Report for Resolution Report to Report of

Transcription

Report for Resolution
Report to
Executive
21 January 2009
Report of
Chief Executive Officer
Subject
Independent Review of the Council’s Investigations into the
Greyhound Opening/ Goldsmith Street Sheltered Housing
Scheme
Purpose
To report the findings of the independent review undertaken by Mr Phil Watson
CBE concerning the investigations carried out by the Monitoring Officer and
Director of Regeneration and Development into the Greyhound Opening issues.
Recommendations
1. That the recommendations set out in the independent report by Mr Phil
Watson CBE be adopted.
2. That the Monitoring Officer’s recommendations be considered by the Audit
Committee.
Financial Consequences
There are no direct financial consequences as a result of this report.
Risk Assessment
The risks associated with the contents of the report relate to reputation and
governance.
Strategic Priority and Outcome/Service Priorities
To improve the quality of housing stock and increase the number of affordable
housing units.
Executive Member: Councillor Arthur - Housing and Adult Services
Ward: Mancroft
Contact Officers
Laura McGillivray
01603 212001
Background Documents
None
Page 1 of 2
Report
1. At its meeting on 7 January 2009 the Executive received a report of the Chief
Executive Officer on the results of the investigations into how decommissioned
sheltered housing units at Greyhound Opening/ Goldsmith Street came to be
occupied by staff of the City Council and to make recommendations as to any
future action that is required to safeguard the Council and its actions in future.
2. The Executive resolved that:- the Monitoring Officer’s recommendations be adopted.
- The Council’s relocation assistance scheme for new employees ceases the
provision of Council accommodation on a temporary basis.
- An independent review of the investigation be commissioned.
3. Mr Phil Watson CBE, former Chief Executive Officer of Blackburn with Darwen
Council was consequently commissioned to undertake the review and his
report is attached as Appendix A. The Chief Executive Officer’s report to the
Executive on 7 January, which included the report of the Director of
Regeneration and Development and the Monitoring Officer is attached as
Appendix B. As a result of the significant interest in this matter all Members of
the Council have been provided with copies of this report.
4. The Leader of the Council at the Executive meeting on 7 January stated that he
would be asking for the views of the Scrutiny Committee on the independent
review. A meeting of that Committee is to be held prior to this Executive
meeting and its comments/ views will be reported accordingly.
5. As the Executive is aware the Audit Committee is responsible for ensuring
appropriate governance arrangements are in place and therefore it is
suggested that the Monitoring Officer also submit his findings on this issue to
the Audit Committee on 29 January.
Page 2 of 2
Appendix A.
An Independent Review of the Council’s
Investigations into the Greyhound Opening/
Goldsmith Street Sheltered Housing Scheme
Phil Watson CBE, B Arch(hons), R.I.B.A., F.C.I.H
January 2009
Contents
Page Number
Background and Terms of Reference
3
Process
3
Links to disciplinary procedure
4
Lines of enquiry
4
Context
4
Was the action taken by officers in line with Council
policy and delegation?
5
Did the Chief Executive or any other senior officers
know about the issue at an earlier stage or if not, should
they have known?
6
Did any Members know about the issue at an earlier stage
or if not, should they have known?
8
Once the issue was known to the Chief Executive (and
other senior officers) did she take appropriate action?
9
What can be learnt from this issue to prevent or
minimise the likelihood of a future occurrence?
10
Summary
12
Further recommendations
13
Curriculum Vitae
14
2
An Independent Review of the Council’s Investigations into the
Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street Sheltered Housing Scheme
Phil Watson CBE
Background and Terms of Reference
I was commissioned by the Chief Executive to carry out an independent
review of the Council’s investigations into the Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street sheltered housing decommissioning.
In particular I was asked to check that it was conducted properly and that
its findings were justified.
In addition I was asked to report publicly on my findings and make any
recommendations about how a situation such as this could be prevented
from occurring in future.
I was not given a rigid timescale, except that the matter was urgent and
that my report should ideally be presented to the Executive Committee on
21st January 2009.
I was to be given freedom to interview any members or officers and
explore any further areas that I felt appropriate. The expectation was that a
large proportion of my work would be examining existing documents.
I am satisfied that I had sufficient time to carry out a proper and thorough
review on this basis within the timescale.
I would like to thank: the Chief Executive and senior and support staff for
their assistance and advice; and the party leaders for making
arrangements to speak to me at short notice, all of which helped me to
produce this report in a shorter timescale than would otherwise have been
the case.
Process
I was contacted by the Chief Executive on the 7th January 2009 and was
briefed by her that evening following the Executive Committee. On
Thursday 8th January I interviewed a number of officers and the party
leaders (or in one case their representative) either in person or by
telephone the following day. On Friday 9th January and into the following
week .I was mainly engaged upon checking the extensive documentary
evidence, where necessary re-interviewing, and finally checking for factual
accuracy leading to the production of this report.
3
Links to disciplinary procedure
As is known there is a parallel disciplinary procedure taking its course in
relation to a particular individual’s actions. In order not to ‘pollute’ that
disciplinary process and in order to protect the interests of that individual
and of the Council, I have not interviewed her or others directly involved. I
have however been able to access transcripts of interviews recorded as
part of that process where they are relevant to my review. I have taken
advice on this from the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer, and the
Head of Human Resources.
Whilst at the time of writing the Council has taken a decision to dismiss,
the individual concerned has appealed. Accordingly the dismissal decision
itself does not at this stage remove the need to keep these matters
separate.
In any event I am satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by my
covering the same ground. It would have been easier if the disciplinary
process had run its course before my review but I am content that there is
a need to resolve this matter expeditiously in reputational terms for the
Council.
Lines of enquiry
In terms of issues to be explored I have concentrated primarily on the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
Was the action taken by officers in line with Council policy and
delegations?
Did the Chief Executive or any other senior officers know about the
issue at an earlier stage or if not, should they have known ?
Did any Members know about the issue at an earlier stage or if not,
should they have known ?
Once the issue was known to the Chief Executive did she (and
other senior officers) take appropriate action to deal with the
matter?
What can be learnt from this issue to prevent or minimise the
likelihood of a future occurrence?
Context
In early 2007, consideration was given as to whether the Goldsmith
Sheltered Housing Scheme could be brought up to the Decent Homes and
Disability Discrimination Act Standard. This was triggered by a decision by
the County Council to decommission its adjacent sheltered housing.
Following officer reports and consultation with residents it was decided
that it was impractical to refurbish them and that they should be
demolished and replaced by more suitable housing on that site.
4
This meant that the scheme was to be de-commissioned and the residents
re-housed. De-commissioning of other houses at Barracks Street, a little
earlier, had led to significant problems and it was rightly considered that
lessons learnt from that experience should be used to formulate a process
for the removal of these elderly residents from Goldsmith Street. It was
clearly important that residents should be happy with their new location
and if this was to be achieved, realistically it would take some time for all
of the residents to move out.
The inevitable consequence of this would be that the last residents to
move out would be living in a run-down environment with houses boardedup for a period, unless an alternative solution was found. In order to
prevent this it was decided that the empty houses should be occupied on a
temporary basis until they were all demolished. It was also considered
appropriate to choose temporary tenants who were unlikely to cause
problems to the elderly residents and it was agreed, following an officer
evaluation of four options, that new staff joining the Council as part of their
relocation package could be housed in these properties on a temporary
basis.
This was all very sensible. So why did it lead to the present furore?
The first problem was that a much larger number of residents than was
expected moved out earlier than was expected. This meant that the
number of vacancies exceeded the number of new staff requiring
temporary accommodation. Therefore, if the Council’s overall policy
objective was to be met, there was a need to consider a wider group of
temporary tenants.
It was decided that this wider pool should be all Council employees
whether relocating or not. Although in practice this led to one or more
consequential issues, it was manageable and by and large met the
Council’s overall objective of not having elderly people living in
unsatisfactory surroundings.
Was the action taken by officers in line with Council policy and
delegation?
Whilst I am satisfied that the widening of eligibility for temporary tenancies
to all staff was done for the best of motives and to seek to satisfy the
Council’s overall aim, there is some dispute about who authorised this at
officer level. There is also a dispute about whether it was authorised at
Member level at all. The reports of the Director of Regeneration and
Development and the Monitoring Officer respectively are annexed to the
Chief Executive’s report to the Executive Committee on 7th January 2009
and give greater detail on these issues. The reports are thorough and
comprehensive. They basically outline that the decision to extend the
availability to all staff was procedurally unsound.
5
The report to the Executive of 21st March 2007 did have a
recommendation ‘to delegate to the Strategic Director-Community and
Neighbourhoods and the Head of Asset and City Management the power
to take all necessary incidental and ancillary steps to achieve the above’
i.e. to decommission the properties in the way the Council expected in
relation to the well being of elderly tenants. Whilst this authority is clearly
wide-ranging it is a stretch to understand it to allow a change of Council
policy of this nature without reference to the Executive and I agree with the
Director of Regeneration and Development’s assessment that it is
procedurally unsound.
Various statements have been made through the media by people no
longer in the positions they once occupied.
Some of this spills over into the disciplinary arena and there is a lack of
documentation which makes a definitive outcome which will satisfy
everyone extremely unlikely.
The more important issue is the need to put in place arrangements that
prevent the likelihood of a recurrence, an issue to which I shall return later
in this report.
Did the Chief Executive or any other senior officers know about the
issue at an earlier stage or if not, should they have known ?
I have seen nothing to suggest that the Chief Executive or a member of
the then Corporate Management Team, had any knowledge of the change
in Council policy with regard to temporary letting of these properties, other
than the former Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods. She
however asserted, as recorded in the Council’s transcript of an interview
she subsequently had with the Director of Regeneration and Development
and the Monitoring Officer, that this matter had been discussed at a
meeting of the Corporate Management Team in March 2007.This is
somewhat surprising as the policy did not change until July 2007 when it
became clear that residents were moving out in larger numbers much
earlier than expected. Indeed in May 2007 a letter to the residents from the
Resettlement Officer stated ‘Your new neighbours will be senior members
of staff from Norwich City Council who have just re-located to Norwich…’
In investigating this matter, the Director of Regeneration and Development
spoke to each member of the Corporate Management Team, none of
whom had any recollection of such a discussion, nor do any minutes of the
Corporate Management Team make reference to this.
I now move on to the issue of why it appears that only a limited number of
officers in the Strategic Housing section of the Neighbourhoods and
Community Department knew of this policy change. In particular, when an
6
advertisement for staff to apply for temporary tenancies at Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street appeared in the second edition of the staff
newsletter Inner City why did this not alert the most senior officers?
At first sight it would be expected that this would have alerted the Chief
Executive or other senior members of staff either in Community and
Neighbourhoods or other Council departments.
Whilst it is still surprising that this issue remained ‘off the radar’ of senior
officers, there are reasons why the staff newsletter might not have been
the most obvious ‘trigger’.
This was only the second edition and it majored on the Unitary bid. The
housing advertisement is in a side column (nib) and it does not actually
say that these are Council properties, although the location is named
which would probably mean that most senior people in the Council would
recognise it.
More importantly, I am advised that this newsletter is sent electronically to
those people on the system and only printed for those who are not. More
significantly it did not appear immediately on screen but it was necessary
to ‘click on’ to a header to access it.
Therefore it is not as immediately obvious as some sections of the media
have sought to make out.
However it is likely, indeed obvious, that some staff throughout the Council
were aware of the situation, for example some legal staff who discussed
the tenancy agreements. The Senior Solicitor, on becoming aware that
one of his staff was to occupy one of the properties, did discuss the form
of the tenancy agreements with the then Housing Strategy and Enabling
Manager. The discussion does not appear to have covered whether such
tenancies by staff had Council approval.
Of course a wider group of staff would have known, obviously any member
of staff seeking a tenancy, but it is only relevant if they also knew it was
contrary to Council policy and without either senior management or
political approval.
It is however surprising and a cause for concern that no members of the
Corporate Management Team, other than the former Director of
Communities and Neighbourhoods, appear to have been made aware of
the situation.
More senior officers should have been made aware of the change of
policy by the Director and Head of Service using normal and direct means,
and not have had to rely on some chance sighting.
7
Did any Members know about the issue at an earlier stage or if not,
should they have known ?
Firstly did any members know?
As regards to member involvement I have interviewed the Leader of the
Council, who was the portfolio holder for Growth and Development at the
time. He advises he had no knowledge of this and the then Executive
Member for Housing and Tenancy Services has been reported as having
no recollection of being briefed on this either. The Leader considers,
because of their close working relationship, and regular contact (being
close neighbours) that it would be inconceivable, had she known, for her
not to discuss it with him. There are conflicting reported public statements
on this issue from the former Director of Communities and
Neighbourhoods.
The great difficulty here is that as regards members’ involvement or
otherwise, and in particular in relation to officers’ involvement, there
appears to be an almost complete lack of any documentary evidence on
this issue. This leaves the most unsatisfactory position as to who to
believe when it appears to be one person’s word against another. I fully
understand the importance of trust here both within the Council, and in the
wider community, but it is difficult to see how far we get beyond the
present unsatisfactory position.
However, more importantly, even if any members had known, they would
have not been able to authorise a change of policy without Executive
approval as there is no delegation to individual portfolio holders.
Secondly, should any members have known?
As this was a change in policy with political implications at least initially
certain key members should have been advised by officers of the reason
for a proposed change in policy and agreed an appropriate route through
the Council’s decision-making process.
This applies before the matter was brought into the public arena, by the
Head of Neighbourhood and Strategic Housing Services taking advantage
of the policy sometime later.
The Head of Neighbourhood and Strategic Housing Services’ actions are
related more to Code of Conduct issues and are being considered through
the disciplinary process. However, there is a wider issue worthy of
consideration which relates to the scheme of delegation and to scrutiny.
Even where an officer has a particular delegation he/she should also be
aware of any political sensitivities, firstly testing these through his/her
managerial chain, and then alerting the appropriate portfolio member. A
8
decision would then be made as to whether or not the issue should go to
the Executive or other decision-making body.
In my experience some of the issues which cause most political
controversy can be those delegated to officers at quite low levels.
Again I will return later in the report to recommendations in this regard.
Once the issue was known to the Chief Executive (and other senior
officers) did she take appropriate action?
On becoming aware of the issue the Chief Executive took immediate
action which led to the suspension of the Head of Neighbourhood and
Strategic Housing Services. She instructed the Director of Regeneration
and Development to report to her the process by which staff came to be
living in the properties and whether appropriate decision-making
processes where followed. She also instructed the Monitoring Officer to
report to her on whether there are appropriate safeguards in place where
there may be potential Officer conflicts of interest, and on any proposals to
improve procedures.
I consider these actions to be appropriate in the circumstances.
Both reports are part of the Chief Executive’s composite report to the
Executive on 7th January (attached), but in essence the Director of
Regeneration and Development concluded that processes followed in
relation to the decommissioning of the housing complex were sound
except for the occupation by staff.
The Monitoring Officer concluded that there were appropriate safeguards
in place but they were not followed in this instance.
The Monitoring Officer made a series of recommendations which were
approved by the Executive namely:
•
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct be amended to include the
Chief Executive and Directors.
•
The Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees be
amended to include reference to the Chief Executive Officer,
Directors and Heads of Services’ personal relationships with staff
being recorded in the Register of Interests.
•
various other managerial and administrative improvements
The Director of Regeneration and Development produced a full and
comprehensive report without specific recommendations, but I know from
him he took immediate action to clear up so far as possible any ‘loose
9
ends’ in relation to temporary lettings to ensure an unfettered site for
development.
I also discussed with him the need for a clearly laid down
decommissioning policy for any future initiatives, set in the wider strategic
context, which he was already considering.
I am satisfied that, once it had become apparent, the Chief Executive and
the Council took appropriate and timely action to deal with this matter thus
far and I agree with the recommendations accepted by the Executive on
7th January 2009.
I do however have some further comments and potential further courses of
action outlined below.
What can be learnt from this issue to prevent or minimise the
likelihood of a future occurrence?
This issue would never have received so much public prominence or
caused so much damage to the Council’s reputation if the Head of
Neighbourhood and Housing Services had not moved into the property
with her partner. That was a serious error of judgement and is being
addressed through the Council’s disciplinary processes.
In order to deal with the reputational issues and to assuage opinion both
inside the Council, and more widely, I was asked to carry out this review. I
hope it serves that purpose but that is for others to judge.
Notwithstanding that this issue would not otherwise have become so
public, it does not diminish the need to ensure the Council has in place
appropriate mechanisms to allow members to carry out their Executive
and Scrutiny roles. Equally officers need to have clear delegations to
proceed with the multitude of decisions that are taken day to day, but
within an overall policy framework set by Members.
It is important that there is a clear understanding of the relative roles of
officers and Members, in that Members are responsible for setting policy
and officers for applying it. However there are times when the way in
which a policy is administered has political implications and in those cases
it is incumbent on the officer core to seek the appropriate political
guidance or approval.
The great danger, when something as high profile as the present case
arises, is to over-react, not to the seriousness attached to it, but in terms of
the proportionality of the measures to seek to address the problem.
However I do feel there is scope for joint Member/officer discussions to
consider the relationship between the present level of delegation, portfolio
responsibilities, and scrutiny.
10
Nevertheless the real key to this is trust and mutual understanding and
respect, and no amount of detailed pouring over the scheme of delegation
would prevent the likelihood of an occurrence of this issue. It is more to do
with regular member briefings (some of which I believe have started), and
political awareness of in particular middle managers - this latter point I feel
could be the subject of strengthening in the training programme - but also
some joint officer/member training in this regard.
All of this however needs to be proportionate and considered against
some of the bigger capacity issues for the Council in particular unitary
status. In any event a decision to move to unitary status in whatever
configuration would mean a new set of members with a new set of wider
responsibilities, so any detailed work on delegation or portfolios would be
out of date before it could be implemented. It may however be more useful
for this to be considered in relation to the style and kind of operation of a
unitary authority where the scope is so large that significant levels of
delegation are inevitable.
Nevertheless the basic principles are the same.
I understand that work of this nature is not yet underway in preparation for
unitary status.
However it will still be necessary to run the existing Council, to which these
matters relate, in parallel with any transitional arrangements.
More specifically as mentioned earlier I feel, as there are likely to be future
decommissioning schemes, that the Director of Regeneration and
Development should be instructed to bring forward a detailed
implementation policy set against the Council’s wider strategic housing
aims, to be considered by members.
In addition, whilst this may only have been a contributory factor in this
specific case, there has been considerable turnover in supervision of the
Head of Neighbourhood and Strategic Housing Services in a very short
space of time .This however does not obviate the personal responsibility of
the Head of Neighbourhood and Housing Services. I consider it essential
that a permanent management structure is devised and populated as soon
as possible, notwithstanding any continuing disciplinary issues, or financial
pressures.
11
Summary
The fundamental points are these:
•
This situation would not have gained such a high profile had the Head
of Neighbourhood and Strategic Housing Services not moved into one
of the properties with her partner.
That brought negative reputational issues for the Council.
•
The change of policy to allow all Council staff to be considered for
temporary tenancies at Greyhound Opening, although understandable
and seeking to deliver the Council’s wider policy objective in relation to
the remaining elderly residents, was procedurally unsound.
•
The Corporate Management Team should have known earlier than
they did, but should not have had to rely on ‘chance sightings’.
•
Whether any Members were told remains a matter of disagreement,
but no Member individually would have been able to authorise such a
change anyway.
•
I am satisfied that once the issue was apparent swift and appropriate
action was taken.
•
In seeking to prevent a re-occurrence of such an event it is important
that any changes are proportionate, have regard to the overall capacity
of the Council and have regard to the possible imminent transition to a
unitary authority.
12
Further recommendations
In relation to the above I would make the following recommendations in
addition to those already approved at the Executive on 7th January 2009
•
Joint all party Member/officer discussions take place on the interrelationship between portfolio responsibilities, the scheme of delegation
and Scrutiny. Such discussions to be mindful of the overall capacity of
the Council and a potential move to unitary status
•
Strengthening of officer training in political awareness, and joint
Member/officer training.
•
The Director of Regeneration and Development be instructed to
produce a policy document on future de-commissioning of Council
Housing stock for consideration by the Executive.
•
Subject to the outstanding disciplinary appeals process, the Director of
Regeneration and Development be authorised to fill key vacant posts in
the housing section, preferably on a permanent basis, as a matter of
urgency.
Phil Watson CBE, B Arch(hons), R.I.B.A., F.C.I.H
January 2009
13
Philip Stuart Watson (Phil)
Specialist Skills
•
Leadership
•
Change Management/Unitary Local Government
•
Housing Market Renewal
•
Shared services
•
Public Service Boards/Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs)
•
Reputation Management
•
Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA)/Performance
Management
•
Capacity building
•
Community cohesion
•
Mentoring
Profile
Phil is a former local authority Chief Executive, having led Blackburn with Darwen
Council for nine years until retirement in October 2006. As Chief Executive he led
the change over from a two-tier district to what is regarded as one of the leading
and most innovative Councils in the country. The Council has also had the top
'excellent' or 4 start rating in CPA.
He oversaw the establishment of a groundbreaking 15 year public private
partnership with Capita, still regarded as one of the leading such partnerships in the
country five years on, the transfer of the Councils' housing stock and the LGC
Council of the Year award in 2002. The Council has won many awards, most
recently in relation to community cohesion 'Belonging to Blackburn with Darwen'.
Phil is particularly strong on strategic leadership, the political interface, performance
management and reputation management of Councils.
Several years ago Phil led the Council's contribution to the award winning two series
of Granada Television's documentaries 'Are you being serviced?' which highlighted
the work of Council departments and which raised the public perception of the
Council.
He is well known to the most senior civil servants having attended the Permanent
Secretaries 'Sunningdale' away sessions for the last nine years and presented to
them on Local Strategic Partnerships, Public Service Agreements and Public Service
14
Boards.
His Council has operated one of the first and most effective Public Service Boards,
achieving impressive cross-sectoral efficiencies.
Phil was also heavily involved with the Audit Commission in the early development of
the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) and with various government
departments in the development of LSPs, PSAs.
He has also been a negotiator on behalf of Government Office North West and
partners with Brussels for past European Objective 2 programmes (GMLC).
Phil was also, until his retirement, Chair of the North West Improvement Network
(NWIN) Executive Board, which administers capacity building funds for the whole of
the North West and is regarded as one of the leaders in its field.
Blackburn with Darwen carries out extensive work with neighbouring Hyndburn
Borough Council.
Until his retirement Phil was also a Director of the Lancashire Economic Partnership
and Elevate - the Housing Market Renewal pathfinder for East Lancashire.
Phil's particular strengths are therefore in leadership, capacity building, shared
services, reputation management, community cohesion and the officer/political
interface and as a SOLACE Associate he wishes to undertake assignments relevant to
these issues.
Key Career Achievements
1997 - 1998
- Successful change over from two-tier district to Unitary Council.
2000-established ground-breaking public/private partnership with Capita.
2000 - Transfer of Council's housing stock to social landlords
2002 - present - The Council is top rated 'excellent' or '4 star' in CPA
15
2002 - joint winner of LGC Council of the Year
2005 - appointed Chair of North West Improvement Network (capacity building)
Employment Record
1997 to 2006 - Chief Executive, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
1995 - 1997 - Deputy Chief Executive, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
1985 - 1996 - Assistant Chief Executive, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
1968 - 1985 - Various posts leading to Deputy Borough Architect, Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council
Educational and Professional Qualifications
Bachelor of Architecture with honours (B.Arch (Hons))
Sheffield University 1968
Membership of Professional Organisations
Royal Institute of British Architects(RIBA) 1970
Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing (FCIH) 1975
Public and Voluntary Appointments
Governor of Blackburn College (FEand HE) 2005
Personal Details
16
Driving Licence
Yes
17
Report to
Executive
7 January 2009
Report of
Chief Executive
Subject
Results of Investigation into Greyhound Opening /
Goldsmith Street
5
Purpose
To report on the results of the investigations into how decommissioned sheltered
housing units at Greyhound Opening / Goldsmith Street came to be occupied by
staff of the city council, and to make recommendations as to any further action that
is required to safeguard the Council and its actions in future.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
• The monitoring officer’s recommendations are adopted
• The council’s relocation assistance scheme for new employees
ceases the provision of council accommodation on a temporary
basis.
The staff occupying temporary accommodation have been given notice to quit by
the end of January resulting in a loss of rent to the Housing Revenue Account.
As properties are vacated they will be boarded up. When all properties are vacated
they will be demolished.
Risk Assessment
This report is brought forward to minimise the risk of unsound decisions being
taken in the future and to encourage the proper declaration of interests.
Strategic Priority and Outcome/Service Priorities
To improve the quality of the housing stock and increase the number of affordable
housing units.
Executive Member: Councillor Arthur - Housing and Adult Services
Ward: Mancroft
Contact Officers
Laura McGillivray
01603 212001
John Jones
01603 212440
Jerry Massey
01603 212225
Attached Documents
Annex A
Report of the Monitoring Officer
Annex B
Report of the Director of Regeneration and Development
Annex C
Map of site
Annex D
Executive report of 21 March 2007 (Items 12 & 14 below the line not
attached)
Annex E
Minutes of Executive meeting of 21 March 2007
Annex F
Frequently asked questions about Greyhound Opening / Goldsmith
Street.
Report
Background
I launched a full investigation following a press enquiry by the Times newspaper
about a story that council staff were living in decommissioned sheltered housing
who were not staff who were being temporarily housed under the Council’s
relocation policy.
I immediately commissioned two reports:
The first was from the monitoring officer to investigate whether appropriate
safeguards are in place where there may be potential Officer conflicts of interests. I
also asked him to report back with proposals to improve procedures (which protect
the interests of both the Council and Officers).
The second was from the Director of Regeneration and Development to investigate
the process by which staff came to be living in the properties and whether
appropriate decision making processes were followed. Specifically processes
which related to:
a) declaring the sheltered units at Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Road
unfit for purpose;
b) decommissioning the housing complex and resettling the residents into
new homes;
c) the occupation of the vacated units on a temporary basis, by staff
employed by Norwich City Council; and
d) identifying the development partner and scheme for the redevelopment
of the sheltered housing site and neighbouring property.
These investigations have now concluded and the reports are attached at annex A
and annex B.
The reports do not cover any steps that have been taken of a disciplinary nature or
any specific evidence that might relate to or prejudice a disciplinary hearing.
Conclusions
Are appropriate safeguards in place where there may be potential conflicts of
interest and can we improve processes to protect the interests of the council
and the staff?
Yes
The report found that adequate safeguards are in place to protect the Council and
individual members of staff but they were not followed in this case.
The report found that the following procedures are in place to make staff aware of
the need to declare either a financial or non-financial interest that could be seen to
conflict with the Council’s interests or could cause conduct to be questioned.
• Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees.
• Regular reminders are sent to staff via Innercity.
• A copy of the Code of Conduct is given to all new staff as part of their induction
and is included in the Staff Handbook.
• The Code of Conduct forms part of the Council’s constitution.
Copies of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees have
been provided to Heads of Service in both the Constitution, Staff Handbook and on
Workforce
Code of conduct
Paragraph 10 of Appendix 14 of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Local
Government Employees constitution deals with Personal Interests.
Paragraph 10.1 states –
‘You must declare to your Head of Service any financial or non financial interests
that you consider could conflict with the Council’s interests, or could cause your
conduct to be questioned. Such interests must be registered with the Corporate
Governance Officer.’
Paragraph 15.4 of the Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees states
that interests should be registered with the Corporate Governance Officer.
In addition, some professional bodies such as the chartered institute of housing
have their own code of conduct.
Paragraph 2.7 of the Institute’s Code of Conduct states:‘members must take steps to ensure that their private, personal, political and
financial interests do not conflict with their professional duties. They must disclose
to their employer, or if self employed to any relevant clients, any such direct or
indirect interests (including those of their immediate family, i.e. parents, spouse,
children and siblings), which may affect or appear to affect decisions made by their
employers, clients or customers, and they must not influence, or appear to
influence, such decisions’?
The monitoring officer has made a number of recommendations as follows:
•
That paragraph 10.1 of the Code of Conduct be amended to include the
Chief Executive Officer and Directors.
•
That the Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees be amended to
include reference to the Chief Executive Officer, Directors and Head of
Services’ personal relationship with staff being recorded in the Register of
Interests.
•
Staff should sign to abide by the Code of Conduct when accepting a new
position.
•
The process of all staff acknowledging and confirming they have read key
policies of the Council be reviewed.
•
Consideration to be given to formal probity training to all staff.
•
The process of recording 1:1 supervision sessions be reviewed.
Were appropriate decision-making processes followed in relation to:
a) the declaration of the sheltered units at Greyhound Opening /
Goldsmith Road as unfit for purpose
Yes
Although there is no written policy or procedure to provide a framework to
identify properties that are not fit for purpose, the process followed at
Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street included an evaluation process and
was approved by the Executive.
b) decommissioning the housing complex and the resettlement of
residents to new homes.
Yes
The process was adequately resourced, properly managed, well
documented and sensitive to the vulnerable circumstances of the tenants.
The decision to decommission the sheltered units was approved by the
Executive.
The investigation has, however, highlighted that there was no written policy
on decommissioning to provide a framework for subsequent implementation
of this decision by officers.
c) the occupation of the vacated units on a temporary basis by staff
employed by Norwich City Council.
No
The investigation has identified that the decision to use the vacated housing
on a temporary letting arrangement for staff was not documented, did not
adequately assess the risks and failed to appreciate the full implications of
the departure from the approved and very specific policy of providing
accommodation to staff joining the authority from outside the City.
The decision was based on an officer assessment of the options including
an appraisal of their potential impact on residents during a decommissioning
process estimated to take 2 years as well as a general assessment of the
associated financial costs.
The investigation has highlighted that of all the factors considered by
officers the overriding consideration was the protection of vulnerable and
elderly residents during a period of significant change and uncertainty.
d) the identification of the development partner and the scheme for
redevelopment of the sheltered housing site and neighbouring
property.
Yes
This process accords with exemplary practice, is well documented and was
approved by the Executive. All the land owning, development partner and
design procurement arrangements are clearly documented, procedurally
sound and have been approved by the Executive. Overall, the approach to
the redevelopment of this site could be considered to be an example of
exemplary practice.
Annex A
I have been asked by the Chief Executive Officer to conduct an investigation
as the Councils Monitoring Officer and report back to her within 10 working
days.
I have been asked to investigate the following:(1) Were appropriate decision making processes followed which led to
Council Officers occupying sheltered housing accommodation at
Greyhound Opening?
(2) Are there appropriate safeguards in place where there may be
potential Officer conflicts of interests?
(3) Report back with proposals to improve procedures (which protect the
interests of both the Council and Officers).
With regard to (1) above, subsequently to being requested to undertake this
investigation, it was agreed with the Chief Executive Officer that as this part of
the investigation was also included within the Terms of Reference of the
investigation being undertaken by the Director of Regeneration and
Development that I would not report on it.
I have not included in the report any specific evidence in the application or
lack of application of the Council’s policies and procedures as they might form
part of a disciplinary process.
Paragraph 10 of Appendix 14 of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Local
Government Employees constitution deals with Personal Interests.
Paragraph 10.1 states –
‘You must declare to your Head of Service any financial or non financial
interests that you consider could conflict with the Council’s interests, or could
cause your conduct to be questioned. Such interests must be registered with
the Corporate Governance Officer.’
This paragraph of the Code of Conduct refers to staff reporting interests to a
Head of Service. It is my view that where a Head of Service has an interest,
the Code of Conduct should be interpreted that a Head of Service must
declare an interest to his/her Corporate Director or Chief Executive Officer.
Similarly, Corporate Directors must report their interest to the Chief Executive
Officer. The Chief Executive Officer would be expected to report his/her
interest to the Monitoring Officer.
Paragraph 15.4 of the Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees
states that interests should be registered with the Corporate Governance
Officer.
Page 1 of 4
Annex A
Updated copies of the Constitution were last provided to all Heads of Service
by the Democratic Services Team of the Legal and Democratic Service in
August 2008.
Reminders about the Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees are
published twice a year in InnerCity. Such reminders were last published on 18
February and 23 June 2008.
The Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees is drawn to the
attention of all staff as part of their induction process and is included in the
Staff Handbook which has been issued to all staff in 2007.
Individual Contracts of Employment for all staff refer to the terms and
conditions covered by the National Joint Council for Local Government
Services.
Included in the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (Green
Book) is the following paragraph:2. Official Conduct
2.1 Employees will maintain conduct of the highest standard such that public
confidence in their integrity is sustained’.
All staff are expected to confirm on their individual online Workforce record
that they have read and understood the responsibilities of a range of policies.
The Code of Conduct for Local Government employees is one of the policies
listed. Guidelines are located on Workforce for employees, on how to record
personal details, update contact information and acknowledge that corporate
policies have been read and understood.
Most professional bodies have their own Code of Conduct, for example the
Chartered Institute of Housing paragraph 2.7 states:‘members must take steps to ensure that their private, personal, political and
financial interests do not conflict with their professional duties. They must
disclose to their employer, or if self employed to any relevant clients, any such
direct or indirect interests (including those of their immediate family, i.e.
parents, spouse, children and siblings), which may affect or appear to affect
decisions made by their employers, clients or customers, and they must not
influence, or appear to influence, such decisions’?
Appendix 20A of the Constitution sets out the Council’s Code of Governance
which is about how the Council’s ensures it is doing the right things, the right
way, for the right people, in a timely, inclusive, open, honest and accountable
manner. Two of the principles of good governance are –
-
Promoting values for the Council and demonstrating the values of good
governance through upholding high standards of conduct and
behaviour.
Page 2 of 4
Annex A
-
Taking informal and transparent decisions which are subject to
effective scrutiny and managing risk.
A requirement of the Code of Governance is to develop and maintain open
and effective mechanisms for documenting evidence for decisions and
recording the criteria, rationale and considerations on which decisions are
based.
Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy
This strategy covers ‘the requirement to disclose an interest in order to gain
financial or other pecuniary benefit.’ This policy was revised in November
2008 and adopted by the Audit Committee on 28 November 2008.
Summary
The following procedures are in place to make staff aware of the need to
declare either a financial or non-financial interest that could be seen to conflict
with the Council’s interests or could cause conduct to be questioned.
• Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees.
• Regular reminders are sent to staff via Innercity.
• A copy of the Code of Conduct is given to all new staff as part of their
induction and is included in the Staff Handbook.
• The Code of Conduct forms part of the Council’s constitution.
Copies of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees
have been provided to Heads of Service in both the Constitution, Staff
Handbook and on Workforce.
It is HR and Learning’s normal practice to provide a copy of the Code of
Conduct for Local Government Employees with a Contract of Employment.
Conclusion
Adequate safeguards are in place to protect the Council and individual
members of staff but they were not followed in this case.
Recommendations
•
That paragraph 10.1 of the Code of Conduct be amended to include
the Chief Executive Officer and Directors.
•
That the Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees be
amended to include reference to the Chief Executive Officer, Directors
and Head of Services’ personal relationship with staff being recorded in
the Register of Interests.
Page 3 of 4
Annex A
•
Staff should sign to abide by the Code of Conduct when accepting a
new position.
•
The process of all staff acknowledging and confirming they have read
key policies of the Council be reviewed.
•
Consideration to be given to formal probity training to all staff.
•
The process of recording 1:1 supervision sessions be reviewed.
John Jones
Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Monitoring Officer
Page 4 of 4
Annex B
1
1.1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to record the decision making process that was
followed to:
•
•
•
•
declare the sheltered units at Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Road
unfit for purpose;
decommission the housing complex and resettle the residents into
new homes;
occupy the vacated units on a temporary basis by staff employed by
Norwich City Council; and
identify the development partner and scheme for the redevelopment
of the sheltered housing site and neighbouring property.
This report has been prepared at the request of the Chief Executive following
a disclosure that a senior member of staff had moved in to a vacant unit on a
temporary letting arrangement.
1.2
Current employees and staff who have left the organisation, with
responsibility for this service area and the relevant current and previous
portfolio holder have been interviewed as part of this investigation.
1.3
Based on the assessment of the above matters the main conclusions of this
investigation are as follows:
1.4
Section 2 of this report assesses the process leading to the recommendation
to decommission and redevelop the sheltered housing units at Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street and together with the surrounding commercial
units owned by the City Council and with residential property owned by the
County Council, for a mixed tenure housing scheme. It concludes that
although there is no written policy or procedure to provide a framework to
identify properties that are not fit for purpose, the process followed at
Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street included an evaluation process and
was approved by the Executive.
1.5
Section 3 of this report assesses the process followed to resettle the
residents into new homes. It concludes that it was adequately resourced,
properly managed, well documented and sensitive to the vulnerable
circumstances of the tenants. The decision to decommission the sheltered
units was approved by the Executive. The investigation has, however,
highlighted that there was no written policy on decommissioning to provide a
framework for subsequent implementation of this decision by officers.
1.6
Section 4 of this report assesses the process followed for the temporary
occupation of the vacant housing units by staff. It concludes that it was
based on an officer assessment of the options including an appraisal of their
potential impact on residents during a decommissioning process estimated to
take 2 years as well as a general assessment of the associated financial
12/29/2008
Page 1 of 10
Annex B
costs.
1.7
In assessing the decommissioning options officers took into account the
lessons of recent resettlement projects at Foulgers Court sheltered housing
scheme and the general needs housing at Barrack Street.
1.8
The investigation has highlighted that of all the factors considered by officers
the overriding consideration was the protection of vulnerable and elderly
residents during a period of significant change and uncertainty.
1.9
Notwithstanding this, the investigation has also identified that the decision to
use the vacated housing units for temporary letting arrangements for staff
was not documented, did not adequately assess the risks and failed to
appreciate the full implications of the departure from the approved and very
specific policy for providing accommodation to staff joining the authority from
outside the City.
1.10 The investigation has shown that the decision to use the vacated properties
for staff accommodation under the Council’s relocation policy for new
employees was taken at Director level (the then Director of Community and
Neighbourhoods) with responsibility for establishing the process for
implementation, including appropriate safeguards resting with the acting
Head of Strategic Housing together with the Housing Strategic and Enabling
Manager. After some three months of applying this letting strategy there was
a change in the eligibility criteria that enabled any member of staff to apply for
accommodation and this was offered on a first come first served basis.
There was no assessment of housing need and there was no written
procedure for allocating these tenancies.
1.11 The lack of documentation means that most of the evidence used in this part
of the investigation is based on the recollections of those interviewed of
discussions held, decisions made and actions taken over a 1 to 2 year
period. Therefore there are some differences in the evidence presented.
1.12 The section concludes that the officer decision to extend the eligibility for
housing to all staff on a first come first served basis is procedurally unsound.
1.13 Section 5 of the report considers the process adopted for the selection of the
development partner and the use of a design competition to develop a
scheme for the site. The conclusion is that this process accords with
exemplary practice, is well documented and was approved by the Executive
12/29/2008
Page 2 of 10
Annex B
2
Decommissioning of council housing at Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith
Street
2.1
This section of the report assesses the process leading to the
recommendation to redevelop the sheltered housing units at Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street and surrounding commercial units owned by the
City Council together with residential property owned by the County Council.
A map showing the different ownerships is attached.
2.2
The main factors that led to a recommendation to the Executive on the 21st
March 2007 to decommission 25 sheltered housing units and a former
wardens house at Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street were that:
2.2 (i) Norfolk County Council announced the closure of Alderman Clarke
House, a sheltered housing complex adjacent to the City Council owned
properties. This site was allocated in the 2004 adopted local plan for housing.
2.2 (ii) An adjacent industrial site of 10 small units (Haslips Opening) was
owned by the City Council and was also allocated in the 2004 adopted local
plan for housing.
2.2 (iii) There is no agreed procedure for how ‘not fit for purpose’ housing
units are identified. In this instance Landlord Services, the section
responsible for the management of the Council’s housing stock, identified that
the 15 one bedroom bungalows and 10 one bedroom corridor units at
Goldsmiths Street/Greyhound Opening did not meet the decent homes
standard and because of their internal layout and poor thermal insulation they
would be both difficult and expensive to adapt to meet current standards
including DDA compliance. They also noted that the corridor units were
proving to be difficult to let although at the time the decision was taken to
decommission the units they were all occupied. In this context Landlord
Services considered the properties were not fit for purpose and would be
appropriate for decommissioning.
2.3
Having regard to the above matters, the Strategic Housing section, who lead
the Council’s affordable housing delivery programme, commenced during the
second half of 2006 an assessment of the development potential of the
above sites. At an early stage the implications for existing tenants of this
approach were acknowledged as an important consideration. There is a
range of documentation recording the various meetings and assessment
undertaken as part of the complex analysis of the development potential for
this area.
2.4
The outcome of the assessment by the strategic housing team was
presented in a report to the Executive on the 21st March 2007 (Copy
attached). In the report officers recommend the disposal of Council owned
land at Greyhound Opening for new affordable housing and the inclusion of
the site in a wider development scheme. Confidential matters relating to the
financial detail of the various elements of the land disposal including the
implications for third party interests were considered in a separate
confidential report to the same meeting of the Executive.
12/29/2008
Page 3 of 10
Annex B
2.5
The following 9 resolutions were made by the Executive:
• resettle the current residents of 30-48 Goldsmith Street and 4-18
Greyhound Opening to properties according to their individual needs
and agreed preferences;
• establish the post of Greyhound Opening Resettlement Officer to
facilitate the above;
• dispose of the Council’s interest in the land to enable the provision of
new affordable housing;
• work with Norfolk County Council to facilitate a development site for new
affordable housing;
• delegate to the Strategic Director – Community and Neighbourhoods
and the Head of Asset and City Management the power to take the
incidental and ancillary steps to achieve the above;
• note the financial consequences of the development of the site at
Greyhound Opening for new affordable housing;
• note the options relating to a property on the periphery of the site and
delegate the implementation of the tenants’ agreed option to the
Strategic Director – Community and Neighbourhoods;
• approve the methodology of costs incurred in site assembly being
reimbursed by the Registered Social Landlord who purchases the site
from Norwich City Council; and
• ask the Group Leaders to consider a response to the County Council at
their next meeting.
2.6
Combined the above decisions of the Executive provided a clear instruction,
with appropriate supporting delegation, for officers to progress the
redevelopment of this site. It is noted that there is no explicit reference to any
interim letting arrangements in either the resolutions or covering report.
2.7
In conclusion, the process followed to reach a decision to decommission the
housing units at Goldsmith Street/Greyhound opening is well documented
and the decision making process is transparent, sound and was, in
accordance with the constitution of the Council, taken by the Executive.
3
Resettlement of the residents of the sheltered housing units at
Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street
3.1
This section of the report assesses the process followed to resettle the
residents. As recorded in the report to the Executive on the 21st March 2007
(attached) the engagement of tenants (and where appropriate their families)
to explain the potential impact of any decision to decommission the sheltered
units had commenced in Mid February 2007. This approach ensured that
from the outset residents were aware of the potential redevelopment scheme
in advance of it being announced publicly.
3.2
The March 2007 report to the Executive highlighted four important elements
of the resettlement process:
3.3
Firstly, residents would be resettled to alternative accommodation in
accordance to their needs and preferences.
12/29/2008
Page 4 of 10
Annex B
3.4
Secondly, a post of Resettlement Officer would be established to help
facilitate this process (this was in addition to the on-site warden).
3.5
Thirdly, that all tenants would be eligible for home loss payments (maximum
£4,000 in March 2007) to cover incidental costs of relocating and all removal
costs would be met by the City Council.
3.6
Finally, it was estimated that the relocation of the 25 tenants would take 2
years (i.e. be completed by early 2009).
3.7
The minutes of the March 2007 Executive meeting record that 2 residents
from the complex attended the meeting and that one tenant took the
opportunity to address members. The minutes record that in addressing the
meeting the residents supported the development of the site for affordable
units.
3.8
There is no written procedure for the process to be followed for the
resettlement of residents. Notwithstanding this there is detailed documentary
evidence recording various group and individual meetings with residents, the
assessment of their needs and aspirations for resettlement and the financial
arrangements associated with their relocation.
3.9
The first resident was resettled to new accommodation in April 2007 and by
the end of June 2007 7 properties had been vacated. The last tenancy was
surrendered on the 27th July 2008. The resettlement officer’s workbook notes
and the formal records of tenant submitting to the City Council their notice to
quit their property to move to other Council accommodation, show that almost
all of the relocations (22 out of 25) took place within the first 12 months of the
Executive decision to decommission.
3.10 In conclusion, the process followed for the resettlement of the tenants
resulted in residents voluntarily moving to accommodation that met their
needs and in a location of their choice. All tenants were advised from an early
date that the Council wished to decommission their property and were
informed of what this meant for them. In this instance no tenant was served
with a notice to quit their accommodation because they all voluntarily
surrendered their tenancy. A key reason for this is that the appointment of a
resettlement officer, with experience of the then current resettlement
schemes at Barrack Street, with specific responsibility to handle all aspects of
the resettlement process, helped to ensure that the needs of tenants were
given a high priority. The resettlement process was achieved ahead of
schedule. In addition to the work of the resettlement officer the presence of a
warden on site for most of the resettlement period helped to ensure that
tenants and their families were able to seek advice on all aspects of the
decommissioning of the sheltered housing complex.
3.11 As noted above, although the Council had decommissioned other housing
units there were no written procedures for the process to be followed.
Therefore, the decision making arrangements surrounding the
decommissioning of Goldsmith Street/Greyhound Opening were based on
12/29/2008
Page 5 of 10
Annex B
the experience of the officers involved and the practical steps necessary to
resettle residents. There is no evidence that the absence of a policy on the
decommissioning of council properties had any deleterious impact on tenants
but, as shown in Section 4 below, it did have serious implications for the
interim letting arrangements for these properties. The documentary evidence
shows that overall the resettlement process worked well, was completed
within the envisaged timescale and, although based on the need to obtain
vacant possession, it was sensitive to the needs of vulnerable and elderly
residents.
4
Temporary use of the vacated sheltered housing units at Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street for accommodation for employees of Norwich
City Council
4.1
The purpose of this section of the report is to assess the decision making
process followed for the temporary occupation by staff of the vacated housing
units at Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street.
4.2
The March 2007 report to the Executive identified the vulnerable nature of
elderly residents within the development but did not contain any reference to
how the vacated units would be secured during the estimated 2 year
decommissioning process.
4.3
There is limited documentation explaining the reasons why a decision was
taken to use the vacated units for temporary letting arrangements for staff but
what is available shows that officers had, at the time of the report to the
Executive, concluded that to protect the existing tenants the course of action
would be to let vacant properties to staff. Almost all the information arising
from the interviews confirm that the whole re-letting process was planned,
organised and implemented by staff in the strategic housing section.
Officer(s) in the Strategic Housing Section also prepared the tenancy
agreements. The properties were let on the basis of temporary letting
arrangements that could be terminated by one months notice from either
party. In October 2007 there was a discussion between legal services and
strategic housing on the form of the tenancy arrangements.
4.4
In the absence of documentation, the interviews with the existing and
previous senior officers directly responsible for this decision (i.e. the former
Director of Community and Neighbourhoods, the then acting Head of
Strategic Housing and the former development Housing Strategy and
Enabling Officer) have provided an explanation of why this approach was
considered to be the most appropriate.
4.5
Firstly, the officers confirmed that they considered four main options of how
the vacated units could be managed:
(i)
The properties could be boarded up and made secure against
unauthorised trespass/squatting;
(ii) The properties could be let on short term tenancies to people on the
waiting list or homeless individuals awaiting the outcome of the
assessment of eligibility for accommodation;
12/29/2008
Page 6 of 10
Annex B
(iii) The properties could be occupied through temporary letting
arrangements by private sector tenants under a guardianship
contract with a private company; and
(iv) The properties could be let to Council employees as part of the
package of relocation measures contained in the Council’s
employment scheme for new employees moving to Norwich.
4.6
Secondly, the officers stated that each option was assessed first and
foremost alongside the potential impact they would have on the residents and
secondly against the potential cost. In undertaking the assessment, Officers
did have regard to the then current and ongoing unsatisfactory and expensive
experience of applying options (i) and (ii) to vacated and decommissioned
properties at Barrack Street and to the cost of adopting option (iii) to the
decommissioning of the former county council and city council sheltered units
at Foulgers Opening (which were vacated in 2004). The conclusion of this
assessment process (which is not documented) was that officers considered
that the least disruptive approach for tenants and the most cost effective
approach for the council would be to let the properties to staff.
4.7
Residents were formally notified of this decision in May 2007. The
correspondence sent to the residents dated 11th May 2007 states that
vacated properties would be let to council staff relocating to the area. This
approach is in line with the council relocation assistance scheme for new
employees. The resettlement officer recalls that when residents were
informed of this decision, they did not object to the proposal and were
satisfied that this arrangement would maintain both the security and
residential feel of the complex.
4.8
The rent charged for Council staff was the same as the basic rent any tenant
would pay for occupation of the units (currently £46.89). However this would
be lower than that charged to the elderly residents occupying properties at
Goldsmith Roan/Greyhound Opening because it excluded payment for
specific services provided to the elderly tenants. For comparison purposes
the charges for 2008/09 would be as follows:Basic Rent: £46.89
Alarm Service: £3.07
Support Charge: £11.84
Sheltered Service Charge: £7.51
Total inclusive rent (basic rent + service charges) = £69.31
4.9
During the 3 month period between May and July 2007 this letting process
changed from the application of an existing employment relocation policy to a
new approach that opened up the scope for letting properties to all staff.
The only written record of this change in approach is the following article in
the 30 July 2007 edition of the weekly staff newsletter, ‘inner city’ inviting
applications from staff. It should be noted that the level of rent quoted was
an error and the actual rent was as shown in paragraph 4.8 above. The
article was as follows:
12/29/2008
Page 7 of 10
Annex B
Need somewhere to live?
There are several vacant properties at Greyhound Opening (on
Goldsmith Street), a short walk from the City Centre, being offered
exclusively to staff for only £60-£70 per week.
Greyhound Opening is a sheltered housing scheme close to
Dereham Road which is due to be decommissioned in early 2009 to
make way for affordable housing. Current tenants are being moved
to other sheltered schemes across the City and we would like to
temporarily fill the empty properties so the remaining elderly tenants
are not left in isolation. We would ask that anyone interested be
mindful of their elderly neighbours. For further details please
contact………
4.10 Arising from the above article the three questions pertinent to this
investigation are:
•
•
•
What factors were taken into account in the decision to let the vacated
properties to existing employees?
How was this decision taken? and
Is it procedurally sound?
4.11 There is no written documentation available that addresses the above
questions so it is necessary to refer to the outcome of the interviews. From
this it is clear the underlying consideration for the senior officers in the
Strategic Housing section responsible for managing this process was the
need to protect the day to day living environment of elderly and vulnerable
tenants during a period of significant change and uncertainty. In this context
the factors that prompted a widening of the eligibility for staff access to these
properties were that the speed of resettling existing residents to their new
homes was faster than anticipated and this meant that units were vacated
quicker than expected; the demand for unfurnished accommodation from
relocating staff was insufficient to fill the vacated units and as a consequence
there was the real prospect that a decreasing number of tenants would be
living in a complex with an increasing number of vacant units. In these
circumstances officers would need to revisit the options for dealing with
vacant units listed in paragraph 4.5 above. The officer view at the time was
that the properties could be vulnerable to illegal trespass/squatting and may,
therefore, need to be boarded up.
4.12 Based on the information stated during the interviews it appears that this
assessment led officers to the conclusion that the best way forward was to
widen the number of staff eligible to occupy the units on a first come first
served basis. There is no evidence that this change in letting policy was
referred to either the Corporate Management Team or discussed informally
with Members of the Executive. There are differing views on who was/was
not consulted on this matter but it is clear that the main responsibility rests
with a limited number of senior strategic housing staff. Furthermore there is
no evidence that any consideration was given to the procedural soundness of
this decision, the relationship to existing policy, and the need for any criteria
to select prospective tenants. The general presumption appears to have
12/29/2008
Page 8 of 10
Annex B
been that officers had delegated authority to make such a change in the
letting strategy. At the start of December 2008 17 properties were occupied.
There was a written process for issuing the tenancies.
4.13 Procedurally the widening of the eligibility was a departure from approved
policy and was outside of, or contrary to, the Council’s policy framework. In
this context it is not a decision that could be taken by officers. From the
interviews it appears that this misunderstanding may have arisen from
officers placing an over-reliance on the March 2007 Executive decision to
delegate to the then Director of Community and Neighbourhoods ‘the power
to take the incidental and ancillary steps’ necessary to implement the
decision to redevelop the site of Goldsmith Street/ Greyhound Opening
sheltered housing scheme for affordable housing.
4.14 It is clear that the procedural soundness of this decision was never a
consideration for those officers directly involved in this matter. In addition it is
appropriate to note that the policy implications of the content of the staff
newspaper advertisement announcing the availability of council housing units
to let, was not picked up within the organisation generally.
4.15 The proper approval process would have required a report to the Executive.
Notwithstanding this the absence of any procedure for selecting tenants and
monitoring period of occupation has led to a situation where single units were
let to more than one person; where a current tenant has left the employment
of the council; and where tenancies have been allowed to run for over a year.
Combined these factors demonstrate a lack of robustness in the way this
arrangement was introduced and managed. Finally, the lack of an approved
policy may be a factor associated with the letting arrangement of one of the
units by the Head of Service responsible for the Strategic Housing service
both at the time this arrangement was introduced and currently. This matter
is the subject of a separate investigation and is not covered in this report.
4.16 In conclusion, the lack of documentary evidence highlights a major weakness
in the overall management by officers of the letting of vacated units on an
interim non-secure tenancy basis. There is no doubt that the underlying
rationale behind the initial decision to let the properties to staff under the
relocation policy is sustainable and justifiable. However, the subsequent
decision to widen eligibility, although taken on the basis of being the best
approach for the remaining tenants; failed to assess all the risks involved;
had no process for tenant selection and management; and was procedurally
unsound.
5
The process for the redevelopment of the site for affordable housing
5.1
The March 2007 Executive report gave approval for officers to progress the
acquisition of all third party interests in land surrounding Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmiths Street and then dispose of the whole site under the
Delivering Affordable Homes Project (DAHP) initiative for a mixed tenure
development of some 100 dwellings.
5.2
On this basis, negotiations have subsequently been concluded for the
12/29/2008
Page 9 of 10
Annex B
purchase of the county council owned Alderman Clarke House and solicitors
have been instructed to prepare the necessary documentation. Notices to
quit have been served on all tenants occupying industrial units at Haslips
Opening and are due to expire March 2009. The property related aspect of
the scheme is documented and has been undertaken in accordance with the
resolution of the Executive.
5.3
In addition to land assembly and development partner arrangements, the
March 2007 Executive report also established that, subject to the approval of
the DAHP partners, the scale and nature of the site would make the scheme
an appropriate candidate for a design competition. To deliver this instruction,
under the management arrangements of the DAHP, the RIBA competitions
office has been appointed to run the competition. There is a project plan for
this process, it is well documented and has been rolled out in a successful
manner. In October 2008, 5 architectural practices were selected from 101
submissions to submit proposal for the design of this development. The
design proposals were received on the 12th December 2008. The successful
scheme will be selected early in the new year.
5.4
Combined, the resolution of land ownership matters and the selection of the
design should, subject to final costs and subsequent regulatory approvals,
enable commencement on site in the autumn of 2009. This is later than
originally envisaged and the main reason for this is that the design
competition has taken longer than expected.
5.5
In conclusion all the land owning, development partner and design
procurement arrangements are clearly documented, procedurally sound and
have been approved by the Executive. Overall, the approach to the
redevelopment of this site could be considered to be an example of
exemplary practice.
Jerry Massey
Director of Regeneration and Development
12/29/2008
Page 10 of 10
Devonshire
Place
le y
Site Boundary
Wa
St B
ar
Land owned by
Ch naba Norfolk County Council
urc
s
h
lk
Industrial Units
Owned byRectory
Norwich City Council
DE
RB
YS
TR
EE
T
Lan
g
Key
1
40
52 46
1 to 21
Goldsmith Street/Greyhound Opening
Redevelopment Site owned by
Norwich City Council
4 .3
4m
38
44
50
28
34
24
30
54
36
42
48
4.9m
3
to
13
DEVONSHIRE STREET
2
8
24
26
Annex C
22
26
32
18
28
W al k
l an d
Mi d
14
24
10
20
2
6
19 23
27 31
17 21
2529
2
3 7
11 15
15
9 13
15
24
12
22
4
8
3
37
39
19
1
7
13
17
19
19
25
1
3
21
27
33
31
2
4
6
8
D OPENING
16
25
26 27
GREYHOUN
22
23
24
5
17
11
18
20
14
16
12 10
18
HASLIPS CLOSE
14
30 to 48
GOLDSMITH STREET
Alderman Clarke House
(Home for the Elderly)
23
29
22
30 26
34
24 2
8
32 3
6
12
Community
Centre
35
38
46 42
50
40 4
4
48 5
2
BROWNE STREET
4.6m
3
Bowling
Green
16
26
9
9
15
50
4
BM
Garage Block
Hall by Norwich City Council
Owned
DL
MI
AN
EET
TR
S
D
This map is based upon or reproduced from Ordnance
Survey material with the permission of Ordnance
Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’
s
Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2008.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright
and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Norwich City Council Licence No. 100019747
Annex D
Report to
Executive
21 March 2007
Report of
Strategic Director - Community and Neighbourhoods
Item
12
Head of Asset and City Management
Subject
Greyhound Opening
Purpose
To agree to the disposal by the Council of the site comprising of twenty-five
dwellings, ten commercial units, fourteen garages and associated land at
Greyhound Opening for new affordable housing.
Recommendations
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
To resettle the current residents of 30-48 Goldsmith Street and 4-18
Greyhound Opening to properties according to their individual needs and
agreed preferences;
To establish the post of Greyhound Opening Resettlement Officer to
To dispose of the Council’s interest in the land to enable the provision of
To work with Norfolk County Council to facilitate a developable site for
To delegate to the Strategic Director - Community and Neighbourhoods
and the Head of Asset and City Management the power to take all
incidental and ancillary steps to achieve the above.
The financial consequences are set out within the additional report under the
exempt section of this agenda (Item 14 below).
Strategic Objective/Service Plan Priority
The report helps to achieve the strategic objectives to make Norwich safe and
secure, building strong and proud local communities and to ensure the City has a
clean and healthy environment; and the service plan priority to enable new
affordable housing to meet known need.
Contact Officers
Kris Reeves, Acting Head of Strategic Housing
Chris Dady, Head of Asset and City Management
01603 212939
01603 213450
Report
Background
1. Greyhound Opening is a large area (1.2 hectares) encompassing two Local Plan
allocations for housing (a former residential care home and commercial
workshops), twenty-six dwellings and a garage site. The potential exists to
comprehensively redevelop the whole of this area for the provision of new
affordable housing. Land ownership is split between Norwich City Council and
Norfolk County Council. Early discussions indicate that it will be possible to work
in partnership with Norfolk County Council to provide new affordable housing on
this site.
2. There are several constraints to development on this site. Foremost of these is the
presence of twenty-five sheltered housing units, all of which are tenanted.
Secondary is the presence of four business tenants in the Haslips Opening
Warehouses. There is also another property that could potentially be included in
the development, details of this property can be found in the exempt part of this
report.
Goldsmith Street Sheltered Housing Scheme
3. This comprises fifteen one-bedroom bungalows and ten one-bedroom ‘corridor
units’. In order to bring the Goldsmith Street scheme up to both the Decent Homes
and Disability Discrimination Act standards it would require considerable capital
investment. The ‘corridor’ homes on Goldsmith Street are difficult to let due to
their layout. The size and layout of the Greyhound Opening bungalows has
presented residents with numerous difficulties, such as a lack of usable storage
space and the absence of appropriately placed wash-hand-basins. Due to these
difficulties it is being recommended that this scheme be decommissioned.
4. On Wednesday, 14 February 2007, a meeting was held with the twenty-five
residents of Goldsmith Street Sheltered Housing Scheme to explain the potential
impact of these plans upon them. The meeting was well-attended by residents
and their families.
5. Eighteen of the residents attended the public meeting. The news that this proposal
was being considered came as a shock to most residents. Most were reassured
by the support that would be given to them in the event of any move. Many
residents wanted more information on why this was being considered, several
understood the great need for affordable housing in Norwich and were thus
supportive of the proposals. A couple of residents requested that alternative
sheltered housing be constructed in the proposed new development. A follow-up
meeting has been arranged for Friday, 23 March 2007 to discuss with all residents
the outcome of the decision taken today.
6. The residents who were unable to attend were all visited on a one to one basis as
soon as was possible after the meeting.
7. Feedback forms were given to all residents in order to give them a full opportunity
to comment. To date four feedback forms have been received. One gives support
for the proposal as it will increase affordable housing in Norwich. One requests
that the existing properties be improved. Two express preference for a particular
sheltered housing scheme if this proposal is to go ahead. If further forms are
received these will be summarised at the meeting of the Executive. In addition to
this several residents expressed a wish to attend this meeting. Transport has
been arranged to facilitate this.
8. At the meeting it was explained to residents that the Executive Committee will be
making a decision whether or not to proceed with these plans. If approved this
would mean that all residents would be resettled to alternative accommodation
according to their needs and preferences. It is proposed to create within the
establishment a Resettlement Officer for Goldsmith Street in order to facilitate this
work. Details of this can be found in the exempt part of this report.
9. All tenants would be eligible for a statutory home-loss payment which is currently
£4,000. In addition to this they would need help with the disturbance of moving. It
is proposed that Norwich City Council would work with residents to arrange every
aspect of their move and meet any costs incurred. It is estimated that the
relocation of all twenty-five residents would take approximately two years.
Haslips Opening Warehouses
10. The warehouses on this site are currently partially let to four different tenants. As
the site is allocated for housing in the Adopted Local Plan 2004 all will have been
aware of the possibility of redevelopment for some time.
11. All business tenants were informed that Norwich City Council was considering
proposals for the redevelopment of the area for the provision of New Affordable
Housing on Wednesday, 14 February. No responses were received.
Alderman Clarke House
12. This former residential care home is owned by Norfolk County Council and is
vacant. The property is currently being secured by Camelot Guardians, a security
firm.
13. Early discussions have been held with Norfolk County Council regarding land
assembly. They appear keen to work with Norwich City Council to achieve the
provision of new affordable housing on this site. Details of how these discussions
can be carried forward are provided in the exempt part of this report.
New Development
14. It is proposed that the new development would be carried out by three RSLs in the
Greater Norwich Housing Development Partnership Framework for predominantly
new affordable housing. Early discussions with Planning Services have indicated
that approximately one hundred new dwellings could be constructed in this area.
15. The Housing Market Assessment Evidence Base: A Study of Housing Need and
Stock Condition, carried out by Opinion Research Services, has found that the
majority of the housing need in Norwich City is for affordable rented dwellings.
However large mono-tenure developments have been proven not to work in the
past and affordable rented properties require the greatest public subsidy. The
majority of the accommodation should be affordable rented but in order to create a
mixed and sustainable community and create valuable cross-subsidy for
affordable rented accommodation a mix of tenures should be incorporated. This
would allow for the creation of sub-market rented accommodation, in accordance
with the political aims of the current administration, a form of Low Cost Home
Ownership and a small proportion of open market sale. Officers will consider the
exact proportions of these as the plans progress.
16. It is possible that a number of the resettled tenants may wish to return to the area
and even if they do not, a proportion of older tenants would help create a vibrant
mix in the area. It is therefore proposed that one-block of accommodation could
be designated for over-55s. This would be flexibly constructed to meet future
needs, with communication link-ups and level-access throughout. Some of these
properties could be provided as Low Cost Home Ownership for older people if
ongoing discussions with Supporting People identify a need.
17. As this is a high-density City-Centre scheme the majority of the properties would
be small apartments. However subject to design constraints it should be possible
to construct a small proportion of the total as three-bedroom town houses. The
remainder would thus be divided between one and two-bedroom apartments. Due
to their greater flexibility for future occupants it is proposed that the vast majority
of these properties would be two-bedroom with a small contingency of smaller
units, if required, for design resigns. Officers would consider the exact proportions
of house size and type as the plans progress.
18. As a large development site with Norwich City Council’s involvement, the highest
standards of design should be aimed for to create a sustainable, vibrant, liveable
area.
19. It is proposed that the scheme should aim for level four of the Code for
Sustainable Homes (Eco-Homes ‘Excellent’) and have all properties constructed
to the lifetime homes standard. There is scope for numerous sustainable
technologies to be employed at this site. Photovoltaic cells are particularly
effective on three and four storey buildings and there is scope for shared lowcarbon emission heating systems to be installed in larger, shared buildings. It
should be recognised that this will have financial implications and may require
additional financial contributions from Norwich City Council to achieve this.
20. Although to be developed through the Greater Norwich Housing Development
Partnership Framework it is proposed that a different approach to design be taken
with this site. It is large enough to run a design competition to find a suitably
innovative architect to achieve the desired standards of design. This competition
would also involve the Housing Corporation to get buy-in of the scheme’s primary
funder at an early stage in the process. This would not present any cost
implications to the Council as the work would be carried out at risk by bidding
firms of architects and ultimately paid for by the developing RSLs.
Annex E
MINUTES
EXECUTIVE
5.30 p.m. - 7.45 p.m.
21 March 2007
Present:
Councillors Morphew (Chair), Blakeway, Brociek-Coulton, Morrey,
Waters and Westmacott
Also Present:
Councillors Cooke and Lowe (to end of item 8)
Apologies:
Councillors Ferris (Vice-Chair) (other Council business) and Blower
1.
MINUTES
RESOLVED to agree the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on
7 March 2007.
2.
GREYHOUND OPENING
(Mrs Chris Watson and another resident of Goldsmith Street Sheltered Housing
Scheme attended the meeting for this item.)
The Housing Development Manager presented the report and circulated a plan of
the area and answered questions. It was proposed that around 65-70% of the 100
affordable homes would be available for rent. If the proposals were successful there
would be a two-year period during which officers would ensure that residents were
placed at the top of the waiting list and relocated according to their agreed
preferences.
Mrs Watson, said that she lived in one of the ‘corridor units’ and favoured the
proposals for new affordable homes. She said that the support of the Sheltered
Housing Manager and her staff had been ‘splendid’. Mrs Watson also suggested
that she hoped that a road would be named after Alderman Clarke.
During discussion members welcomed the proposals in the report and expressed
support for the suggested commemoration of Alderman Clarke. Members also noted
that a high standard of energy efficiency would be required in the development.
RESOLVED to:(1)
resettle the current residents of 30-48 Goldsmith Street and 4-18
Greyhound Opening to properties according to their individual needs and
agreed preferences;
REP Executive Results of Investigation Greyhound Opening Annex E 2009-01-07
Page 1 of 8
Executive: 21 March 2007
(2)
establish the post of Greyhound Opening Resettlement Officer to facilitate
the above;
(3)
dispose of the Council’s interest in the land to enable the provision of new
affordable housing;
(4)
work with Norfolk County Council to facilitate a developable site for new
affordable housing;
(5)
delegate to the Strategic Director - Community and Neighbourhoods and
the Head of Asset and City Management the power to take all incidental
and ancillary steps to achieve the above.
3.
SECTION 106 EXPENDITURE
(The Chair agreed to take this item as an urgent item.)
The Head of Planning presented the report and circulated a revised resolution which
replaced the funding for a new play area at Skelton Road, Heartsease, for a
contribution towards the new play area at Heartsease Towers, Sale Road, with the
balance coming from funds allocated in the Capital Programme.
The Executive supported the revised proposals with the exception of the
discretionary expenditure of £41,695 for improvement to facilities at
St Clement’s Park, which was withdrawn to allow further discussion with Ward
Councillors.
RESOLVED to:(1)
approve the following discretionary expenditures, arising out of the options
assessment in Appendix 2, totalling £682,824
(a) £93,911 for provision of new junior and toddler play in the Ives Road
area of Fiddlewood;
(b) £95,479 for new toddler and teenage provision at Sloughbottom Park;
(c) £25,000 for improvements to Mile Cross Gardens;
(d) £24,145 to improve facilities at Shorncliffe Avenue play area;
(e) £13,825 contribution towards a new play area at Heartsease Towers,
Sale Road (to provide a new £45,000 facility, with the balance coming
from funds allocated in the Capital Programme);
(f) £60,000 for major improvements to Astley Road play area;
(g) £32,538 to improve facilities at Bendish Way play area;
(h) £52,355 for the refurbishment of Wilberforce Road play area;
Page 2 of 8
(i) £30,000 to provide new play area at Gypsy Lane;
(j) £1,164 to improve West End Street play area;
(k) £8,868 for improvements to St Paul’s play area;
(l) £160,507 for phase 1 of improvements to Jenny Lind and Eagle Walks
play areas;
(m) £8,608 for improvements to provision at Clarendon Steps play area;
(n) £17,266 for improvements to Heigham Park junior play area;
(o) £11,066 for highways improvements to Distillery Square;
(p) £10,035 for highways improvements to King Street;
(q) £1,057 for highways improvements in the vicinity of former Cavalier
Hotel, Thorpe Road.
(2)
approve:(a) the retention of £150,079 to supplement funds already identified in
previous Executive reports on Section 106 spending, for
improvements to play and open space provision in the King Street
area, including creation of a new play area;
(b) the retention of £74,167 to enable identification of site/s through
Northern City Centre Area Action Plan process.
4.
PRIVATE RENEWALS POLICY AND STRATEGY
The Private Sector Housing Manager presented the report.
Discussion ensued in which members supported the need to ensure that private
rented properties were up to standard and welcomed the proposed actions in respect
of affordable warmth and energy efficiency; and the empty homes initiative to bring
empty homes back into use. Members welcomed the development of the Greater
Norwich Landlord Accreditation Scheme and the Private Sector Leasing Scheme.
Members noted the rise of properties available to rent in the private sector and it was
pointed out that the ‘buy-to-let’ market comprised new build properties.
RESOLVED to approve the Private Sector Renewals Strategy 2007-2011.
5.
NORFOLK RAIL ALLOWANCE
The Chief Executive Officer presented the report.
During discussion members supported the campaign for strategic investment in the
railway network for the benefit of Norwich and Norfolk.
Page 3 of 8
RESOLVED to support the Norfolk Rail Alliance in making a case for additional
priority investment in Norfolk’s rail network in advance of the Government’s
Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, when the future agenda for the rail network
will be set.
6.
NEIGHBOURHOOD STRATEGY
The Strategic Director - Community and Neighbourhoods presented the report.
Members of the Executive welcomed the proposals which would be a fundamental
change in how the Council delivered services. It was suggested that the Council
should draw on the experiences of other local authorities that provided services on a
neighbourhood basis, such as Barnsley. An Executive member said that building
community engagement had been part of the Council’s Unitary bid and that there
needed to be commitment to what was an ongoing process. The Executive noted
the financial consequences as set out in the report.
Councillors Lowe and Cooke queried how the development of the strategy could be
funded and suggested that ‘Building Capacity East’ funding should be available for
community development.
RESOLVED to:-
7.
(1)
adopt the Neighbourhood Strategy;
(2)
use the new Vision for Neighbourhoods to inform the development of
neighbourhood level service delivery by the City Council and its contractors
and partners;
(3)
pilot the delivery of services on a neighbourhood basis alongside the two
pilot neighbourhood management programmes;
(4)
explore how further services can be delivered on a neighbourhood basis;
(5)
contribute to a best practice workshop.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FUND
The Head of Community Services presented the report and, together with the Chief
Executive Officer and the Head of Communications and Cultural Services,
answered members questions. The scheme would strengthen the role of Ward
Councillors who would be aware of different channels of communication within
communities to publicise the Fund.
An Executive member said that it was the intention that the funding scheme would
run alongside the Community Grant scheme but would give an opportunity for wider
community involvement and encourage other people to come forward. The scheme
included a mentoring which would give added value to help individuals build skills for
more projects in their communities. Members considered that the scheme had
potential to grow and give communities some ‘clout’.
Page 4 of 8
RESOLVED to approve the Community Participation Fund programme as set out in
the report.
8.
CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISALS: ST MATTHEW’S , THORPE
HAMLET, THORPE RIDGE
The Design Quality Manager presented the report and answered members’
questions on the report.
RESOLVED to approve:-
9.
(1)
the conservation area appraisals and management and enhancement
plans for St Matthew’s, Thorpe Hamlet and Thorpe Ridge Conservation
Areas following public consultation as Planning Policy Guidance;
(2)
the addition of the buildings in appendix 1 to the Local List of Buildings
of Architectural or Historic Interest.
GRANT AWARDS TO THE VOLUNTARY AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT
SECTORS
(Councillor Morphew declared a prejudicial interest in Age Concern. Councillor
Brociek-Coulton declared a prejudicial interest in Norwich in Bloom. Both
Councillors Morphew and Brociek-Coulton withdrew from the remainder of the item
and did not take part in the decision.)
(Councillor Morrey in the chair.)
The Head of Communications and Cultural Services presented the report and
answered questions.
RESOLVED to award grants for the financial year 2007/2008, to the total of
£195,893:(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
£9,900 to Age Concern Norwich and that Age Concern move to a 3 year
Grant Funding Agreement;
£8,000 to BTCV and that BTCV move to a three year Grant Funding
Agreement;
£5,665 to Creative Arts East;
£42,000 to the Norfolk & Norwich Festival and that the Norfolk &
Norwich Festival move to a 3 year Grant Funding Agreement;
£14,328 to the Norfolk and Norwich Heritage Trust and an arrangement
to pay the outstanding balance agreed from this sum;
£10,271 be awarded to Norwich and Norfolk Racial Equality Council and
that NNREC move to a 3 year Grant Funding Agreement;
£1500 be awarded to Norfolk Wildlife Trust and that the NWT move to a
3 year Grant Funding Agreement;
£55,216 is made to Norwich and District Citizens’ Advice Bureau and
that Norwich and District CAB move to a 3 year Grant Funding
Agreement;
Page 5 of 8
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
10.
£9,414 be awarded to the Norwich Fringe Project and that the Norwich
Fringe Project move to a three year Grant Funding Agreement;
£10,000 be awarded to Norwich in Bloom;
£12,599 to the Puppet Theatre and that the Puppet Theatre move to a 3
year Grant Funding Agreement;
£5,000 be awarded to The Academy Trust and the Academy Trust
move to a 3 year Grant Funding Agreement;
£12,000 to WEETU.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S ENFORCEMENT MODEL FOR THE
DELIVERY OF THE GOVERNMENT’S SMOKEFREE LEGISLATION TO BE
INTRODUCED ON 1 JULY 2007
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services presented the report and responded to
members’ questions.
The Executive welcomed the proposals contained in the report.
RESOLVED to:-
11.
(1)
note the proposals for the implementation and enforcement of the
smokefree legislation;
(2)
authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to develop the
current Regulatory Services enforcement model across the Council.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOLVED to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of Items
12 - 17 below on the grounds contained in the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A
of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
*12.
GREYHOUND OPENING (PARAGRAPH 3)
The Head of Asset and City Management presented the report and explained the
financial consequences of the report, and together with the Deputy Chief Executive
Officer answered questions.
During discussion members noted the County Council’s position and expressed
regret that the County Council was not being more supportive of affordable housing.
RESOLVED to:(1)
note the financial consequences of the development of the site at
Greyhound Opening for new affordable housing;
(2)
note the options relating to a property on the periphery of the site and
delegate the implementation of the tenants’ agreed option to the
Strategic Director - Community and Neighbourhoods;
Page 6 of 8
*13.
(3)
approve the methodology of costs incurred in site assembly being
reimbursed by the Registered Social Landlord who purchases the site
from Norwich City Council.
(4)
ask the Group Leaders to consider a response to the County Council at
their next meeting.
DISPOSAL SITE A, FIFERS LANE, NORWICH (PARAGRAPH 3)
The Head of Asset and City Management presented the report and answered
questions.
RESOLVED to approve the disposal of the freehold interest know as ‘Site A Fifers
Lane’ in accordance with the details outlined in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this report.
*14.
RESTRUCTURE IN HUMAN RESOUCES AND LEARNING (PARAGRAPHS
1 & 3)
The Deputy Chief Executive Officer presented the report. No comments had been
received from UNISON at the time of the meeting but any received subsequently
would be circulated to members.
An Executive member said that this was an under-resourced area of the Council and
that the restructure, which brought together human resources and learning, was a
positive move forward.
RESOLVED to:(1)
create:(a)
(b)
*15.
a new post - Recruitment Co-ordinator (Post no ODRCO1)
an additional Recruitment Adviser post (Post no ODHRA3)
(2)
redesignate the post of Human Resources Officer (Post no ODHR03)
and create a new full time post of HR Assistant (Post no ODHAA1);
(3)
approve the virement of £38,562 from the HR recruitment budget to
the HR salaries budget.
CONSOLIDATING THE POLICY AND IMPROVEMENT TEAM
(PARAGRAPHS 1 & 3)
The Head of Policy and Improvement presented the report and reported that there
had been positive feedback on the proposals from the majority of staff and UNISON.
There would be further consultation to give all staff involved a full opportunity to
comment.
An Executive member welcomed this development of the service which would
improve the Council’s partnership working and bring policies forward. The financial
consequences of the report were noted.
Page 7 of 8
RESOLVED to create the following posts:(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Partnerships Manager (Post No PIPTNM)
Policy and Performance Manager (Post No PIPPM1)
Policy Officer (Post No PIPPPO)
Research and Partnerships Officer (Post No ODSPP5)
Performance and Research Officer (Post No ODREO2)
Research Assistant (20 hours per week) (Post No PIPPRA).
*16. VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT/VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY
(PARAGRAPH 1)
The Deputy Chief Executive Officer presented the report and answered members’
questions.
RESOLVED to approve the payments relating to the redundancy of the employees
listed in Appendix A.
*17. CONTRACTUAL AND LEASING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE THEATRE
ROYAL (PARAGRAPH 3)
(The Chair agreed to take this item as urgent business because of the need to sign
the lease by the end of March 2007.)
The Head of Communications and Cultural Services presented the report and,
together with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, answered members’
questions.
During discussion the Executive considered that the proposed resolution did not go
far enough to protect the lease from falling into the hands of an entrepreneurial
commercial venture which would not maintain the current uses of the Theatre as a
regional theatre, providing educational and cultural benefits to the community. The
lease needed to be protected so that the lessee could not assign the lease without
the City Council’s permission.
RESOLVED to agree in principle to the recommendation contained in the report and
delegate to the Chair and Vice-Chair, in consultation with the Head of
Communication and Cultural Services and the Head of Legal and Democratic
Services, to resolve the issues regarding the lease.
CHAIR
Page 8 of 8
Annex F
Frequently asked questions about Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street
How is the inquiry progressing and when will it be completed?
Norwich City Council is making good progress with the inquiry into the letting
of properties at Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street to members of staff
prior to its redevelopment. This is being conducted by senior officers and must
adhere to council procedures. This needs to be a thorough and fair
investigation and it is not expected to be concluded in full until the New Year.
Kristine Reeves, head of neighbourhood and strategic housing services,
remains suspended on full pay.
What is being investigated?
• Who took the decision to let properties at this complex to members of
staff, who were not relocating to the city from elsewhere?
• What was the process through which that decision was ultimately made
and on whose authority?
• How these properties were then allocated to staff?
• Were the council’s laid down procedures followed?
• What other options were considered for the use of these particular
properties?
• Why were these rejected?
• Does any action need to be taken as a result of the findings?
• Do things need to happen differently in the future?
Does the council have a policy to provide temporary accommodation for
staff?
Yes, under the 1985 Housing Act and the council’s own relocation policy, staff
relocating to the city can live in temporary, council-owned accommodation for
up to 12 months. Accommodation such as that at Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street has been used for that purpose. Last year, more
than 150 people joined the council and the majority of these were not
relocating. In a typical year, we would expect to house up to five people in
temporary accommodation for short periods while they look for permanent
accommodation.
Are other members of staff currently living in temporary, council-owned
accommodation?
Our records show that other than, the 18 people registered as living in
Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street, there are no other staff in such
accommodation. Those still living at the complex are to be given notice to
vacate by 31 January 2009.
Why is Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street being redeveloped?
In the next 20 years, greater Norwich will need an estimated 33,000 new
homes. A large proportion of these will need to be affordable homes and the
city council is committed to building on brown field sites where possible, with a
good track record of this.
Annex F
Greyhound opening was chosen for redevelopment as the properties did not
meet the standards that the tenants expect of modern sheltered housing and
could not be brought up to standard. By redeveloping this area, 100 new
affordable properties can be built. We will work with a housing association to
build sustainable eco-homes to the highest standards of design. A competition
has been run by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) to identify a
suitable developer and five entries have now been shortlisted.
What involvement did members have in decisions made about
Greyhound Opening/Goldsmith Street?
Members of the executive agreed in March 2007 to decommission these
properties as they were hard-to-let and needed major refurbishment. It was
decided to incorporate the 25 units with the land occupied by the garages and
warehousing to redevelop the site for new affordable homes. This decision to
demolish the units was made in consultation with the residents and a
resettlement officer was appointed with responsibility for helping the tenants
to relocate. Tenants were offered home loss compensation payments of up to
£4000.
After Executive approval to redevelop the site, officers implemented the
recommendations to resettle the residents of Goldsmith Street and
Greyhound opening to individual needs and agreed preferences; the full
recommendations from that report are listed below:
(1) To resettle the current residents of 30-48 Goldsmith Street and 4-18
Greyhound Opening to properties according to their individual needs
and agreed preferences;
(2) To establish the post of Greyhound Opening Resettlement Officer to
(3) To dispose of the Council’s interest in the land to enable the provision
of new affordable housing;
(4) To work with Norfolk County Council to facilitate a developable site for
(5) To delegate to the Strategic Director - Community and Neighbourhoods
and the Head of Asset and City Management the power to take all
incidental and ancillary steps to achieve the above
Why were elderly people moved out of the accommodation so early?
We always knew this would be a stressful time for residents and we did not
want to put any unnecessary pressure on them to move. The role of the
resettlement officer was to help tenants find suitable alternative
accommodation which met their needs and requirements as far as possible;
indeed, residents were given top priority in the choice of accommodation.
With this mind, it was expected the relocation process ahead of the demolition
Annex F
would take up to two years. It was left to the elderly residents when they
moved out within this period and the last of these moved out in July 2008.
Why are staff paying less rent than the elderly tenants?
Elderly residents benefited from a warden service and other support, which
was not available to staff.
How were these properties advertised to staff?
Staff relocating would have been made aware of the availability of temporary
properties when they joined the council. The offer of properties at Greyhound
Opening/Goldsmith Street was made to all members of staff via our weekly
staff newsletter Inner city on 30 July 2007.

Report for Resolution Report to Report of

Transcription

Similar documents

Scheme Manager

While racing or in retirement, greyhounds love to run. G reyhound R

While racing or in retirement, greyhounds love to run. G reyhound R

Norwich - Heartsease Lane - 24 August 2015

ALABAMA

Document 6508429

11.2 - Hosanna Community

This small selection of drawings and etchings of the dancer Wayne

GREYHOUNDS Hollydogs Inn - Hollydogs Greyhound Adoption

How to get one started Tenants’ & Residents’ Associations