The Committee agreed to not web-cast Agenda Item 8, Disabled Facilities Grants, ‘Interview with Maidstone Housing Trust’, following a request from a witness.  Due to a technical difficulty, the Committee agreed to only web-cast Agenda Items 9, ‘Disabled Facilities Grants, Interview with Councillor Beerling’ and 10 ‘Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions’.

Resolved:  That Agenda Items 9 and 10 be web-cast. 

Apologies were received from Councillor Thick.  It was noted that Councillor Beerling had sent his apologies for the first part of the meeting as he had a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8, Disabled Facilities Grants, and he would only be in attendance for Agenda Item 9 as a witness for the Disabled Facilities Grants review.

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.

There were no disclosures.

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

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 August 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interview with Ms Jillie Smithies, Group Director of Operations, Maidstone Housing Trust.

The Chairman welcomed the Group Director of Operations, Ms Jillie Smithies, and the Property Services Manager, Ms Eileen Parrott, from Maidstone Housing Trust (MHT) to the meeting.  The Committee received a presentation on Housing Adaptations, attached at Appendix A.  This highlighted MHT’s approach to housing adaptations, current issues, best practice, future plans, wider MHT initiatives, issues within the social housing sector and areas requiring further exploration.

Maidstone Housing Trust’s Approach

It was agreed as part of the stock transfer that MHT would continue to deliver adaptations to its housing stock.  This included the management of adaptations using its own technical staff, even if it had been funded through Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) or Communities and Local Government. 

MHT’s level of contribution for adaptations had been agreed as part of the transfer; it had been set at £126,000 per annum, with increments in accordance with the RPI (Retail Price Index) plus one per cent for the first five years and RPI thereafter.  MBC had agreed to match this level of funding. 

In 2008 all major adaptations were processed through the Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) process.  2008/09 had seen a high level of adaptation to clear the backlog of applications; MHT delivered 219 minor adaptations amounting to £54,000 and 171 major adaptations amounting to £659,000.  £415,000 of this had been funded through DFGs and the rest by MHT.  If a bathroom or kitchen was being replaced as part of the MHT capital works programme, properties requiring adaptations were currently funded through this rather than through DFGs. 

Bolt-on adaptations such as grab rails took approximately 5 days to process from receipt of approval for works.  Minor adaptations requiring Occupational Therapist recommendations took an average of 28 days to process.  Major adaptations carried out by MHT took approximately 9 months on average, which compared favourably with other providers/local authorities where they can often take up to 2 years.  The oldest application currently awaiting work dated from February 2009.  Levels of future demand were difficult to determine, however it was anticipated that MBC’s Housing Needs Survey would help to predict them.

MHT’s adaptations service was customer driven.  MHT policy recognised this and also the need to achieve value for money.  All viable alternative solutions were considered with the customer to fulfil their needs and to provide value for money, particularly when significant adaptations were required.  MHT was currently exploring how to make the adaptations process more transparent.  It was therefore preparing guidance which would depict which adaptations were inappropriate in certain property types.

In 2007, the Audit Commission had found that MHT’s performance was good.  A recent internal audit had found examples of good practice and had highlighted areas for improvement.

Current Issues

MHT had worked hard to develop its relationships with KCC’s Occupational Therapy Department to ensure that the best recommendations for customers were achieved.  This included being able to ask the Occupational Therapist (OT) whether another property was a better solution to meet the customer’s needs rather than just making  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

(Councillor Beerling enters the meeting)

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Beerling to the meeting and asked him to talk about his experiences of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs).  Councillor Beerling informed the Committee that he felt that when he was assessed by an Occupational Therapist, he was offered a wide range of aids and adaptations that he did not feel he necessarily needed.  He queried whether an alternative approach was available in determining a customer’s needs.  Members agreed it was difficult to quantify a need for improved quality of life and agreed to consider the whole process with regard to DFGs, including whether all adaptations offered were actually required. 

Councillor Beerling advised the Committee that he felt it would be useful to consider the Council’s approach to DFGs, whether it was needs-based, whether the level of influence by social services was appropriate and whether value for money was being achieved.  He also felt that the Committee should investigate the feasibility of recycling adaptations given the cost of removing, storing and re-installing items.  He felt that the relationship between Maidstone Borough Council and Registered Social Landlords could be improved and that this too could be explored as part of the review. 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Beerling for sharing his experiences of DFGs with the Committee.

(Councillor Beerling leaves the meeting)

The Committee discussed the progress of its review and agreed that Maidstone Housing Trust should be asked to provide the stock condition data that was available with regard to DFGs.  It also felt that it would be particularly useful to interview an Occupational Therapist with regard to adaptation needs and a representative from the Home Choice Project Board with regard to the implications of Choice Based Lettings on Disabled Facilities Grants.  Members agreed that the review explore:

·  Whether all adaptations were actually required;

·  The issue of adapted housing as part of new development requirements; and

·  The quality of adaptations and whether they were aesthetically pleasing to prevent future residents requesting removal of the adaptations.

Resolved:  That

a)  The Committee explore the following as part of its Disabled Facilities Grants review:

  i.  The need of all adaptations m_ade;

  ii.  Adapted housing as part of new development requirements; and

  iii.  The quality of adaptations installed.

b)  An Occupational Therapist be interviewed as part of the review;

c)  A representative from the Home Choice Project Board be interviewed with regard to the implications of Choice Based Lettings on Disabled Facilities Grants; and

d)  Maidstone Housing Trust be asked to provide its stock condition data that was available with regard to Disabled Facilities Grants.

The Committee considered the Forward Plan of Key Decisions and agreed to receive the draft Consideration of Growth Point Revenue Expenditure report by e-mail.  The Chairman advised the Committee that the decision regarding the Review of Contaminated Land Strategy had been delayed.  The Chairman was meeting with the Assistant Director of Environmental Services to discuss the remits of the officers’ review and the Committee’s review to prevent any overlaps.

A Councillor highlighted the importance of the Road Safety Review and the Committee agreed it would be worthwhile to present the report to Full Council, as this was where the topic had been initiated.

The Chairman informed the Committee that Councillor Robertson had requested that it consider how Park and Ride was to be re-launched and how to ensure customer confidence in the service.  The Committee agreed to consider this item at its meeting on 27 October 2009.  Furthermore, Members requested that the market research on customer reaction to changes in the scheme, undertaken in response to the Committee’s recommendation on 18 December 2008, be presented to the Committee in addition to information on how the service had been publicised.  The Committee agreed to invite Councillors Garland and Wooding, the Head of Communications and the Public Transport Officer to the meeting.  A Member believed that a survey was being sent to residents and queried whether a question on Park and Ride had been included in this.  The Committee asked the Overview and Scrutiny Officer to investigate this.

The Committee noted that its December meeting was scheduled for 22 December and agreed that this meeting be cancelled unless urgent business arose.

Resolved:  That

a)  Members of the Committee receive the draft Consideration of Growth Point Revenue Expenditure report by email;

b)  The Road Safety Review Report be presented to Full Council;

c)  Perceptions and usage of Park and Ride be considered at the Committee’s meeting on 27 October 2009;

d)  The Overview and Scrutiny Officer determine whether a question regarding Park and Ride was being asked as part of any current survey work; and

e)  The meeting of the Committee on 22 December be cancelled unless urgent business arose.

6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m.