Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no declarations of interest. 

At its meeting on Thursday 10 September Cabinet considered a petition containing 28 signatures received from the residents of the Sheltered Housing Scheme at Avenells Way and Grays Road, Gamlingay.

Cabinet referred the petition to the Housing Portfolio Holder for detailed consideration and agreement of a response.

In the event that this recommendation is adopted the Portfolio Holder is invited to consider the petition and agree a response, as directed by the Cabinet.

The Housing Portfolio Holder called a public meeting, on Wednesday 23 September 2009, in the Communal Room at the Avenells Way Sheltered Housing Scheme.

The meeting was called to enable the Portfolio Holder to receive and consider the contents of a petition containing 28 signatures received from the residents of the Sheltered Housing Scheme at Avenells Way and Grays Road, Gamlingay. 

The petitioners’ concerns were NOTED.

The Portfolio Holder requested that a copy of the minutes be sent directly to Mr Doug Gilbert, the lead petitioner.

The Housing Portfolio Holder opened the meeting and welcomed those residents of the Sheltered Housing Scheme that were in attendance. 

The residents were advised that the meeting had been called to enable the Portfolio Holder to receive and consider the contents of a petition containing 28 signatures received from the residents of the Sheltered Housing Scheme at Avenells Way and Grays Road, Gamlingay. 

By way of introduction the Portfolio Holder highlighted three areas of concern for the Housing Service that affected the Sheltered Housing Schemes.  Those present were advised that:

1. For every £1 collected in rent 56p was paid to central government as part of the negative housing subsidy;
2. Supporting people budgets were being reduced and, there being a move to the floating support scheme, tenants would be assessed for their support requirements and given a choice of service provider;
3. Rents from general needs housing were subsidising tenants in sheltered schemes by approximately £600,000 per year

The Housing Portfolio Holder emphasised that the decisions the council faced were the result of financial, rather than political pressures, and stressed that no decision had yet been made.   The purpose of the meeting, he advised, was to listen to the concerns of residents.

Concerns raised and replies:

Warden Service

The petitioners raised the following concerns about the warden service at the Avenells Way scheme:

• Wardens that had left were not being replaced.
• Residents were paying the same service charges for a reduced service.
• Off-site wardens had led to increased response times for cord pulling emergencies.
• Wardens had been removed from sites by stealth.
• Agency workers were more expensive than the Council’s own staff.
• Wardens provided a useful link to the resident’s family and performed other essential tasks.
• It was asked how much would it cost to provide on-site warden cover for the scheme on a 9-5 basis as previously enjoyed?
• In reply to a direct question from the Portfolio Holder the unanimous view from the meeting was that a warden was wanted on site.

In reply, the petitioners were advised:

• Overall about 10 wardens had left the Council and their posts were being kept vacant in the anticipation of having to make savings in the service.  It was anticipated that this level of vacancy would negate the need for redundancies.
• Many wardens had wanted to move off site because of the level of disturbance that they had experienced when off-duty.  Additionally the working time directive meant that many wardens had been working too many hours and were therefore working illegally.
• Agency wardens were used to cover unexpected absences and there was no extra cost to the Council over and above the cost of a council employee. 

·         Tenants were advised that the cost of an on-site warden would be approximately £37,000 per year plus extra costs for covering absences.

• Anita Goddard, Housing Services Manager, advised the tenants that the service charges for the scheme did not cover the costs and it was running at a loss.  Additionally the Sheltering People funding was also running  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.