Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

It was noted that Councillor Beerling had sent his apologies as he had a prejudicial interest in Agenda Items 8 and 9 regarding Disabled Facilities Grants.

It was noted that Councillor Moriarty was substituting for Councillor Beerling.

There were no visiting Members.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

The Chairman emphasised to Members the importance of checking e-mails and correspondence prior to attending meetings to ensure that they had not been lobbied.

All Members except Councillors Moriarty and Paine declared that they had been lobbied with regard to Agenda Item 7, Minutes of the Meeting Held on 28 July 2009.

Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

a)  16 July 2009; and

b)  28 July 2009.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2009 were approved as a correct record.

With regard to the minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2009, Councillor Sherreard referred to the lobbying material received by most Committee Members from Dr J M Speight and informed Members that he had responded to this personally.  He stated that “scrutiny minutes are written so as to keep track of decisions made by the Committee to make it easier to ensure that these decisions are seen through.  They are not meant as a detailed account of everything that was discussed.  The webcam function is available for just this reason”.

Several Members agreed that while the minutes should not go into excessive detail, a point of accuracy raised by Dr Speight should be included in the minutes.  It was therefore agreed that the following sentence would be added to the minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2009: “The member of the public also voiced concerns over errors within the Economic Development Strategy, and stated that out-of-date information within that strategy meant that it would not provide a sound foundation for devising a Regeneration Strategy”.

With regard to the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2009, which were attached as an appendix to the minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2009, it was highlighted that in Minute ? 15 under “Concessionary Travel”, it should read “from 9:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.” and it was agreed that this should be amended.

Resolved:  That

a)  The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman;

b)  The minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman subject to the addition of the following sentence at Minute ? 33, paragraph 6: “The member of the public also voiced concerns over errors within the Economic Development Strategy, and stated that out-of-date information within that strategy meant that it would not provide a sound foundation for devising a Regeneration Strategy.”; and

c)  The minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2009 be amended at Minute ? 15, “concessionary travel” section, to read “9:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.”.

The Chairman proposed taking Agenda Item 9, “Disabled Facilities Grants” before Agenda Item 8 “Disabled Facilities Grants – Terms of Reference” to ensure that any information obtained from the interview with the Private Sector Housing Manager could be included in the terms of reference.

Resolved:  That Agenda Item 9 be taken before Agenda Item 8.

·  Interview with the Private Sector Housing Manager.

The Chairman welcomed the Private Sector Housing Manager, Stuart White, to the meeting and asked him to provide an introduction to Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs).

Mr White explained that Maidstone Borough Council (MBC), in line with all other housing authorities in England, offered grants to disabled people to allow them access to their homes or amenities within their homes.

The maximum grant allowable at present was £30,000 and MBC offered a discretionary £15,000 top up grant. Grants of this size were uncommon, with the average grant being around £5,000-7,000. Grants were means tested using a Government-set means test; the Council had no discretion in how the test was administered. Grants for adaptations for children were no longer means tested.  The Council’s budget for DFGs was £825,000, with 60% of this coming from Central Government.

The types of work the Council granted aid to were typically changing a bath to a level access shower, widening doorways to accommodate wheelchair access, and installing stair-lifts or external ramping. Occasionally it was necessary to lower worktops and install specially adapted kitchen fitments.

Grants were available to Owner Occupiers, private tenants and to Registered Social Landlord (RSL) tenants. Many authorities were experiencing difficulty with the quantity of DFG applications from RSL tenants, for example some neighbouring authorities were finding that 50-70% of their DFG budgets were taken up by RSL applicants. At Maidstone there had never been a waiting list for DFGs, but there was increasing demand from Maidstone Housing Trust (MHT) tenants which meant that around £350,000, or 42%, of the Council’s budget for DFGs would be for MHT tenants.  As this was an issue nationally, the Government had promised extra guidance on how DFGs for RSL tenants should be funded, however it was unclear when this would materialise.

Following the transfer of housing stock to RSLs by Swale and Thanet Councils, long waiting lists had developed for DFGs.  In order to avoid this situation when the Maidstone housing transfer took place, it was negotiated that the Council and MHT would set aside £100,000 each for adaptations each year.  Monthly meetings would be held to discuss cases and pay money when work had been completed rather than going through the formal DFG route; this avoided extra administration and so reduced waiting times.  However, MHT funds ran out quickly and to avoid bad publicity, the Council offered extra funds in order to reduce complaints and waiting lists.  Mr White highlighted that MHT tenants had the right to apply for mandatory DFGs from the Council anyway through the formal route.  In 2006, the Council agreed to increase its funding to MHT to £150,000 per year.

In 2007, Communities and Local Government (CLG) offered Councils extra funding if they had cases that could be resolved quickly, provided these went through the formal DFG route.  Because of MHT’s waiting list, CLG provided an additional £213,000 which equated to £350,000 when MBC’s contribution was added to it.  This, along with a shortened DFG process, allowed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Chairman suggested that the review of Disabled Facilities Grants should focus on what happened to adaptations enabled by DFGs once installed in Registered Social Landlord properties, and the impact Choice Based Lettings could have on this.  Another Councillor suggested speaking to an occupational therapist to establish whether all adaptations were necessary.  A Councillor asked whether it was possible to have an RSL that dealt only with disabled housing, and whether this happened elsewhere.  It was also agreed that information on DFGs for RSL tenants should be sought from other local authorities.

The Committee agreed to interview a representative from MHT and seek evidence from Communities and Local Government with regard to proposed guidance on the funding of DFGs to Registered Social Landlords.

The Committee agreed that an amended terms of reference should be e-mailed to all Committee Members and approved by the Chairman.

Resolved:  That:

a)  The Disabled Facilities Grants Review focus on what happened to adaptations funded by DFGs after installation, the impact of Choice Based Lettings and whether all adaptations were necessary;

b)  Evidence be sought from other local authorities, Communities and Local Government, Maidstone Housing Trust and occupational therapists; and

c)  An amended terms of reference for the review be e-mailed to all Members of the Committee and approved by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the Forward Plan of Key Decisions and agreed that the Cabinet Member for Environment and the relevant officers should be invited to give information on the Review of the Contaminated Land Strategy at the Committee’s September meeting.

A Member also highlighted the forthcoming decision on the Private Sector Renovation Grant Programme and suggested that officers should be asked whether this had any impact on Disabled Facilities Grants.

Resolved:  That

a)  The Review of the Contaminated Land Strategy be considered at the Committee’s September meeting; and

b)  Advice be sought from officers on whether the Private Sector Renovation Grant Programme had any link to Disabled Facilities Grants.

6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.