DECISION BOOK. The decision book is open to public inspection at the Civic Offices between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm, Mondays to Fridays.

Transcription

1 DECISION BOOK Issue: 356 Date: 13 May 2011 Decisions set out in the book have been made under delegated powers by the Chief Executive, Corporate Directors or the Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer, in consultation either with the Cabinet or the relevant Lead Councillor. This issue of the decision book will be in public circulation up until Monday 23 May During that period three Councillors may request in writing to the Chief Executive that a decision should be referred either to the Cabinet, or to the Council (as appropriate) for formal resolution. The decision book is open to public inspection at the Civic Offices between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm, Mondays to Fridays. The officer reports accompanying the decisions are attached. Contact: Tim Milgate Committee Services Tel: Fax: Tim.Milgate@reading.gov.uk

2 DECISION BOOK ISSUE MAY ALLOCATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DECISION LEAD COUNCILLOR(S) WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO. 1. ALLOCATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE COUNCILLOR BENSON SOUTHCOTE 1 This report sets out the decision to fund 3 units of affordable housing during 2011/12 and supplement existing development of specialist adapted housing, with Local Authority Housing Capital expenditure to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) through the Council s agreed development programme. It is the decision of the Director of Housing and Community Care, in consultation with the Head of Finance and the Lead Councillor for Community Care, Housing and Health, that 150k of approved local authority social housing capital expenditure be allocated to the Hastings Close development scheme.

3 2. DEE PARK REGENERATION LOCAL DECANT POLICY DECISION LEAD COUNCILLOR(S) WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO. 2. DEE PARK REGENERATION LOCAL DECANT POLICY COUNCILLOR BENSON NORCOT 4 This report endorses the imminent adoption under standing delegation H7 (to the Head of Housing) of the appended draft Local Decant Policy (draft LDP) in respect of the Dee Park Regeneration project. This report: a) draws reference to the draft LDP; b) sets out the context of the draft LDP in relation to the Council s overarching decant policy which is part of the Housing Allocations Policy, as well as identifying, explaining and resolving areas of conflict between extant Policy and the draft LDP; c) highlights some implications of operating the proposed policy under Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 as opposed to utilising general powers under Section 26 of the Housing Act 1985; and d) notes the financial implications of the draft LDP. It is the decision of the Director for Housing and Community Care in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Housing, Health and Community Care, and the Director of Resources, to adopt the Draft Local Decant Policy for the Dee Park Regeneration project.

4 3. EXTENSION OF RAISE ESCR (ELECTRONIC SOCIAL CARE RECORD) SOCIAL CARE SYSTEM AND OFFICEBASE HOMECARE SYSTEM DECISION LEAD COUNCILLOR(S) WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO. 3. EXTENSION OF RAISE ESCR (ELECTRONIC SOCIAL CARE RECORD) SOCIAL CARE SYSTEM AND OFFICEBASE HOMECARE SYSTEM COUNCILLORS BENSON & RALPH BOROUGHWIDE 19 This report sets out the decision to enter into a new two-year contract with CareWorks to provide RAISE, the Electronic Social Care Record (ESCR) and also sets out the decision to extend the contract with CACI to provide OfficeBase Home Care for one year. It is the decision of the Director of Housing and Community Care and the Director of Education and Children s Services, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Community Care, Housing and Health and the Lead Councillor for Education and Children s Services, that Reading Borough Council enter into a new contract for the RAISE software package with CareWorks Ltd for a further period expiring on 31 January It is the decision of the Director of Housing and Community Care, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Community Care, Housing and Health, that Reading Borough Council extend the contract for the OfficeBase HomeCare software package with CACI Ltd for a further year expiring on 8 April 2012.

5 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY CARE LEAD COUNCILLOR: COUNCILLOR BENSON DATE: 13 MAY 2011 TITLE: ALLOCATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SERVICE: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT WARDS: SOUTHCOTE AUTHOR: RICHARD PIKE TEL: JOB TITLE: PRINCIPAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 Further to Minute 61 of Council Meeting held on 22 February 2011, this report sets out the decision to fund 3 units of affordable housing during 2011/12 and supplement existing development of specialist adapted housing, with Local Authority Housing Capital expenditure to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) through the Council s agreed development programme. 2. DECISION 2.1 It is the decision of the Director of Housing and Community Care, in consultation with the Head of Finance and the Lead Councillor for Community Care, Housing and Health, that 150k of approved local authority social housing capital expenditure is allocated to the Hastings Close development scheme. 3. POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 The approved budget from the Council s indicative Capital Programme for is 2m. 3.2 There is currently unallocated approved affordable housing resources of 2.114m from previous years Capital Programme available for allocation. 1

6 3.4 The Council works in partnership with RSLs to enable a new supply of rented and shared ownership accommodation to meet the needs of people registered on the Council s Housing Register. 3.5 Part of the Council s strategic approach to enabling such development is to provide funding for RSL schemes that meet identified housing needs in return for maximum nomination rights. 3.6 This development provides 3 much needed disabled adapted homes for rent in Reading, managed by Ability Housing Association, a specialist supported housing provider. 3.7 At its meeting on 19 February 2008, Council (Minute 58 refers) agreed that scheme and spend approval be given for Capital Schemes to increase affordable housing supply, and that the relevant Corporate Director, in consultation with the Head of Financial Services and relevant Lead Councillor, be given delegated authority to finalise details of individual schemes and programmes within the spending approval given, and that the details be recorded through the Decision Book process. 4. THE PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposal seeks to allocate a total of 150k funds to this housing scheme that currently has planning permission from the approved budget under the delegated spending authority. 5. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS 5.1 These proposals promote social inclusion, and development of Reading as a sustainable environment and economy through the provision of disabled adapted affordable housing for rent on brownfield sites. 6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION 6.1 The local community was fully engaged through the Planning process through statutory consultation. 7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Under section 22 of the Housing Act 1996, the Local Authority may provide financial assistance to a Registered Social Landlord or make grants to the landlord. 8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 In addition to the capital provided by the Council, the RSLs will raise their own private finance to ensure that the schemes are fully funded and will also secure grant funding of 120k from the Homes and Communities Agency. 2

7 8.2 The Council will have nomination rights to all of the new properties. The estimated value of a nomination right to an RSL property is in the range of 4,200-9,300 per household per year, these being the annual net savings achieved in taking a homeless household out of, respectively, Short term Leasing and Bed and Breakfast accommodation and placing them in permanent accommodation. 8.3 As these properties are disabled adapted, there is scope to save money from the disabled facilities grant budget. The cost of adapting three general need units is estimated to be 117, This proposal promotes social inclusion, and development of Reading as a sustainable environment and economy through provision of affordable housing for rent and low cost home ownership on brownfield sites. 8.5 There is a recognised shortage of property adapted for use by persons in a wheelchair. This site will offer residents who are currently housed in unsuitable accommodation an opportunity to live independently. 9. BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 Report on capital programme to Council on 22 February

8 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY CARE LEAD COUNCILLOR COUNCILLOR BENSON DATE: 13 MAY 2011 TITLE: DEE PARK REGENERATION LOCAL DECANT POLICY SERVICE: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT WARDS: NORCOT AUTHOR: DARYN INSTON TEL: JOB TITLE: PRINCIPAL PROJECT OFFICER DEE PARK REGENERANTION 1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 This report endorses the imminent adoption under standing delegation H7 (to the Head of Housing) of the draft Local Decant Policy (draft LDP) in respect of the Dee Park Regeneration project. This report: a) draws reference to the appended draft LDP; b) sets out the context of the draft LDP in relation to the Council s overarching decant policy which is part of the Housing Allocations Policy, as well as identifying, explaining and resolving areas of conflict between extant Policy and the draft LDP; c) highlights some implications of operating the proposed policy under Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 as opposed to utilising general powers under Section 26 of the Housing Act 1985; and d) notes the financial implications of the draft LDP. 1.2 The draft LDP establishes the basis for fair and transparent dealings with tenants who will be displaced from their homes as a result of the Dee Park Regeneration. The draft LDP also enables the Council to take the necessary steps to ensure that existing properties are made vacant for demolition and redevelopment at the appropriate times in accordance with the regeneration programme. Consequently the Council will be well placed to comply with its obligations under the Development Agreement for the regeneration project thereby mitigating the risk of contract breach and consequential damages claim(s) by the project developer, Dee Park Partnership LLP (DPP). 2. DECISION 2.1 It is the decision of the Director for Housing and Community Care in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Housing, Health and Community Care (and the Director of Resources), to adopt the appended Draft Local Decant Policy for the Dee Park Regeneration project. 4

9 3. POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 Dee Park is a 1960s built Radburn estate lying approximately 2 miles from the town centre. The estate comprises circa 1100 households and is in the most deprived 20% of areas nationally. The estate suffers from a poor image and is isolated and poorly connected to wider facilities and opportunities. 3.2 The Council and the local community have, for several years, recognised the need for a major regeneration programme for the Dee Park estate in order to tackle the problems it faces. The Council has already engaged with the community at a number of stages including the preparation of a Draft Neighbourhood Regeneration Framework, the preparation of a Development Brief for the estate and in the selection of the Dee Park Partnership (DPP) as the Council s regeneration partner to carry out the physical regeneration which commenced in May The regeneration of the estate supports the Council s vision for the future of Reading as set out in the consultation draft of the Second Sustainable Community Strategy This sets out the following vision for the Borough The vision for Reading was built on the Council s City 2020 initiative and developed through the involvement of key partners, local residents, businesses and other stakeholders, following the Council s City 2020 initiative: Our vision is to maintain and improve the quality of life in Reading, embracing the challenges of a dynamic, inclusive urban community of the 21st century. Everyone will have the opportunity to benefit from all that Reading can offer. Everyone has a part to play in shaping our future. 3.4 The City 2020 initiative also lists the following Community Strategy themes: Fairer Reading for All Children and Young People Cleaner and Greener Environments Culture, Leisure and Sport Decent and Affordable Housing Healthy People and Lifestyles Thriving Economy and Skills Safer and Stronger Communities Transport and Accessible Spaces 3.5 The adopted development brief for the Dee Park Regeneration provides the following vision for the future of the estate: To create a safe, inclusive and sustainable community, economically, environmentally and socially, as part of the wider Reading, where people want to live and work, and which will inspire a sense of pride. 3.6 The regeneration should help achieve both the local vision and the wider Sustainable Community Strategy vision and address its themes. In this respect 5

10 the regeneration will be about more than providing new homes. It will be expected to provide a lively and attractive central area, increasing density on appropriate locations, improving the design and mix of housing and providing environmental, community and socio-economic benefits for the whole estate. This will mean the provision of services and facilities on the estate for healthcare, education and social support. From the start of the Project the Council has sought to maximise resident participation in the regeneration process to ensure community ownership of the scheme and long-term sustainability. 3.7 The Dee Park Planning Brief, adopted by Cabinet in December 2008 and now published as a Supplementary Planning Document for development control purposes further establishes the physical parameters for comprehensive area regeneration at Dee Park and as such it has been and will continue to be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications within Dee Park. 3.8 Throughout the project the Council has recognised that fully involving residents and other stakeholders at every stage of the process is vital in order to maximise ownership of the redevelopment and ensure long-term sustainability. Considerable progress has been made to develop a residents group, the Community Regeneration Action Group (CRAG) able to take a full and active part in the process. The CRAG is therefore the principal representative group for the estate in all matters relating to the regeneration and is a key consultee in any project-related issues especially when there is a direct impact on residents or tenants. 3.9 Cabinet on 29 March 2010 noted and approved, among other things, that the Council may make discretionary payments relating to re-housing of the Council s tenants as part of the project and that the costs so incurred are recoverable under the terms of the Development Agreement only insofar as: provision for this is made in any Affordable Housing Land Contract or Deed of Variation of the Development Agreement entered into; and the dwellings from which the tenants are decanted are on land that has been drawn down for redevelopment. 4. PROPOSAL 4.1 Under the terms of the project Development Agreement between the Council and DPP, the Council is under a reasonable endeavours obligation to secure vacant possession of its freehold land as required for drawdown by DPP in accordance with the agreed development programme. In discharging it s obligations the Council is applying, one phase at a time, for Secretary of State consent to the Council s use of powers under Ground 10A of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985 (Ground 10A powers). 4.2 If and when the Council utilises such Ground 10A powers to recover possession of property it will be obliged to make statutory payments to affected tenants in the forms of home loss and disturbance payments. However in accordance 6

11 with good practice and in the interests of operating a workable decant programme, the Council is committed to making discretionary home loss and disturbance payments to tenants as soon as possible after they move home and without the need for affected tenants to claim such payments through court proceedings. Where discretionary home loss and disturbance payments are made these will be equal in value to the equivalent statutory payments that would arise if Ground 10A needed to be used. 4.3 Home loss payments are designed to compensate certain categories of occupier who are required to leave their homes permanently because of redevelopment works. It is a payment in recognition of the distress and disruption of losing what is sometimes a long-standing home. The statutory background is the Land Compensation Act 1973, amended by the Planning and Compensation Act The current home loss payment figure (in February 2011), which is set by national government, is Disturbance payments are intended to compensate displaced occupiers for the actual cost of moving from their homes. Disturbance payments are not made at a fixed rate. They are payments towards expenses reasonably incurred during the move. 4.5 Further details about eligibility for home loss and disturbance payments are set out in the appended draft LDP. 4.6 The Development Agreement contains provision for the Council to be reimbursed by DPP for statutory and discretionary home loss and disturbance payment costs associated with the decant of affected tenants. It also contains certain limitations, qualifications and timing issues. These issues and the attendant risks are set out below and in the section entitled Financial Implications. 4.7 In particular the Development Agreement limits DPP s reimbursement obligations to those costs arising from the decant of properties required to be demolished from a live (i.e. unconditional) phase of the project. It should be noted that due to the advance supply of new affordable homes in Phase 1 (124 new-build units versus 39 units to be demolished) a minimum of 85 households will be decanted from future phases to take occupation in new affordable properties. In fact the figure will exceed 85 because a proportion of those being decanted from the 39 units being demolished have or will exercise their option to move away from Dee Park, effectively increasing the over-supply of affordable housing to meet the re-housing needs in Phase 1 yet further, to something in the region of 100 units. Hence any discretionary payments made to approximately 100 tenant households will only be reimbursable under the terms of the Development Agreement if and when future phases of the project become unconditional. 4.8 Also of note is the fact that under Phase 1, the aggregate sum of decant costs able to be reimbursed under the terms of the Development Agreement is capped. It is anticipated that for viability purposes caps may also be requested for future phases. Hence, even for those costs for which DPP are obliged to immediately reimburse the Council (i.e. those arising from the 7

12 decant of homes to be demolished in a phase of the project that has already become unconditional) there is a need to minimise any expenditure exceeding the imposed cap, as such costs fall to the HRA, and we do not hold a specific budget to meet them. 4.9 The draft LDP provides the Council with the ability (within reason) to control expenditure by (among other things): Establishing prescribed rates for certain elements of the disturbance payment like carpets and curtains; Establishing trigger points prior to which tenants who move home would not be eligible for home loss or disturbance payments unless specifically invited to move earlier as part of the decant programme. These trigger points are related specifically to phase unconditionality and thereby minimising the Council s exposure to non-reimbursible costs Apart from making payments to tenants moving home as a direct consequence of the regeneration the Council intends to support tenants through the process of moving home by presenting relevant housing options, giving displaced tenants priority within its allocations system and offering practical support where needed. All of this is set out in the appended draft Local Decant Policy (draft LDP) The draft LDP applies only to the decant of Council tenants whose homes are scheduled to be demolished for redevelopment as a result of the Dee Park Regeneration project. It should be read in conjunction with the Council s borough-wide decant policy which is contained in the Council s Allocations Policy Where there is a conflict between this local policy and the borough-wide policy, the local policy would take precedence. This follows the usual principle that the specific takes precedence over the general, but on legal advice this has also been stated explicitly in the draft LDP. The Council has also taken legal advice on the specific instances where the policies are not perfectly in alignment in order to risk assess the risk of potential legal challenge on these points. These issues are set out below: Timing of award of decant priority banding: The borough-wide policy states that decant priority banding within the allocations system will be given...at the time that the Council declares a demolition or clearance of housing. The draft LDP states that the timing of the award of Band A priority will be managed by the Council to ensure those with the most urgent need of re-housing, due to prospective demolition or closure of property, are given adequate time to bid for suitable homes. The award of Band A, which is the highest priority status within our choice based lettings scheme will normally be made as soon as the following criteria are met: 8

13 a) The tenant s Homechoice at Reading application has been registered at the Council; and b) The tenant s existing home is proposed for demolition or closure within a Phase of the project that has commenced, or (at the Council s discretion) is proposed for demolition or closure within 12 months as part of a future phase. Legal advice has confirmed that there would not appear to be any material deviation between borough-wide policy and local policy on this point and therefore no material risk of successful challenge in relation to it. Priority banding is provided to affected tenants under both policies. The trigger under the general policy is a council declaration whilst under the local policy it is the receipt of the registration form following advice by the council that the relevant Phase has commenced, or (at the Council s discretion) that the relevant tenanted property is proposed for demolition or closure within 12 months as part of a future phase Returners to the estate: The borough-wide policy states that each redevelopment/re-housing programme is different, and will require a specific policy on returning to or remaining in the redevelopment area. Details relating to specific schemes will be included in the Tenant's Guide for that scheme. This might permit the following difference: Borough-wide policy: If there is no accommodation available when tenants are displaced, they will be placed into temporary accommodation. If they want to return to the estate, they keep decant points while in temporary accommodation, but only if they then move back to the redevelopment area. In exceptional circumstances, tenants can stay where they are placed in temporary accommodation. Local Decant Policy: If there is no accommodation available when tenants are displaced, they will be offered alternative secure accommodation, with an option to return to the estate when new build properties are ready (subject to the fact that there will be fewer homes for one-bed households than at present, so not all will have the option to return to the estate). Legal advice received on this issue clarifies the following: That a specific local policy is recognised as being needed in the borough-wider policy; Accordingly it is relatively simple to justify a local policy and its contents; 9

14 The specifics of the local policy will be largely driven by the makeup of the specific scheme, for example, the available units that are delivered as a result of that specific scheme; Hence there is little material risk of successful challenge in respect of the different approaches set out in the policies Arrears and nuisance The borough-wide policy states that to be considered for a return to the estate, tenants must have a clear rent account and must not be subject to legal proceedings for nuisance or anti-social behaviour. The draft LDP states that rent arrears and/or nuisance/anti-social behaviour issues may prevent the allocation of a new home on the estate. Legal advice on this subtle difference between the policies is that the Council may be open to challenge under the LDP since there is very little to guide the Council as to how to exercise the discretion implied by the draft LDP. Legal advisors have noted that the borough-wide policy is less open to challenge as it sets absolute terms around these points. However the Council does not consider that it can necessarily enforce such an absolute veto on this project in respect of those with arrears, nuisance or anti-social behaviour issues. This is because ultimately the landlord for the new homes, in this case Catalyst Communities Housing Association, will make the call as to who it accepts into its housing stock. In addition, any affected tenants with accounts in arrears (up to 4,700) will have their rent accounts cleared by virtue of the Council s rights over home loss payments. Finally the project re-housing officer will ensure that where any tenants nuisance or anti-social behaviour issues are worthy of court proceedings that such court proceedings and consequent evictions are progressed to conclusion prior to decant decisions being finalised. It is therefore considered that the risk highlighted by the Council s legal advisors can be reasonably mitigated Payment of home loss sum: The borough-wide policy states that tenants will receive one payment (NB: If there are joint tenants, the sum may be divided proportionally between all joint tenants. The draft LDP simply states that joint tenants should discuss the matter with the re-housing officer. In practice Council officers request joint tenants to nominate one or more bank account(s) into which the home loss payment will be paid and require the joint tenants to sign a form to verify this. If there is an absent joint tenant who has not been in occupation for one year or more prior to the 10

15 displacement, then arrangements for payment of the home loss payment would be nominated by the remaining tenant(s). If there is an absent joint tenant who has been away for less than one year Council Officers will make reasonable endeavours to contact the absent tenant to agree the nominated bank account arrangements for the home loss payment. If the Council is unable to make contact with the absent tenant or the absent tenant will not co-operate in the process, then arrangements for payment of the home loss payment would be nominated by the remaining tenant(s). Legal advice on this point is that the practice of Council officers makes sense although without stating this explicitly in the LDP the borough-wide policy could be said to apply. Hence there is a slight mis-match between policy and practice. This point is overcome when tenants formally nominate the payment to their chosen bank account(s). As an aside it could be interpreted in relation to the borough-wide policy that payment is payable to all joint tenants (divided equally) regardless of whether the individual people qualify for the payment. It may therefore be appropriate to clarify the wording on this point when the policy is next reviewed Date of eligibility for home loss payment: Note that this section discusses the date at which if tenants subsequently move home they will be entitled to home loss payment. This is not a discussion of the date at which payment is actually made. That subject matter is discussed in the draft LDP itself. In respect of the date from which tenants become eligible if they move home, the borough-wide policy states that the date that a tenant becomes eligible for home loss payments is the date that the Council makes a formal decision to carry out redevelopment. This will be the date of the Cabinet or Council decision to start the process of seeking approval of redevelopment from the Secretary of State. The draft LDP states that eligibility for home loss payment arises to all Dee Park tenants moving as a direct result of the need to recover vacant possession in the following circumstances: a) Tenants whose homes are programmed to be demolished or closed during a Phase of the regeneration that has commenced b) Tenants whose homes are due to be handed over for demolition within 12 months as part of a future phase AND (at the Council s discretion) have been pre-allocated to a new-build home c) Tenants whose homes are due to be handed over for demolition within 12 months as part of a future phase AND (at the Council s discretion) have been awarded Band A status within Homechoice at Reading 11

16 d) Tenants whose homes are programmed for demolition in a later phase programmed to commence in excess of 12 months time but who are accepting an invitation to move voluntarily by preallocation due to a surplus of new-build properties within the current phase. Legal advice has been received confirming that the difference between the policies is only slight in that the trigger for payment under the borough-wide policy is the commencement of statutory approval, whereas in the case of the draft LDP the eligibility arises on commencement of a phase or, if a phase looks likely to proceed, up to 12 months beforehand. This implies that the risk of successful legal challenge is slight The overall purpose of the draft LDP is to ensure that all tenants are treated fairly, understand the decant process and have confidence in it. The draft LDP also makes it possible for the Council to take the necessary steps to ensure that existing properties are made vacant for demolition and redevelopment at the appropriate times in accordance with the regeneration programme The draft LDP does not deal with freeholders or leaseholders whose homes are affected by the Dee Park regeneration project. Their cases will be dealt with separately. 5 CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS 5.1 These proposals promote social inclusion, and development of Reading as a sustainable environment and economy through the provision of affordable housing for rent and low cost home ownership. The proposals also contribute to maintaining a strong and cohesive community locally at Dee Park, by promoting first refusal of new homes being built as part of the Dee Park Regeneration project to existing tenants displaced by the redevelopment. 6 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION 6.1 As stated in section 3 CRAG is the principal representative group for the estate in all matters relating to the regeneration and is a key consultee in any project-related issues especially when there is a direct impact on residents or tenants. Accordingly CRAG was consulted on the draft policy and gave feedback which has been addressed separately or within the current draft LDP. 6.2 The independent residents advisor was also consulted. The advisor s comments have similarly been addressed in the form of modifications to the current draft LDP. Pleasingly the advisor stated, at a meeting with CRAG, that in his opinion the draft policy achieves exactly what it sets out to achieve, i.e. that it presents a fair balance between the rights of affected tenants and the obligations of the Council to its development partner. He also endorsed the user-friendly, readable style of the draft policy and its use of plain English. 12

17 6.3 Norcot Ward councilors have been consulted. At the time of consulting ward councilors they had sight of the comments made by CRAG and the responses of Council Officers. The ward councilors had nothing to add to the comments already raised by CRAG. 6.4 It is proposed, following adoption of the draft LDP as policy, to make it available to every tenant whose home is scheduled for demolition during the regeneration programme. In addition a simplified summary will be produced as a quick reference guide to the policy to be circulated to affected tenants, possibly in the form of a question and answer sheet. Council officers are also available at regular times throughout the week to discuss re-housing policy issues at the Regeneration Office drop-in surgeries which are held at 4 Lyon Square on Tuesday mornings, Wednesday late afternoons / early evenings and Friday mornings. Relevant Council officers work telephone numbers and addresses are also widely publicised on the estate. 7 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 The Development Agreement between the Council and DPP places contractual obligations on the Council to use reasonable endeavours to recover vacant possession of its tenanted freehold land as required for drawdown by DPP in accordance with the agreed development programme. The operation of a well-considered decant policy is essential to the Council complying with it s obligations and hence avoiding damages claims from DPP for contract breach. 7.2 With the above in mind it is worth noting that DPP and it s affordable housing member company Catalyst Housing Group have both been afforded the opportunity to comment on the draft LDP. Neither organisation had any comment. 7.3 It is recommended that the draft LDP is adopted and implemented as soon as possible to minimise risk of challenge regarding the Council s ongoing decant programme. 7.4 The risk of legal challenge on grounds of conflict between the Council s overarching decants policy and the LDP is discussed in section 4. Legal advice was taken on each specific point of variance between the policies. The risk of successful legal challenge is assessed as slight. 7.5 The draft LDP proposes that the statutory background for the disturbance payment is Sections 37(5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, amended by the Planning and Compensation Act It should be noted that an alternative statutory background for making the payments is available under Section 26 of the Housing Act The distinction between these two types of legislation is important. 7.6 When a landlord resolves to use the discretionary 1973 Land Compensation Act legislation to make payment, the only discretion vested in it is to determine whether or not to make a payment. If it agrees to make a discretionary payment the amount is to be computed in accordance to Section 38 of the Act. This potentially means that it cannot technically limit any element of the 13

18 claim even if prescribed amounts or rates (e.g. for carpets and curtains) are stated in the adopted policy. Any disputes would be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal. 7.7 However if the Landlord s policy is to make disturbance payment under the general powers of the Housing Act it would have discretion as to what amount it paid to tenants. Standard sums quoted in the policy could be held to. 7.8 In this case the draft LDP utilises the Land Compensation Act This places the policy within recognised best practice on this issue. It does however carry increased risk of claims needing to be settled by the Lands Tribunal with a consequential open-ended cost risk. The authority needs to be aware of this risk. However on balance the project team considers there is a need to consider it s tenants interests and the need to gain their co-operation and good will to effect the decant programme. Giving the tenants the right to independent review of any disturbance payment settlement provides transparency where required. The risk of financial penalty due to breach of the Development Agreement obligations is likely to heavily outweigh any additional costs arising out of Land Tribunal settlements. 8 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The financial implications of implementing the LDP are potentially complex because there are caps and conditionalities relating to the Council s ability to get home loss and disturbance payments reimbursed under the terms of the Development Agreement with DPP. 8.2 In Phase 1 the Development Agreement caps DPP s exposure to reimbursable home loss and disturbance costs to 253,673. The Development Agreement contains no such caps in respect of Phases 2 or 3 therefore full reimbursement of in phase costs during those phases is assumed at this stage. However it might be anticipated that the senior funder (i.e. DPP s bank) may require a cap as future phases require funding as a condition of those phases becoming unconditional. 8.3 As well as being capped, DPP s obligation to pay home loss and disturbance costs is conditional. The Development Agreement is structured such that DPP are only obliged to reimburse the Council s home loss or disturbance costs for obtaining vacant possession of properties that are on land due to be redeveloped within a phase that has become unconditional. Home loss and disturbance costs arising from recovering possession of properties on land to be redeveloped within a later phase (i.e. a phase for which the conditions precedent have yet to be satisfied) would only be reimbursable if and when the relevant future development phase becomes unconditional. 8.4 Analysis of the revenue implications to the Council is provided in Appendix 1. The analysis is based on the extant build proposals, programme and Development Agreement. It is essential that the table in Appendix 1 is read in conjunction with the notes below the table. 14

19 8.5 The conditionality point is particularly important in Phase 1. Some 124 affordable dwellings are being constructed compared to just 39 properties which are due for demolition, i.e. a surplus of 85 units. In addition it is anticipated that approximately 19 tenants from the demolished properties may exercise their choice to move away from Dee Park, increasing the supply surplus to around 104 units. stated in the LDP the surplus units will be offered to Dee Park tenants whose homes are due for demolition in later phases. Home loss and disturbance payments attracted by such moves would not reimbursable unless or until the relevant phase(s) in which the vacated properties are to be redeveloped become unconditional. Therefore, in the event that any phase fails to become unconditional, the total revenue implication to the Council will be the cumulative revenue cost of previous phases, i.e. if the project ceases with only Phase 1 complete the Council s revenue cost will be in the order of 660k. At the end of Phase 2 the Council s cumulative revenue cost will be in the order of 660k 263k = c. 397k. If the project completes the revenue implication will be nil.. In all cases, the Council will also lose the rental income that derived from tenants decanted into the new affordable dwellings as following such decant those tenants will become tenants of Catalyst Housing Group. 8.6 The net cost of the proposal would be funded from the Dee Park Regeneration budget which is operated as a component of the Housing Revenue Account. An part of the budget setting process for future financial years, provision will need to be made for the costs of the policy that will not be covered by reimbursement by the development partner. 8.7 VALUE FOR MONEY: is considered to be inherent within the proposal. The draft LDP is written in such a way as to give discretion, where possible, to the Council over the timing of tenants moves and hence their entitlement to home loss and disturbance payments. The Council s exposure has thus been minimised to that necessary to effect a workable decant programme that meets the Council s reasonable endeavours obligations in respect of vacant possession. 8.8 RISK ASSESSMENT: As stated previously, if only Phase 1 of the project ever completes, the Council s revenue cost will be in the order of 660k. At the end of Phase 2 the Council s cumulative revenue cost will be in the order of 660k 263k = c. 397k. If the entire project completes, and it is possible to secure reimbursement of all costs within any caps that are agreed as a condition of funding, the revenue implication will be nil. Therefore in respect of this particular revenue implication, as well as the Council s aspirations for holistic estate regeneration, the Council s interests are best served by completing the project. 8.9 Other sources of risk include: Changes to any of the assumption detailed in the notes below the table in Appendix 1; Potential future revisions to the Development Agreement imposed by DPP s senior lender, or others, in respect of financial reimbursement of 15

20 home loss and disturbance payments relating to future phases. This risk includes the potential introduction of further caps and conditionality s concerning reimbursement which may be deemed necessary for future phases to become unconditional. Any inflationary increases to the Council s costs that are not matched by financial flexibility in any established caps; Legislative changes resulting in increased costs that are not matched by financial flexibility in any established caps COST EXCLUSIONS: As far as decant related costs are concerned, only those costs paid to or on behalf of tenants as home loss and/or disturbance costs are reimbursable from DPP under the terms of the Development Agreement. The Council is not able to claim back any other costs associated with the decant of tenants including the costs of: (i) officer employment; (ii) void decommissioning and/or security; (iii) void relet enhancement works; (iv) rent re-charges for late key return where residents have been allowed a moving period during which they hold keys to two properties. These costs, which are not directly related to the adoption of the Local Decant policy, but in some cases may consequentially arise, are not considered within this report. 9 BACKGROUND PAPERS Dee Park Regeneration - Draft Local Decant Policy. 16

21 {Please restate these tables rounding all the monetary figures to k} Appendix 1: Financial Implications of Home Loss and Disturbance Payments to Tenants Based on the build proposals, programme and Development Agreement current at the date of this report. To be read in conjunction with notes below the table. Phase May Sept Nov Jul Dates (prospective and subject to change) June 2013 Jan TOTAL No. of demolitions Vacated in previous phase Move to new CCHA property on-site Move to property off-site. See note Total demolitions in phase In phase implications Homeloss and disturb'ce costs due to vacating units to be demolished in phase Of which tenants moving in phase Home 4.7k per unit. See note 2 183,3k 394,8k 404,2k 1.6k per unit. See note 3 62,4k 134,4k 137,6k "Double decant" allow for add'l 1.6k per unit. See note 3 12,48k 26,88k 27,52k Total 258,18k 556,08K 569,32k In phase reimbursement cost cap under terms of DA. See note 4 253,673K 556,08k 569,32k Reimbursement of costs prev incurred for VP out of phase ,2k 396,9K Reimbursement of costs incurred above prev phase cap ,507k 0.00 Total to be reimbursed 253,673k 1,215,787k 966,22k Sub-Total 1: In phase revenue cost to the Council 4,507k - 659,707k - 396,9k Continued on following page 17

22 Phase Out of phase implications Dates (prospective and subject to change) May Sept Nov Jul June 2013 Jan TOTAL No. of affordable completions Total Surplus requiring moves from future phase(s). See note Homeloss and disturbance Approx HL cost = Total demo x 4.7k 488,8k 296,1k 0.00 costs due to vacating units to be demolished in later Approx D cost = Total demo x 1.6k 166,4k 100,8k 0.00 phase Total HL + D cost 655,2k 396,9k 0.00 Out of phase reimbursement cost cap under terms of DA. See note Sub-Total 2: Out of phase revenue cost to the Council 655,2k 396,9k 0.00 Total revenue cost (+) / saving (-). See note 7 659,707k - 262,807k - 396,9k 0.00 Notes: 1. Phase 1 figures regarding decants to off-site properties are close to becoming actual figures. The corresponding figures for Phases 2 and 3 are based on an assumption of 33% of tenants moving away from Dee Park. 2. Home loss payment is based on 4,700 per unit vacated. No allowance is made for inflation or other variance in this figure. 3. Disturbance payment is based on an average of 1,600 per unit, which is the approximate average cost of decants achieved on this project to date. No allowance is made for inflation or variance in this figure. An allowance of up to 20% of tenants being required to move twice is assumed. This 20% assumption is untested. 4. The Development Agreement contains no in-phase cost reimbursement cap in Phases 2 or 3, therefore full reimbursement is assumed. However the senior lender (bank) may insist on a cap before those phases can go unconditional. 5. There is no future phase after Phase 3 therefore surplus properties completed in Phase 3 are assumed to be occupied from the housing waiting / transfer list with no requirement to pay home loss or disturbance payments. 6. The out of phase reimbursement cap is entered at zero meaning that no such costs can be reimbursed until the relevant later phase becomes unconditional. 7. In the event that any phase fails to become unconditional, the total revenue implication to the Council will be the cumulative revenue cost of previous phases, i.e. if the project ceases with only Phase 1 complete the Council s revenue cost will be in the order of 660k. At the end of Phase 2 the Council s cumulative revenue cost will be in the order of 660k 263k = c. 397k. January

23 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY CARE AND THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND CHILDREN S SERVICES LEAD COUNCILLOR: COUNCILLORS BENSON AND RALPH DATE: 13 MAY 2011 TITLE: EXTENSION OF RAISE ESCR (ELECTRONIC SOCIAL CARE RECORD) SOCIAL CARE SYSTEM AND OFFICEBASE HOMECARE SYSTEM SERVICE: ADULT & CHILDREN S SOCIAL CARE WARDS: BOROUGHWIDE AUTHOR: GARETH STEARMAN TEL: JOB TITLE: PROJECT MANAGER (CEX) gareth.stearman@reading.gov.uk 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Further to Minute 199 of Cabinet held on 15 March 2004 and Decision Book Issue 320 dated 18 June 2010, this report sets out the decision to enter into a new two-year contract with CareWorks to provide RAISE, the Electronic Social Care Record (ESCR). This was originally procured via a competitive Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) tender process during 2003/4 for a five year contract from 1 April 2004, with the option of an extension for up-to two years expiring on 31 March 2011 which extension has been exercised. The new contract will be for two years during which time reprocurement options will be considered. 1.2 This report also sets out the decision to extend the contract with CACI to provide OfficeBase Home Care for one year. This contract was procured via a competitive Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) tender process during 2003/4 on a five year contract from 9 April 2005, with the option of extending this by up to two years. A one year extension was taken up in 2010 as detailed by the Decision Book Issue 320 dated 18 June 2010 and the contract will now expire on 8 April One further extension of twelve months from 9 April 2011 is therefore possible and during this time reprocurement options will be considered. 1.3 RAISE is used by over 700 users within both Adult s and Children s Social Care, as well as the Emergency Duty Team at Bracknell Forest Borough Council. HomeCare is used by 31 staff within the HomeCare service. 19

24 2. DECISION 2.1 It is the decision of the Director of Housing and Community Care and the Director of Education and Children s Services, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Community Care, Housing and Health and the Lead Councillor for Education and Children s Services, that Reading Borough Council enter into a new contract for the RAISE software package with CareWorks Ltd for a further period expiring on 31 January It is the decision of the Director of Housing and Community Care, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Community Care, Housing and Health, that Reading Borough Council extend the contract for the OfficeBase HomeCare software package with CACI Ltd for a further year expiring on 8 April POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 The introduction of the RAISE social care and OfficeBase HomeCare software packages was made in context with the Department of Health s Electronic Social Care Record launched in 2001, and formally defined during 2003, with the final version (v7.2) being agreed in December 2003, which stated that all CSSR s (Council s with Social Services Responsibilities) must implement an Electronic Social Care Record (ESCR). 4. THE PROPOSAL (a) Current Position The current RAISE and OfficeBase HomeCare contracts has been operating following the award of the contract is 2004 to CareWorks Ltd and in 2005 to CACI Ltd following an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) tender process. The annual support costs for RAISE and OfficeBase HomeCare is as follows: RAISE Manage Service Hosting (Northgate Manage Services): 60,476.24* RAISE License and Annual Support (CareWorks Ltd): 58,875 OfficeBase Manage Service Hosting (Northgate Manage Services): 970* OfficeBase License and Annual Support (CACI Ltd): 16, ESCROW for RAISE: 755 (NCC) ESCROW for CACI: 755 (NCC) *Both of these items are covered by the current Outsourced Managed Services contract with Northgate Information Solutions Ltd, which was extended by two years to 31 October