Agenda item

To consider the current publication of the Performance & Financial Monitoring Information (Green Book) for August 2021.  A copy of the document was sent to all Members at the end of September and the Members of the Committee were invited to raise any questions they may have in advance of this meeting to enable timely responses to be given.

Reporting person: Councillor J Sanderson

The Chairman invited questions and comments from Members about the content of the August Performance and Financial Monitoring Information (Green Book).

Councillor Kirby advised the Committee that some particular statistics he had obtained from Officers weren’t included in this version of the Green Book but wanted to note that it was hoped these could be covered next time.

The Chairman drew attention to page 63, the level of non-decent Council Homes, noting that there had been an increase compared to prior years and highlighted that there was a desire to improve this. Louise Strongitharm was invited to comment and stated that it had been hoped to reduce this number back to zero but issues relating to contractors and supplies had prevented this. Louise Strongitharm also highlighted that the New Vision Homes contract was due to end in March 2022 and as a result the Council could not have any works partially completed at the end of that period, meaning some kitchen and bathroom replacements had been suspended. Members were advised that the non-decency rate would be around 1.5% at the end of this year but it should be reduced at the end of next year.

Following a question from the Chairman regarding household waste on page 67, Councillor Davis confirmed that the reduction in the percentage of Household Waste Recycling going down from 60% to 56% between June and July was a general month on month variation. It was noted that quarterly statistics on this matter were sent to the Chairman.

Councillor Nicholson raised a question regarding the desired recycling target and Councillor Davis stated that the Council had always aimed for a 60% recycling target and commented that it generally runs between 57% and 62%. Councillor Davis commented that he would like to see more re-use as well as achieving the recycling target.

Councillor Kirby asked whether there was any way to get metrics prior to the Joint Waste Management Performance Review item being brought to the January meeting to prepare informed questions. Councillor Davies highlighted that IT issues had caused problems with metrics to date, though it was hoped to be able to provide metrics in advance of the meeting. It intended that the Committee could be provided with all the information they require to allow them to scrutinise the topic in full.

Councillor Leach asked whether it would be better to use percentages of relative recycling and non-recycling, to better illustrate what the Council was doing. Councillor Davis stated that whilst a higher recycling rate would be ideal there were issues with recycling waste being contaminated. Councillor Leach followed up stating that it seemed it was a matter of educating people about recycling and Councillor Davis concurred, advising that he had just signed off on the latest communications material aimed at educating the public on waste and recycling.

Councillor Dorsett asked if communal bins exacerbated the issue. Councillor Davis confirmed that this was the case and that the number of contaminated bins in communal areas was significantly higher than in normal households.

Councillor Raja raised a question on page 64 of the Performance and Financial Monitoring Information, regarding the average length of stay for homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodations. He brought to the Committees attention a case of one particular household who had been living more than six years in temporary accommodation. Louise Strongitharm stated that the figures were an average of those moved on and thus those not moved on would not be included in the figures. Louise Strongitharm also said that in reference to the case of the household raised by Councillor Raja, it would be better addressed outside of the Committee and if he provided her with all the details she would happily look into the case.

Councillor Kirby asked whether there was a target for a maximum target for length of stay and whether those in Sheerwater unsecured accommodation were the most prominent in the statistics provided and whether it was anticipated that this figure would improve as the Sheerwater regeneration progressed. Louise Strongitharm highlighted that the Council had significantly reduced the number of households in temporary accommodation compared with two years ago. She also highlighted that the only specific maximum that the Council tried to work to was six weeks for families in bed and breakfast accommodations. Louise Strongitharm stated that to set targets for other forms of temporary accommodation it would most likely be a discussion on whether the Council wanted to be firmer about whether people should go into private accommodation or if a system of auto-bidding on properties needed to be brought in.

Councillor Mohammed questioned whether living standards would be maintained in the case of where a family was moved from one house to another drawing attention to a specific case of a family who had moved into a house that was in poor condition. Louise Strongitharm stated that houses should be in a safe and liveable condition and that this particular case should be addressed outside of the meeting.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Davis for attending the meeting.

          Resolved

That the Performance and Financial Monitoring Information (August 2021) be noted.