staffing or finance implications as a result of the establishment of the required housing groups and roles?

o   The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing stated that as a result of the programme and transformation work, new officers had been employed on a temporary basis.  All of the other work had been absorbed by the current staff.  It was an issue that officers and members were aware of, and once all the projects and work had bedded in, it may well impact on the staffing structure in the future.

DECISION:

1)    That the Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2024/25 be adopted. 

2)    That minor operational amendments to the Framework be delegated to the Assistant Director – Housing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing.  

(Other options considered:

·       Do nothing – to not adopt the Framework.  This was not recommended as it was necessary to evidence the arrangements in place for governance as part of meeting the requirements of the outcomes of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. 

Reasons for decision:

·       As a responsible social landlord, the Council was required to have robust governance arrangements in place to monitor and scrutinise the management of the Housing Landlord Service. The Regulator of Social Housing would consider the effectiveness of governance arrangements as part of their programmed inspection of the Council as a registered provider).

To adopt the Knowledge and Information Management Strategy: Housing Landlord Services (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which sought adoption of the Knowledge and Information Management Strategy: Housing Landlord Services.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing presented the report.

DECISION:

1)    That the Knowledge and Information Management Strategy: Housing Landlord Services be adopted. 

2)    That minor operational amendments to the Knowledge and Information Management Strategy: Housing Landlord Services be delegated to the Assistant Director – Housing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing.  

(Other options considered:

·       Do nothing – to not adopt the Strategy.  Failure to deliver a key recommendation from the Housing Ombudsman Service, which could contribute towards a Complaint Handling Failure Order. 

Reasons for decision:

·       To deliver a recommendation from the Housing Ombudsman Service, recommending that all Registered Providers implement a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy).

To adopt the Tenancy Strategy 2024-2029 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which sought adoption of the Tenancy Strategy 2024-2029.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing presented the report.

DECISION:

1)    That the Tenancy Strategy 2024-2029 be adopted.

2)    That minor operational amendments to the Tenancy Strategy 2024-2029 be delegated to the Assistant Director – Housing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing.

(Other options considered:

·       Do nothing – to not adopt the Strategy.  This option was not recommended – it was good practice to update strategies on a regular basis and amendments were required due to changes in the sector.   

Reasons for decision:

·       The Localism Act 2011 placed an obligation on each local authority to have a tenancy strategy. Registered Providers would be consulted following consulting Policy Development Panel).

To provide Cabinet with an update on progress made towards delivering the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code 2024 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which provide an update on progress made towards delivering the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code 2024.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing presented the report.

DECISION:

That the Housing Landlord Service's complaint handling performance during quarter 1 and 2 of 2024/25 be noted.

(Other options considered:

·       Do nothing – to retain progress updates through operational arrangements with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing. This option was not considered to be appropriate as the Housing Ombudsman was clear that governing bodies were responsible for ensuring that the Council, in its role as a social landlord was meeting the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.

Reasons for decision:

·       To provide assurance to Cabinet on the Council’s compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and provide updated information on ongoing work towards delivering a positive complaint-handling culture, ensuring residents’ concerns are addressed promptly and appropriately).

To update Cabinet on the progress of delivering works under the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund: Wave 2: 1 and to propose a budget virement to facilitate its delivery.  To provide details of a further programme under Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund Wave 3 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which sought to update Cabinet on the progress of delivering works under the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund: Wave 2:1 and to propose a budget virement to facilitate its delivery; and to provide details of a further programme under Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund Wave 3.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing presented the report, and the following issues were raised:

·       Had any feedback been received from tenants whose properties had already had work undertaken, in order to understand satisfaction levels?

o   The Assistant Director – Housing advised that with regard to satisfaction levels, an assessment was undertaken for each property at the end of the works. The work being undertaken was extensive and as a result, was taking some time.  There is a dedicated officer in place who was working with the contractors and tenants.  Feedback received to date was generally good. 

·       Was the performance of air source heat pumps that were being installed satisfactory?

o   The Assistant Director – Housing advised that a few properties had had air source heat pumps installed.  Solar panels were also being installed so the benefit of both alongside each other could be realised.  To date, the response had been generally positive.  It was important to note that this was an advancing technology, however officers were not aware of any issues.

o   The Leader commented that it may be useful to have some annual feedback/data around this, particularly on areas such as cost.

·       What were the criteria for selecting properties to have works undertaken?

o   The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing stated that the focus for funding was to raise the EPC rating for properties and therefore lower-rated properties would be prioritised. As more funding was released, it was likely that properties with higher EPC ratings could then become eligible.

o   The Assistant Director – Housing added that alongside this work sat the Decent Homes programme of works which continued.  With regard to prioritisation of the funding under discussion, EPC ratings drove the programme.

DECISION:

That Cabinet note the intention to submit a bid to the Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund Wave 3 as set out in the body of the report.

RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET TO COUNCIL:

That Cabinet recommend to Full Council that the HRA capital programme be amended to £7,007,000. Noting this amendment will be funded through a virement from other budgets as set out in the financial section within the report.

(Other options considered:

·       Do nothing. No further action could be taken which would result in the current scheme delivering outcomes to 148 less properties than originally anticipated. This was not considered a viable option as it was likely that failure to deliver the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund programme in its entirety would impact on the Council’s ability to bid for future funding.

Reasons for decision:

·       Cabinet was asked to recommend a virement from existing approved budgets within the HRA capital programme. Previously significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To provide an update on how the Council is performing for the period 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024 (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which provided an update on how the Council was performing for the period 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Communications presented the report and the following issues were raised:

·       There was a heavy reliance on PSPS – what training did their staff receive and how was this monitored and controlled?

·       Was the target for the KPI ‘Percentage of corporate complaints responded to within corporately set timescales’ too ambitious?

·       Performance against the KPI ‘Percentage of subject requests responded to within statutory timescales had also underperformed – what was the reason for this?

·       The Performance Monitoring Panel also considered the report prior to the Cabinet – how could findings from both committees come together to benefit the Authority?

·       For two Environment KPIs – ‘Percentage of household waste collected for recycling and composting’ and ‘Percentage of recycling collected that is unable to be recycled (contamination)’, data was not available, and it was stated that data was recorded by LCC by Waste Transfer Station rather than by the Council, and that this had been raised at the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership.  Pressure should be applied to outside bodies to provide the required information more quickly.

To seek approval for the proposed AI Policy (report of Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which sought approval for the proposed AI Policy.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Communications presented the report, and the following issues were raised:

·       The Chairman of the Policy Development Panel advised that the Panel had debated the Policy thoroughly, and despite some initial scepticism, had seen the positives in many areas, for example the use of chatbots which could assist in reducing telephone waiting times.  It was important to embrace the technology offered by AI.

·       Whilst embracing new technology, some members of the public still preferred the ‘human’ element of interaction and it was important to keep this consideration in mind going forward.

·       The Risk section within the report stated that a Comprehensive Risk assessment would be undertaken for each AI project – what was seen as the biggest risk, and had any specific risks been identified?

o   The Portfolio Holder – Corporate and Communications advised that no systems using AI as the policy described were currently  being used.  Any project or service improvement would be managed by the Authority’s project risk framework and would be considered by relevant committees. From his perspective, many of the current issues were around the security of data – a high proportion of AI that the Authority could use would be provided by a third party.  Key points within the Policy therefore relating to areas such as data protection assessments and how the data was being used were very important. 

·       Could there be a risk around others purporting to be the Council – from an industry point of view, was this a big risk?  Should some research be done into this area?

o   The Assistant Director – Corporate advised that others purporting to be or affiliated to the Authority was an issue that happened anyway and was being dealt with in line with current processes.  He agreed that it was important that data management was robustly managed, to understand companies that were engaged, and also who their parent companies were.  Data security and privacy was vitally important. 

·       The Leader highlighted the benefits of AI, which would allow the Partnership to be more efficient in day-to-day transactions, providing increased capacity to deal with more complex issues.

DECISION:

That the Policy at Appendix A to the report be approved.

(Other options considered:

·       No other options were considered;

Reasons for decision:

·       To ensure a robust and effective AI policy was adopted by the Council).

Approval of the new South Holland Cultural Strategy and support the Cultural Framework for the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership (report of the Director – Economic Growth enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Director – Economic Development which sought approval of the new South Holland Cultural Strategy and support of the Cultural Framework for the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership.

The Leader presented the report, and the following issues were raised:

·       The Strategy went a long way to identify and explain what culture was, and its spread.  It would help residents to live happier, fulfilled lives.

·       The Strategy was good however, it was disappointing that whilst larger settlements were referenced, little mention was made of smaller towns and villages in the district.  Not all significant sites were included or were only mentioned in passing e.g. the Abbey and bridge at Crowland, and not all groups appeared to have been consulted.

o   The Leader agreed with this comment.   Whereas previously culture had been considered on its own, it was now being linked more with funding and economy, and there were important links to the Growth and Prosperity Plan. 

o   The Assistant Director – Economic Growth advised that the National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) that was providing funding to all three areas of the Partnership had commissioned a cultural audit to ensure that all cultural organisations, businesses and assets across the Partnership were captured.  The document would be a live document and could be amended once this audit had been completed.

DECISION:

1)    That the South Holland Cultural Strategy (attached at Appendix B) be adopted.

2)    That delegation be given to the Assistant Director for Economic Growth, in consultation with the Leader, Cllr Nick Worth, to make minor amendments to the South Holland Cultural Strategy.

3)    That the Executive Summary as a Cultural Framework for the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership (attached at Appendix A) be supported.

(Other options considered:

·       Arts Council England had provided the funding to create the Cultural Strategy, therefore it was a requirement of the funding to produce the strategic document, as had been the case in Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council.

Reasons for decision:

·       A formally adopted Cultural Strategy and agreement of priority actions would provide South Holland District Council with the cultural principles to be reflected in each place. In addition, the Cultural Framework would support funding applications, increase engagement with art and culture and facilitate greater connectivity with Art and Cultural organisations. The adoption of a similar document by Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council had already helped the SELCP to gain Arts Council England National Portfolio Organisation status and it was this funding that had supported the writing of the South Holland Cultural Strategy.

·       The ambition of the Framework and associated NPO status supported a wider cultural and place- based approach to regeneration and linked culture with community engagement to support our Partnership objectives, reflecting the principles of the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership Growth and Prosperity Plan).

To seek approval for a new Public Spaces Protection Order on dog fouling and irresponsible dog ownership (report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory which sought approval for a new Public Spaces Protection Order on dog fouling and irresponsible dog ownership.

The Portfolio Holder – Public Protection presented the report, and the following issues were raised:

·       Whilst this report was welcomed, this issue had been discussed over many years and concern was raised as to how effectively it could be enforced.  With regard to signage, could signs be erected to advise dog owners to take dog waste home as bins were filled very quickly. 

·       Many bins had been provided over the years and some now needed replacement – was consideration being given to their replacement where required?

·       The Chairman of the Policy Development Panel advised that the Panel had requested that the Policy be brought back for consideration a year after enforcement in order to review progress. 

DECISION:

1)    That, following consideration of feedback from the public consultation and Policy Development Panel, the making of the proposed Public Spaces Protection Order to implement dog controls for the District of South Holland be approved; and

2)    That the Fixed Penalty Notice be approved and set at the maximum of £100.

(Other options considered:

·       Do not introduce a new PSPO for dog controls – it was considered that a PSPO was the best means to implement the proposed dog controls. Offences for dog fouling were currently only available under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. The PSPO would be applicable to all public open spaces and also enabled the introduction of further offences associated with dog control issues.

·       Introduce some but not all of the proposed offences – it was recommended that all three of the offences were introduced to improve dog controls across the District and reduce associated nuisance. The consultation demonstrated that the majority of responders supported the introduction of all three offences.

·       Introduce a lower Fixed Penalty Notice fine – it was recommended that the maximum amount was used as a deterrent, and in-line with many other local authorities across the country.

Reasons for decision:

·       The public consultation showed considerable public support for the three proposed offences. It was therefore recommended that they were introduced in South Holland.

·       It was recommended that the Fixed Penalty Notice was set at the statutory maximum of £100 to reflect the anti-social nature of the offences and act as a deterrent).

To seek approval for the write off of uncollectable debt (report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development (S151) enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development (S151) which sought approval for the write off of uncollectable debt.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder – Finance, the Leader presented the report.

Members agreed that only the principles of the report would be discussed and there was therefore no need for the meeting to go into private session.

DECISION:

That the amounts identified in the report, as detailed below, be approved for write off.

(Other options considered:

·       Do not approve the amounts for write off, however this would leave uncollectable debt showing on the Council’s records;

Reasons for decision:

·       All recovery methods have been considered and where appropriate pursued, before making the decision to write off.  Debts will be written off against provisions in the Council’s accounts.  Officer time can be maximised on greatest returns, at the same time as ensuring robust procedures for debt management are in place across the revenue streams).

Note:         (i)      No other business is permitted unless by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the Minutes, the Leader is of the opinion that the item(s) should be considered as a matter of urgency. 

(ii)     Any urgent item of business that is a key decision must be dealt with in accordance with the Constitution’s Access to Information Procedure Rules.

There were none.