To receive a report on the above titled item.

Anna Robinson, Strategy and Performance Manager outlined the above report. Members were told that the report sought to provide a summary of the Quarter 3 2018/19 performance of the council’s performance management framework (PMF). It was noted that five of the six measures reported to the Planning and Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel had met or exceeded their target ( including one measure reported biannually) and one measure had fallen just short of target but remained within acceptable tolerance levels. It was highlighted that no measures had been reported as below target or outside of tolerance thresholds. Members were informed that in November 2017 that Cabinet had approved the council’s performance Management Framework (PMF) of 25 key measures aligned to its refreshed Council Plan with six strategic priorities over the plan period 2017-2021.

Members were shown the performance measures through the PMF system and were taken through each measure. The measures reported to the Planning and Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel were as follows:

·         3.4.1. Number of Affordable homes- Green

·         3.5.1 Number of homeless preventions through council advice and activity- amber

·         3.5.2 Number of homeless households placed in temporary accommodation- green

·         4.1.3 Percentage of Major planning applications processed in time- green

·         4.1.4 Percentage of Minor planning applications processed in time- green

·         4.1.5 Percentage of “other” planning applications processed in time- green

The Panel was told that green meant that targets had been exceeded and performance was good, whilst red or amber meant that there were areas for improvement or that targets had not been met. Members discussed the amber measure for the number of homeless preventions through council advice and activity. Anna Robinson informed the Panel that Maggie Nelson, Interim Head of Housing Services was unable to attend and relayed information on her behalf which had been provided ahead of the meeting. Members were advised that the prevention numbers for Q1, 2 & 3 had all been slightly lower than the target set and were assessed as underperforming (amber).  It was outlined that the target had not been met as the highest reason for homelessness approaches across the borough was the ending of assured short hold tenancies by private landlords. Members were informed that in accordance with the Homeless Reduction Act 2017, that the housing options officer’s first aim in every case was to attempt to prevent the homelessness by speaking with the landlord to establish the reason behind the issuing of the notice and wherever possible, negotiate with them for the tenant to remain in the tenancy. It was highlighted that this would include assisting the tenant to make a payment arrangement if rent arrears had been accrued, acting as an intermediary for any tenancy related issues that the landlord may have been unhappy about, for e.g. the property not being properly looked after, garden being unkempt, delayed rent payments or the housing benefit not being in place.

The Panel was also informed that there had been changes in terms of statutory function by the HRA 2017 and that there was now a duty to prevent every case who approached the authority that was threatened with homelessness within 56 days as opposed to previously, where a house was considered to be threatened with homelessness only when they were within 28 days of eviction. Members were told that this had dramatically increased the number of cases where RBWM had a duty to prevent homelessness. It was highlighted that this duty existed regardless of whether the household met the priority need test or were intentionally homeless which in turn meant that there was a higher prevention case load per officer than previously. The Panel were told that moving forward into the financial year that there were a number of initiative for prevention action that could be utilised and were intended to help to increase the numbers of successful preventions. Members queried what these initiatives were and it was confirmed that there would be a “ spend to save” fund set up within the budget to allow officers to access funds to enable prevention through innovative use of a one off payment from the fund., for e.g. where a landlord was unhappy that the tenant was not keeping the garden maintained and had become overgrown that the fund could be used for a one off garden tidy up on agreement that the tenant would continue to keep it tidy afterwards thereby removing the issue and enabling an extended tenancy to be issued by the landlord. Members were in agreement that this measure should be monitored closely and felt that the new initiatives for the financial year would be beneficial and helpful.

Councillor Beer highlighted that the delivery of affordable homes was not as high as it should be and was concerned that the traction of delivery was not high enough to meet demand. Jenifer Jackson advised that the affordable homes delivery measure was focused on delivery by housing associations in the area. It was confirmed that the Planning Authority was seeking to achieve affordable homes on qualifying sites within policy Members asked for this to be clarified moving forward and felt that the performance report should be specific to RBWM performance and not partners, such as Housing Associations. It was confirmed that this was a reportable measure set by the MCHLG and that more information would be provided to explain that delivery of affordable homes for this purpose pertained to the delivery of homes by Housing Associations.

Members also discussed the announcement made by Central Government to abolish the s.21 notice seeking possession. Members felt that where there were grounds for removal that a s.21 should be allowed to be given but that they ultimately also had a duty towards private landlords and safeguarding their properties. Councillors Clark, Hunt and Walters declared that they were private landlords but that they had no prejudicial interest. Councillor Clark outlined that private landlords face many hardships with tenants and that the cost of gaining premises back is very costly for landlords where there had been a dispute between the tenant and landlord. It was felt by members that there should be protection for landlords and that the consultation had not looked at engaging with private landlords but primarily focussed on tenants.

At the conclusion of the report, members noted the contents.