Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW. View directions
Contact: Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors East, Baker, Benson, Brar, Garg, Major and Nelson.
Councillor Khursheed
On behalf of all present, the Mayor and the Leader of the Council welcomed Councillor Khursheed back to the Council after his recent illness and wished him a swift recovery.
Councillor Khursheed thanked the Mayor, officers, the Leader of the Council and Members for their warm wishes throughout his illness. He also thanked Harefield Hospital for their outstanding care and their ongoing treatment.
|
|
|
To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2012 Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2012 be agreed as a correct record. |
|
|
Mayor's Announcements Minutes: The Mayor announced the death of Alderman Bernard Joseph Brown on 13 October 2012 aged 96. Mr Brown had been Mayor of the London Borough of Hillingdon in 1969, Master Fletcher, Sheriff and Chief Commoner of the City of London. Those present observed a one minute silence.
The Mayor reminded Members that Sunday 11 November 2012 was Remembrance Sunday and encouraged them to attend their local memorial services. |
|
|
To take questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10. Minutes: 5.1 QUESTION FROM MR IAN BROOKS OF KENT GARDENS, EASTCOTE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION & RECYCLING – COUNCILLOR BURROWS
“There is legislation in place to restrict the movement of lorries during the night to reduce noise pollution in London. Whilst 28 out of 32 London boroughs subscribe to the London Lorry Control Scheme the London Borough of Hillingdon does not. What alternative enforcement regime is the London Borough of Hillingdon proposing to implement in order to secure compliance with the London night time lorry ban?”
Councillor Burrows responded that the London Lorry Control Scheme, aimed at restricting the overnight use of larger heavy goods vehicles, operated across the whole of Greater London. The scheme had roughly 480 enforcement sites visited by just five Enforcement Officers on a rotational basis. The London Borough of Hillingdon did not believe that this level of resource gave enough of a disincentive to lorry drivers. Special permits were also available to exempt certain operators from enforcement which further limited its effectiveness.
Councillor Burrows noted that it was important to appreciate that the 4 other boroughs that did not subscribe to the scheme were all, like Hillingdon, in outer London. These boroughs had taken a broadly similar view that the main focus of the scheme was on enforcement in central London and, therefore, the annual subscription of approximately £10,000 would not provide value for money for residents.
Councillor Burrows noted that the Council was working closely with Transport for London to assist with the development of a new pan-London Freight Journey Planner which would provide better travel advice, using recommended routes, which would ultimately benefit hauliers and residents alike. |
|
|
Report of the Head of Democratic Services Additional documents:
Minutes: 6.1 APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Council’s Appointments Committee had recommended the appointment of Fran Beasley to the position of Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Administration.
Councillor Puddifoot expressed his personal thanks to the outgoing Chief Executive, Hugh Dunnachie who had served the Council in the position through 6 difficult years. He stated that Mr Dunnachie had led the Council extremely well throughout this period. He went on to note that Hugh left the Council in capable hands with Ms Beasley.
Councillors Simmonds, D. Mills, Curling and Khurshed echoed the Leader’s comments and the Mayor thanked Mr Dunnachie on behalf of all the residents of the London Borough of Hillingdon.
Councillor Puddifoot moved, Councillor Simmonds seconded and it was:
RESOLVED: That Fran Beasley be appointed as Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Administration.
6.2 CHANGES TO COUNCIL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND SCHEME OF DELEGATION TO OFFICERS
Councillor Puddifoot detailed recent changes made to the Council Management Structure and Scheme of Delegation.
Councillor Puddifoot moved, Councillor Simmonds seconded and it was:
RESOLVED: That:
a) Part 3 of the Constitution - Scheme of Delegation to Officers, as set out in Appendix B to the report be approved and
b) the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make further minor textual changes to the remainder of the Constitution where required to reflect the revised structure / job titles etc.
6.3 PART 2, ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION – THE CABINET
Councillor Puddifoot asked the Council to note the changes to Cabinet portfolios as set out in the report. He thanked Councillor Higgins, who would be leaving the Cabinet, for his work as the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure. The portfolio for the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure would be deleted with effect from 1 December 2012. At this point Councillor Higgins would become the Chairman of the Executive Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor Higgins thanked all Members for their assistance during his time in the Cabinet which had been extremely successful.
Councillor Puddifoot moved, Councillor Simmonds seconded and it was:
RESOLVED: That: the changes to Cabinet Portfolios set out in the report be noted.
6.4 MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Councillor Puddifoot moved, Councillor Simmonds seconded and it was:
RESOLVED: That w.e.f 1 December 2012 Councillor Higgins replace Councillor Lavery as Chairman of the Executive Scrutiny Committee.
6.5 URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS
Councillor Puddifoot moved, Councillor Simmonds seconded and it was:
RESOLVED: That the Urgency decisions detailed in the report be noted.
6.6 PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT STANDING ORDERS
Councillor Puddifoot thanked the Mayor for allowing this additional item to be considered at this meeting. In order to strengthen and provide added Member oversight within the Contract Standing Orders, it was suggested that an additional provision be included in the section ’Acceptance of Tenders and Financial Thresholds for the Authority’.
Councillor Puddifoot moved, Councillor Simmonds seconded and it was:
RESOLVED: That Part 4, Schedule H of the Constitution be amended to include the following provision:
6.5Where individual orders for goods, works or services are placed with a single contractor independently of each other and the cumulative value over the period of a financial year moves between the authorisation levels in Standing Orders 6.3, officers should seek the necessary approval in accordance with the total cumulative value.
|
|
|
Hillingdon Local Plan To consider the recommendations of Cabinet Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Burrows moved the recommendations as set out in the Order of Business. This was seconded by Councillor D Mills and, following debate (Councillor Duncan), it was:
RESOLVED: That:
a) The revised text detailed in Appendix A of the report and included in the “Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies” be adopted as Council policy; and
b) The 2007 Saved Unitary Development Plan policies approved by the Cabinet at its meeting on 27 September 2012 be adopted as the “Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two”, pending the preparation and adoption of site specific allocations, development management policies and a policies map.
|
|
|
To take questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 Minutes: 8.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GARDNER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH & HOUSING – COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE
“In view of the declining amount of affordable decent housing for Hillingdon residents across the whole Borough, will the Cabinet Member responsible put 'residents first' and support the National Housing Federation's "Yestohomes campaign" for more council housing and in doing so agree to examine the possibilities of providing affordable decent housing across the whole borough, in a housing programme that will secure affordable decent homes for Hillingdon residents and their families and give the council a financial return on its investment and provide jobs and training for its unemployed residents?”
Councillor Corthorne advised that he was aware of the National Housing Federation’s campaign to improve access to housing for people who were in work but could still not afford their housing costs.
Councillor Corthorne noted that the housing market in general faced an uncertain future and the funding regime for social housing had been subject to considerable change. The Council was working creatively with developers and registered providers to ensure that the various sources of available funding and subsidy were brought together to provide the affordable housing needed. 1,700 new affordable homes had been built in the Borough over the previous four years, exceeding the Council’s London Plan targets.
The Council was putting forward its own land to provide affordable homes.In the previous year more than 100 homes were directly developed by the Council. Land was also transferred to housing associations to deliver more affordable or supported homes. Extra Care was housing which freed up affordable homes as well as preventing people going into residential homes, and the Authority now had 95 affordable Extra Care flats. The Council also had a good record of providing low cost homes ownership properties which had, since April 2012, 147 completions.
As well as its good record on the provision of new affordable homes, Hillingdon had also delivered other innovative solutions to help people own their own homes, with the development of reduced equity flats such as those over the Ruislip Manor Library and the First Time Buyer Initiative which had helped 183 young people living in the borough into home ownership since 2008.
Councillor Corthorne concluded that the Council was looking at ways to do more - to take advantage of new freedoms associated with the Housing Revenue Account, for example, to fund the development of supported housing and of affordable homes for Hillingdon families. Any such development would be planned on a prudent basis to take account of external funding sources and to provide maximum benefit in terms of employment and training opportunities.
Councillor Gardner, by way of supplementary question, asked whether Councillor Corthorne would agree that as the gap between supply and demand continued to grow at an alarming rate, rents would increase, house prices would rise yet again, and as a consequence HB payments would increase for those in work, but unable to pay the obscene rents charged by private landlords? What would happen to those on average incomes who could not afford to buy or afford to rent?
Councillior Corthorne advised that he would provide a written answer to the question. The response was subsequently provided as follows:
The Council is aware from research that the number of households needing an affordable home is far in excess of the supply of additional affordable homes in the Borough. That research found that the average household income was £27,232 and that most households on low incomes who can’t afford market rents can afford only a social rent – from the council or a housing association.
Mid and lower quartile private rents have also remained consistent since 2008 according to the Valuation Office Agency, although there is a difference between rents in the north and the south of the Borough. Local Housing Allowance rates take this into account. The rate at which LHA is paid will increase by CPI only from March 2013, ensuring that there will be no dramatic increase in payment rates, although the number of claimants in work may increase.
It’s true that house prices in Hillingdon have been relatively stable since 2008 and have begun to rise. The price of the least expensive properties has risen by 3.1% since August 2011. It isn’t the case that prices have risen dramatically and there is no sign of that. In some Wards, prices have fallen. Shared ownership schemes are a very popular way of getting a foot on the housing ladder and again prices fell in 2008 and have remained stable since then. Again, deposit finance and mortgage accessibility are the real problem.
The biggest problem remains access to mortgage funds for first time buyers and anyone with a less than perfect credit record. I agree that we need to keep an eye on the situation which has begun to change and to continue to do all that we can to support affected households and promote affordable housing supply from all available sources.
Rest assured that officers in the council are doing what they can to try to maximise the numbers of affordable homes in Hillingdon that are available for local people, whether they want to rent or buy.
8.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DUNCAN TO THE Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Business Services – COUNCILLOR BIANCO
“In view of the high costs of consultants employed by the Council, particularly during the past two years, can we see a breakdown of the financial justification for these high costs, especially when the improvements made are often the result of existing managers’ suggestions, which could be listened to at no cost?”
Councillor Bianco responded that the Council’s strategy from the outset had been to minimise the use of external resources and to transfer skills to permanent employees. He noted that there was a strategy in place to reduce the use of these resources over the remainder of the current financial year.
Many of the Council’s employees had received further training in transformation and were delivering this to colleagues and building on the Council’s in-house capacity to ensure that consultants were used only where necessary. The Council currently had in excess of 100 of its own staff spending a significant proportion of their time helping to deliver the BID programme.
To supplement this in-house resource the Council had used a limited number of specialist interims with transformation experience and skills.The interims were used on a flexible basis to provide capacity and specific skills required as and when they were needed for particular transformation projects. They were directed by Council staff, did not cover established posts, were paid a daily rate and their use could be terminated at any point in time.
Councillor Bianco concluded that the amount the Council was spending on consultants needed to be put into context. Between £400,000-£600,000 per year was spent but this annually produced £20m in savings which he considered to be very good value for money.The £400,000- 600,000 also had to be compared against the Council’s gross expenditure of around £800m per annum. The Hillingdon Improvement Programme was the envy of many authorities across the country. The Council was extremely proud of its success and value for money and were firmly committed to continuing it.
Councillor Duncan, by way of supplementary question, noted that some consultants appeared to be working on a permanent basis for Hillingdon Council. Did they fall within the tax category that the present government was advising all public bodies and authorities should examine and avoid?
Councillor Bianco advised that he would provide a written answer to the question. The response was subsequently provided as follows:
The Government has raised concerns about public sector bodies using people in substantive posts to operate as a limited company to avoid paying employers National Insurance, pensions contributions or to enable the individual to use the income tax system to their advantage. However, officers have reviewed the Council's use of consultants and can confirm that none are covering substantive posts. There are some 'non payroll' workers in substantive posts but these are all sourced and paid through the Council's agreed agency contracts and so their taxation affairs are dealt with by their agency. The Council does have a very limited number of self-employed consultants working on BID and other time limited projects. However, the Council does not accept that these individuals can be deemed to be our employees. The Council has no mutuality of obligation to them and is content that they do not meet the various criteria applied by HMRC to determine whether someone is deemed to be an employee and hence should be PAYE. As such the Council is content that it is appropriate for these individuals to take full responsibility for their own tax affairs.
8.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BLISS TO THE Cabinet Member for EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES – COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS
“Can the Cabinet Member for Education tell us what provision for secondary education is being made for the increased intake of children now being accommodated in expanded primary schools, particularly in the south of the Borough where the major increase has occurred and where more high density family housing is being built and proposed, placing further pressure on education places?”
Councillor Simmonds advised that, whilst there was currently a surplus of secondary places, there was very likely to be a need for additional places in future years. The 2011 pupil forecast showed a need for 7-8 forms of entry at secondary level. The forecasts were currently being updated and the revised forecast would provide a basis for developing the Council’s forward plan in consultation with partner organisations. The Council would be looking creatively at the different options for commissioning provision.
Councillor Bliss, by way of supplementary question, asked what difficulties were being faced in the Borough given the high proportion of Academies.
Councillor Simmonds advised that there were none.
8.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ALLEN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH & HOUSING – COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE
“Can the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health and Housing update the Council about how things are progressing with Recommendation 1 from the Council’s Dementia Working Group report? This is concerned with dementia and the memory clinic.”
Councillor Corthorne advised that within the London Borough of Hillingdon, there was a limited specialist service provision in relation to the assessment and early diagnosis of people who may have had or went on to develop dementia. Currently there was a small amount of specialist memory assessment being carried out by Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CNWL). However, with the current resource level and an increasingly ageing population it had reached the point where demand exceeded current service provision. These two factors had led to increased waiting times for assessment and diagnosis for memory assessment which had peaked at 9 months earlier in the year. There had also been a high number of complaints from service users and carers relating to the waiting time to receive a diagnosis.
As a result of the above, in early May 2012, additional resources had been secured from both the Primary Care Trust and CNWL to alleviate the issues in the short-term, until a more sustainable solution was achieved. This had enabled the service to prioritise the service users who had already been assessed but were still awaiting the outcome of the assessment. The waiting list for initial assessment continued to grow as the number of referrals increased.
A proposal to modernise CNWL older people’s services was currently going through an open consultation process. The key aim of the proposal was to re-invest finances from under utilised service areas i.e. in the bedded service. The money released would enable the service to provide an improved and timely Memory Assessment service but would not be enough to provide a full service as indicated in the current Dementia Service Commissioning Guidelines.
In addition, CNWL were working with Commissioners looking at pathways around Intermediate Care and Rapid Response and how to include service users with dementia. The longer term provision of this was dependent on the ongoing funding of the Mental Health Liaison Service at The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Trust being maintained.
Councillor Corthorne concluded that there was a great deal of collaborative work being undertaken to review existing Dementia Services across Hillingdon. This work was identifying care pathways for service users with dementia and gaps in current service provision. This work was being led by NHS Hillingdon Commissioners working with CNWL, Hillingdon Social Services and the Voluntary Sector. There was a collaborative Dementia Strategy in development with sign up from all partner organisations in Hillingdon. If the modernisation proposal wa agreed, CNWL would act quickly to expand the Memory Assessment service effective from April 2013.
Councillor Corthorne responded that this question was at odds with the information that he had available to him but that he would investigate further and provide a written answer to the question. The response was subsequently provided as follows:
The Hillingdon Memory Service is the responsibility of the Central and North West London NHS Trust (CNWL). They have stated that the service has always been a clinic based service with access only via the GP. The service has never taken direct referrals from the general public and if a service user is discharged, the route back into the service is also via the GP.
The Memory Service has, in order to meet increasing demand, recently changed the way it practices. The service is no longer able to treat service users on a long term basis. This is in line with NICE(National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines which state that a person with dementia should be assessed, diagnosed and treated by a specialist team, however once they are stabilised they can then be monitored in Primary Care. This is also aligned to local GP shared care protocols, an agreement between the GP’s and the Trust, to share the care of service users with dementia including prescribing medication once stabilised.
In response to these changes, all service users under the care of the Hillingdon Memory Service have been reviewed to identify those service users who could be considered for discharge back to the GP
Hillingdon does not currently have a fully commissioned Memory Service. Some time ago the CNWL Older People’s service moved resources from the Community Mental Health Team to form a Memory Clinic to specialise in memory assessments. This however, only amounts to three outpatient clinics per week (9 hours).
The Trust acknowledges that the current level of service is not adequate and is working jointly to resolve this. The Trust has just concluded a public consultation to make better use of current resources and intend to present the outcome of this to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee later this month. This will contain a proposal on how the local Memory Service can be enhanced. If this is agreed, the funding for the Memory Service provision in the borough would increase significantly by 2013/14.
I hope this goes some way to answer the concerns of the residents that approached you. In summary CNWL have had to change the way they work to meet national guidelines and the increased demand of service users needing assessments and diagnosis. They have not stopped operating the service and are hoping that soon they will be able to expand the service that is currently provided.
8.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DHILLON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR IMPROVEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY – COUNCILLOR D.MILLS
“Could the Cabinet Member please inform Council if the current performance levels (calls answered / abandoned / customer satisfaction) of the contact centre have increased or decreased whilst outsourcing via consultants is explored?”
Councillor D. Mills responded that the Council had no plans to outsource the Contact Centre although work was underway to review how Housing Benefits were dealt with through the Contact Centre. He advised that 45,000 residents had now signed up to the self-service system which was improving services.
Councillor Mills advised that the Contact Centre dealt with over 50 different Council services varying from Blue Badges, refuse queries to Housing benefit queries. The Contact Centre was co-ordinated so that staff were trained to answer calls within groups of services and that the resource could be switched to deal with high call volumes and demands in individual service areas. There was no simple answer to the question, as performance varied across service areas. With regard to whether performance issues had arisen in recent months in any part of the Contact Centre, there had been very high call volumes related to Housing Benefits and addressing performance issues related to the Contact Centre for this service were an immediate priority.
Overall there were many initiatives underway to improve the performance of the contact centre including better deployment of existing staff resource during peak periods, better prioritising of calls, the introduction of an automated switchboard and better advertising of self-service alternatives to making calls to the Contact Centre. On this last point greater use of self-service would definitely reduce call volumes and therefore increase performance.
Councillor Dhillon, by way of supplementary question, asked whether the Council could provide year-on-year comparisons for the Contact Centre for the past 3 years and give further data for 3 months after changes had taken effect.
Councillor D. Mills advised that it would not be possible to provide such year-on-year comparisons across all areas of the Contact Centre but it would be possible to provide such figures for Anti-Social Behaviour calls. Subsequently, Councillor D Mills provided the following additional information.
ASBIT: Impact of BID Transformation Programme
In September 2010, as part of the Council’s Business Improvement Delivery Programme, five services from across the Council that deal with anti-social behaviour were brought together into a single team. How we went about making these changes is set out in the below Appendix.
The aim of the review was to have a single point of contact for residents on anti-social behaviour issues and to increase resident satisfaction with the service by resolving inquiries more quickly through the implementation of new ways of working.
So how are we doing?
For residents · More cases are being resolved when residents first contact the Council.
Additional training of contact centre staff during the summer of 2012 has led to an in crease in the percentage of residents enquiries dealt with at first point of contact from This figure rose from 21% in January 2012 to nearly half (44%) in September 2012. This trend is continuing to rise with 77% of enquires in October 2012 dealt with at the first point of contact.
· Higher Satisfaction with the way the Council and Police Deal with Anti-social Behaviour
The Residents’ Survey showed an increase in the percentage of residents who say the Council and Police deal well with anti-social behaviour increasing from 51% in 2010 to 57% in 2011. There is also a higher percentage of residents who feel safe living in Hillingdon, increasing from 65% in 2010 to 70% in 2011.
· Cases are closed more quickly with residents satisfied with the outcome
A survey of ASBIT customers conducted in June 2012 showed that: o More than half (54%) of cases were closed within two weeks o Twice as many (63%) were satisfied with the time it took to deal with the enquiry than were dissatisfied (28%) o Twice as many (59%) were satisfied with the outcome than were dissatisfied (30%) o 69% said they would recommend the service.
For the Council
Appendix 1: How did we go about setting up the new ASBIT Team?
As part of the Enforcement and Localities Business Improvement Delivery (BID) project, approximately 30 FTE were identified as undertaking frontline enforcement activities across five service areas in four former Directorates (DCEO, Housing, ECP and PCS) including:
Between September 2010 and March 2011, work was undertaken to bring the activities of these services together and introduce common ways of working. As part of this a new end to end process was developed:
Since the service was first set up, it has continued to be developed and improved:
Next Steps
|
PDF 125 KB