Agenda Reports

CABINET

Thursday, 16 October 2003 10.00 a.m.

Conference Room 1, Council Offices, Spennymoor

AGENDA and

REPORTS

Printed on Recycled Paper

CABINET Thursday, 16 October 2003

AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES 2. MINUTES To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 18th September 2003. (Pages 1 - 4)

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To notify the Chairman of any items that appear in the agenda and in which you may have an interest.

4. DETERMINATION OF STANDARDS BY THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE Report of Monitoring Officer. (Pages 5 - 12)

5. MEDIA PROTOCOL FOR STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Report of Monitoring Officer. (Pages 13 - 16)

KEY DECISIONS HOUSING PORTFOLIO 6. SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL HOMELESSNESS REVIEW AND STRATEGY 2004 Report of Director of Housing and Environmental Health. (Pages 17 - 84)

7. REVIEW OF THE ALLOCATIONS POLICY (a) Report of Director of Housing and Environmental Health (Pages 85 - 108) (b) Report of Members of the Review Review Sub-Committee (Pages 109 - 112) REGENERATION PORTFOLIO 8. STATEMENT OF USE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUND 2003/04 Report of Regeneration Manager. (Pages 113 - 128)

9. USE OF PLANNING DELIVERY GRANT FUNDS 2003/04 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO 10. INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS 2003/04 Report of Director of Finance. (Pages 135 - 138)

OTHER DECISIONS REGENERATION PORTFOLIO 11. NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUND RESIDUAL ALLOCATIONS Report of Regeneration Manager. (Pages 139 - 144)

REGENERATION AND SUPPORTING PEOPLE PORTFOLIOS 12. COUNTY DURHAM DRAFT SCHOOL ORGANISATION PLAN 2003 - 2008 CONSULTATION BY DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL Report of Regeneration Manager. (Pages 145 - 152)

13. BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE Report of Regeneration Manager. (Pages 153 - 156)

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO 14. PURCHASE OF A REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE AND A ROAD SWEEPER Report of Head of Contract Services. (Pages 157 - 158)

15. COUNCIL TAX, BUDGET AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLANNING CONSULTATION Report of Director of Finance. (Pages 159 - 162)

16. PROCUREMENT OF A HUMAN RESOURCES COMPUTER SYSTEM Report of Director of Finance. (Pages 163 - 166)

17. CONFERENCES Report of Chief Executive Officer. (Pages 167 - 168)

MINUTES 18. AREA FORUMS To consider the minutes of the following meetings:

(a) Area 1 Forum - 1st September 2003 (Pages 169 - 174) (b) Area 2 Forum - 9th September 2004 (Pages 175 - 178) (c) Area 3 Forum - 17th September 2003 (Pages 179 - 184) (d) Area 4 Forum - 23rd September 2003 (Pages 185 - 192) (e) Area 5 Forum - 30th September 2003 (Pages 193 - 196) 19. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES To consider the minutes of the following:

(a) Overview and Scrutiny Coommittee 2 - 16th September 2003 (Pages 197 - 204) (b) Overview and Scrutiny Committee 3 - 30th September 2003 (Pages 205 - 212) 20. `SEDGEFIELD BOROGH LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd July 2003. (Pages 213 - 216)

21. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Lead Members are requested to inform the Chief Executive Officer or the Head of Democratic Services of any items they might wish to raise under this heading by no later than 12 noon on the day preceding the meeting. This will enable the Officers in consultation with the Chairman to determine whether consideration of the matter by the Cabinet is appropriate.

N. Vaulks Chief Executive Officer Council Offices SPENNYMOOR

Councillor R.S. Fleming (Chairman)

Councillors Mrs. A.M. Armstrong, Mrs. B. Graham, A. Hodgson, M. Iveson, D.A. Newell, K. Noble, J. Robinson J.P and W. Waters

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection in relation to this Agenda and associated papers should contact Gillian Garrigan, on Spennymoor 816166 Ext 4240

Item 2

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET

Conference Room 1, Council Offices, Thursday, Spennymoor. 18th September 2003 Time: 10.00 a.m.

Present: Councillor R.S. Fleming (Chairman) and

Councillors Mrs. A.M. Armstrong, Mrs. B. Graham, A. Hodgson, M. Iveson, D.A. Newell and K. Noble In Attendance: Councillors Mrs. B.A. Clare, Mrs. J. Croft, A. Gray, G.C. Gray, D.M. Hancock, J.G. Huntington, J.M. Khan, B. Meek, G. Morgan, Mrs. E. Paylor, J.K. Piggott, and A. Smith

Apologies: Councillors J. Robinson J.P. and W. Waters

CAB.65/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 4th September 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

CAB.66/03 CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT/INVESTMENT Consideration was given a report of the Chief Executive Officer setting out the results of the internal consultations that had taken place regarding the Council’s priorities and areas for improvement and investment, and recommendations for the prioritisation of recently agreed policy outcomes. (For copy see file of Minutes).

RESOLVED: 1. That the priority-based grouping of policy outcomes as set out in paragraph 5.1.1 of the report, be agreed as the basis for a Corporate Planning framework, incorporating a Corporate Plan and supporting Medium Term Financial and Workforce Plans.

2. That the Council agrees to direct its resources in the short-term to improve core services that contribute directly to Group 1 policy outcomes and costcutting services that underpin their achievement.

CAB.67/03 CAPITAL PROGRAMME – TENANT LED IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES 2003 - 2004 Consideration was given to a report of the Property Services Manager seeking approval for all Tenant Led Improvement Schemes and Kitchen Unit Replacements for the remainder of the 2003/04 financial

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\1\6\AI00003611\Minutes0.doc Page 11 year to be negotiated with Contract Services to take advantage of competitive tenders that had been submitted. (For copy see file of Minutes).

RESOLVED: That for the remainder of 2003/04 all Tenant Led Improvement Schemes and Kitchen Unit Replacements be negotiated with Contract Services, as set out in paragraph 3 of the report.

CAB.68/03 SERVICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES – HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Housing and Environmental Health seeking approval of a series of recently developed policies and procedures for emergency call out, decoration voucher allowance, void management and recharges to improve service delivery and provide a clear and fair service to all tenants (For copy see file of Minutes).

Details of the four policies were outlined at the meeting.

With regard to the Decoration Voucher Allowance Policy and Procedure, it was reported that officers were reviewing the list of painting and decorating suppliers that operated the voucher exchange scheme with the Council, to ensure tenants received value for money.

RESOLVED: That the Emergency Call Out, Decoration Voucher Allowance, Void Management and Recharge Policies be agreed.

CAB.69/03 ANNUAL REVIEW OF TREASURY MANAGEMENT 2002/2003 Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Finance reviewing the performance of the Council’s Treasury Management activities during the 2002/2003 financial year. (For copy see file of Minutes).

It was noted that Treasury Management activities undertaken during 2002/2003 had met all of the strategic aims and objectives set by the Council at the beginning of the year.

The Council had continued to keep the level of debt broadly similar to the level of the Council’s credit ceiling and had achieved a satisfactory return on its investment during 2002/03 whilst operating within the improved borrowing limits at all times.

RESOLVED: That the report on the performance of the Treasury Management activities during 2002/03 be accepted.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\1\6\AI00003611\Minutes0.doc Page2 2 CAB.70/03 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COMMUNITY STRATEGY – CONSULTATION PROGRAMME The Leader of the Council presented a report detailing the programme of consultation for the draft Community Strategy. (For copy see file of Minutes).

It was explained that the Community Strategy was a key policy document for the Local Strategic Partnership. The purpose of the consultation programme was to ensure that local communities and LSP stakeholders could further refine the key aims and objectives of the Strategy. The consultation exercise would commence in September and conclude at the end of November 2003 with a LSP Conference.

RESOLVED: That the Community Strategy Consultation Programme as detailed in the report be agreed.

CAB.71/03 RESTRUCTURING – IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Consideration was given to a report of the Principal Personnel Officer detailing a process of consultation, approval, implementation and appointment of post holders for the second phase of the Council’s re-organisation. (For copy see file of Minutes)

RESOLVED: That the process of consultation, approval, implementation and appointment of post holders in the second phase of re-organisation be dealt with as detailed in the report.

CAB.72/03 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 1 Consideration was given to the minutes of Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 held on 2nd September 2003 (For copy see file of Minutes)

RESOLVED: That the Committee’s recommendations be noted and appropriate action be taken. ______

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right to inspection in relation to these Minutes should contact Gillian Garrigan, Spennymoor 816166, Ext. 4237.

Published on 19th September 2003.

These Minutes contain no key decisions.

------Confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman of the meeting held on 16th October 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\1\6\AI00003611\Minutes0.doc Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 4 Item 4

ITEM No.

REPORT TO STANDARDS COMMITTEE

4TH NOVEMBER 2003

REPORT OF THE MONITORING OFFICER

DETERMINATION OF STANDARDS ALLEGATIONS BY THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1. INTRODUCTION

The Government has now made the first part of the Section 66 Regulations which will enable the Ethical Standards Officers of the Standards Board for England to refer allegations to the Standards Committee, or a Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee for local determination, once the Ethical Standards Officer has completed an investigation of and report on the allegation. A further set of Section 66 Regulations will be made later in the year, once the Local Government Bill is in force, and which will enable an allegation to be referred down to the Monitoring Officer before investigation of the allegation, so that the Monitoring Officer will then secure the investigation of the allegation and report to the Standards Committee, or Sub- Committee.

2. THE CONTENT OF THE REGULATIONS

The regulations, which come into force on 30th June 2003, contain no great surprises in terms of the procedure which authorities will be required to follow in dealing with allegations of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. Key features include:-

(a) Extension of the definition of “exempt information” to make it clear that the Standards Committee can meet in private session to determine allegations. In practice, to ensure public confidence in the process, the Committee should meet in public unless there are overriding reasons for going into private session, such as the need to protect the privacy of individuals. However, these amendments do usefully allow the Proper Officer to deny press and public access to the Committee papers in advance of the meeting, and enable the Committee to retire in order actually to consider its findings.

(b) Extension of the permitted grounds of disclosure of information obtained during an investigation or hearing, in order to enable a national Appeals Tribunal to discharge its functions.

(c) The function of the Monitoring Officer is to report the Ethical Standards Officer’s report to the Standards Committee, without additional investigation. However, the Committee may wish to ask the Monitoring Officer to provide additional evidence if they are unable to come to a decision on the basis of the Ethical Standards Officer’s report and the Councillor’s response thereto.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 5 (d) There is no provision for the Standards Committee to call the Ethical Standards Officer to give evidence in support of his/her report. The Committee may wish to ask the Standards Board or the Ethical Standards Officer to make such an appearance if there are substantial disputes of fact in a particular case, but there is no automatic right for the Committee to require such attendance.

(e) The Committee’s hearing must be at least 14 days after the Monitoring Officer has given a copy of the Ethical Standards Officer’s report to the Councillor concerned, but no later than 3 months after the Monitoring Officer first received the report from the Ethical Standards Officer.

(f) The Standards Committee is given a power to make a determination in the absence of the Councillor concerned where it is not satisfied with the Councillor’s explanation for his/her absence.

(g) Where the Councillor concerned has ceased to be a Councillor by the date of the Committee’s hearing, the only sanction which the Committee can impose is one of censure s to his/her conduct.

(h) Where the Councillor is still a Councillor at the date of the hearing, the range of sanctions is more varied and includes all or any of the following:

(i) Censure of the Councillor.

(ii) Restriction of the Councillor’s access to Council premises and use of Council resources for up to 3 months, provided that this does not unduly restrict the Councillor’s ability to perform his/her functions as a Councillor. This might be appropriate in barring a Councillor from the Council Offices where the misconduct were the bullying of officers, or taking away their Council-provided computer where the misconduct was inappropriate use of this facility.

(iii) Suspension as a Councillor of the relevant authority for up to 3 months. Note that this period does not count towards any disqualification by reason of failure to attend a meeting of the authority for 6 months.

(iv) Partial suspension as a Councillor for the relevant authority for up to 3 months. This could be suspension from Planning Committee if the misconduct particularly related to his/her participation in Planning Committee; or

(v) Suspension or partial suspension for up to 3 months or until the Councillor provides a written apology or undertakes remedial training or conciliation as determined by the Standards Committee.

Any such sanction take effect immediately upon the Committee’s decision, unless the Committee determines that it shall take effect from a set date within 6 months of the date of the determination.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 6 (i) A Councillor can apply to the President of the National Adjudication Panel to be allowed to appeal against a determination of a Standards Committee. The Councillor will have to send in a written notice and the President will decide on the basis of whether the facts as set out in that notice indicate any reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding. Any appeal will be heard by a tribunal comprising at least 3 members of the Adjudication Panel and may be by way of written representations if the Councillor consents.

3. A PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH REFERRED ALLEGATIONS

(a) Ethical Standards Officers will now start to refer/eport allegations to Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees where they consider that the alleged misconduct is of such a nature that, if proven, it would merit a sanction within the powers set out above, rather than the more draconian sanctions available to a National Case Tribunal, of suspension for up to one year or disqualification from any local authority for up to 5 years.

(b) It is important for the authority to have determined a procedure which it will apply to any such referred allegations so that, when the first one is received, all parties are clear as to how the matter will be dealt with and when they will have an opportunity to contribute to the process. The Standards Board has issued guidance on such procedures and a model procedure (see Appendix).

(c) The Monitoring Officer has already started a programme of member training as part of the county-wide initiative on standards and ethics. Details of presentations covering the new roles of the Standards Committee have already been circulated to Borough and Parish and Town Council Members and their Clerks.

4. FURTHER GUIDANCE FROM THE STANDARDS BOARD REGARDING THE MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCE SCHEME AND ALSO THE PUBLICITY FOR HEARINGS

The Standards Board have expressed the view that where a penalty of suspension is imposed by the Standards Committee then this should normally lead to withdrawal of the Members’ allowance. However, the Allowance Scheme will need to make express provision for this. They have also advised that there would need to be delegation within the Allowance Scheme to suspend allowance payments and for such decisions to be taken by the Standards Committee. At present it is uncertain, and the Board have not yet expressed a view, as to whether there is power to withdraw allowances in the case of partial suspension. Further advice on that point will be provided later.

The Board have also given guidance as to when it is appropriate to exclude the press and public from public hearings which the Standard Committee will now conduct when allegations are referred to them. The Board have advised that, theoretically, Standards Committees could hold a large number of hearings, in private, under the “personal circumstances” category of exempt information, as provided by Part V(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Standards Committee Regulations 2001. The Committee has discretion as to whether or not to exclude the press and public in these circumstances. However, the Standards Board has expressed the view that these hearings should be held in public unless there is a very strong argument otherwise. An example of where it would be appropriate to apply the personal circumstances exception would be where sensitive personal data might

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 7 otherwise be disclosed to which the Data Protection Act 1998 would apply. The Board has also pointed out that the Office of Deputy Prime Minister has issued advice encouraging public hearings for these determinations. Generally speaking, the personal circumstances exception is likely to apply where information might be disclosed which would not normally be in the public domain.

5. RECOMMENDATION

That this report be noted and the recommendations are put to the Standards Committee and to Council for approval including approval for all consequential amendments to the Constitution, the Members’ Allowance Scheme and the remit of the Standards Committee.

Contact Officer: D.A. Hall Telephone No: (01388) 816166, Ext. 4268 Email Address: [email protected]

Ward(s)

Key Decision Validation

Background Papers Regulations under Section 66 of Local Government Act 2000

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 8 APPENDIX

MODEL HEARING PROCEDURES FOR THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE : SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

Interpretation

1. ‘Member’ means the member of the authority who is the subject of the allegation being considered by the Standards Committee, unless stated otherwise. It also includes the member’s nominated representative.

2. ‘Investigator’ means the Ethical Standards Officer (ESO) who referred the report to the authority, and includes his or her nominated representative. In the case of matters that have been referred for local investigation, references to the investigator means the Monitoring Officer or other investigating officer, and his or her nominated representative.

3. ‘Committee’ also refers to ‘a standards sub-committee’.

4. ‘Legal adviser’ means the officer responsible for providing legal advice to the Standards Committee. This may be the Monitoring Officer, another legally qualified officer of the authority, or someone appointed for this purpose from outside the authority.

Representation

5. The member may be represented or accompanied during the meeting by a solicitor, counsel or, with the permission of the committee, another person.

Legal Advice

6. The committee may take legal advice from its legal adviser at any time during the hearing or while they are considering the outcome. The substance of any legal advice given to the committee should be shared with the member and the investigator if they are present.

Setting the scene

7. After all the members and everyone involved have been formally introduced, the Chair should explain how the committee is going to run the hearing.

Preliminary procedural issues

8. The committee should then resolve any issues or disagreements about how the hearing should continue, which have not been resolved during the pre-hearing process.

Making findings of fact

9. After dealing with any preliminary issues, the committee should then move on to consider whether or not there are any significant disagreements about the facts contained in the investigator’s report.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 9 10. If there is no disagreement about the facts, the committee can move on to the next stage of the hearing.

11. If there is a disagreement, the investigator, if present, should be invited to make any necessary representations to support the relevant findings of fact in the report. With the committee’s permission, the investigator may call any necessary supporting witnesses to give evidence. The committee may give the member an opportunity to challenge any evidence put forward by any witness called by the investigator.

12. The member should then have the opportunity to make representations to support his or her version of the facts and, with the committee’s permission, to call any necessary witnesses to give evidence.

13. At any time, the committee may question any of the people involved or any of the witnesses, and may allow the investigator to challenge any evidence put forward by witnesses called by the member.

14. If the member disagrees with most of the facts, it may make sense for the investigator to start by making representations on all the relevant facts, instead of discussing each fact individually.

15. If the member disagrees with any relevant fact in the investigator’s report, without having given prior notice of the disagreement, he or she must give good reasons for not mentioning it before the hearing. If the investigator is not present, the committee will consider whether or not it would be in the public interest to continue in his or her absence. After considering the member’s explanation for not raising the issue at an earlier stage, the committee may then:

(a) continue with the hearing, relying on the information in the investigator’s report;

(b) allow the member to make representations about the issue, and invite the investigator to respond and call any witnesses, as necessary; or

(c) postpone the hearing to arrange for appropriate witnesses to be present or for the investigator to be present if he or she is not already.

16. The committee will usually move to another room to consider the representations and evidence in private.

17. On their return, the Chair will announce the committee’s findings of fact.

Did the member fail to follow the Code?

18. The committee then needs to consider whether or not, based on the facts it has found, the member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct.

19. The member should be invited to give relevant reasons why the committee should not decide that he or she has failed to follow the Code.

20. The committee should then consider any verbal or written representations from the investigator.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 10 21. The committee may, at any time, question anyone involved on any point they raise in their representations.

22. The member should be invited to make any final relevant points.

23. The committee will then move to another room to consider the representations.

24. On their return, the Chair will announce the committee’s decision as to whether or not the member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct.

If the member has not failed to follow the Code of Conduct

25. If the committee decides that the member has not failed to follow the Code of Conduct, the committee can move on to consider whether it should make any recommendations to the authority.

If the member has failed to follow the Code

26. If the committee decides that the member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct, it will consider any verbal or written representations from the investigator and the member as to:-

(a) whether or not the committee should set a penalty; and

(b) what form any penalty should take.

27. The committee may question the investigator and member, and take legal advice, to make sure they have the information they need in order to make an informed decision.

28. The committee will then move to another room to consider whether or not to impose a penalty on the member and if so, what the penalty should be.

29. On their return, the Chair will announce the committee’s decision.

Recommendations to the authority

30. After considering any verbal or written representations from the investigator, the committee will consider whether or not it should make any recommendations to the authority, with a view to promoting high standards of conduct among members.

The written decision

31. The committee will announce its decision on the day and provide a short written decision on that day. It will also need to issue a full written decision shortly after the end of the hearing. It is good practice to prepare the full written decision in draft on the day of the hearing before people’s memories fade.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\1\6\AI00003614\DeterminationOfStandardsAllegationsByTheStandardsCommittee0.doc Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Item 5

ITEM No. 6

REPORT TO STANDARDS COMMITTEE

4TH NOVEMBER 2003

REPORT OF THE MONITORING OFFICER

MEDIA PROTOCOL FOR STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Standards Committee is established under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000 and exists to provide training and guidance on members’ conduct and to maintain an overview of the Members’ Code of Conduct and other Protocols.

1.2 This Protocol has been prepared for the guidance of the Standards Committee and affects all members serving on the Committee, including independent and Parish Council representatives, on the appropriate procedures for dealing with the media in respect of complaints and investigations considered by the Committee.

2. THE NEED FOR A PROTOCOL

2.1 The purpose of this Protocol is to ensure a consistent approach and equality of treatment for any member who is the subject of a complaint or investigation.

2.2 It is also designed to ensure consistency with existing Protocols and compliance with relevant Acts and Codes of Practice.

3. KEY PRINCIPLES FOR DEALING WITH THE MEDIA

3.1 In order to ensure a consistent approach, all press releases and media statements regarding Committee business should be issued through the Press and Public Relations Officer in accordance with the procedure detailed below.

3.2 All press releases/media statements must be authorised by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Committee Chair.

3.3 The appropriate spokesperson to be quoted in any press release/statement will normally be the Committee Chair who will comment on behalf of all members of the Committee.

- 1 - D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\1\6\AI00003615\MediaProtocolForStandaPagerdsCommitteeMembers0.doc 13 4. NATURE OF MEDIA ACTIVITY

4.1 The underlying principle of the Standards Committee media Protocol is to ensure the adherence with policies of open government and accountability. In order to ensure fair and consistent treatment in all cases and a properly controlled release of information, the Committee shall adhere to the following procedure.

5. PROCEDURE

5.1 The procedure for issuing a Standards Committee press release is as follows:-

(i) On either receiving a report from the Standard Board, upholding a complaint or upon receiving a complaint the Standards Committee, through the Committee Clerk, will alert the Press and Public Relations Officer (PRO), so that he/she is aware of the background and is able to offer advice throughout the proceedings.

(ii) It may be necessary to prepare a “holding” statement for issue in the event of a media inquiry regarding the ongoing investigation.

(iii) This should be prepared by the PRO, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and approved by the Chair. In the case of a matter which may have wider repercussions for the Council, the Council Leader and the Chief Executive shall also be consulted. Once agreed the release would then be ready for issue in the event of a media enquiry being received. It should confirm only the nature of the complaint and the fact that an investigation is underway.

(iv) Where a complaint is upheld and action taken the Committee shall, immediately after the complaint hearing, consider the outline of the press release. The elected member, subject of the investigation, should be informed that a press release will be issued in respect of the decision taken.

(v) Immediately after a complaint hearing, the Monitoring Officer should notify the PRO who will prepare a press release or statement on the lines agreed by the Committee. The release should be approved by the Monitoring Officer and the Chair.

(vi) Any release should be issued to the relevant media as soon as practicably possible after the conclusion of the hearing.

(vii) Releases and statements should be copied to all members of the Committee for information and to the member subject of the investigation.

- 2 - D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\1\6\AI00003615\MediaProtocolForStandaPagerdsCommitteeMembers0.doc 14 (viii) Any subsequent or ad hoc press enquiries received will be responded to by the PRO, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and/or the Chair of the Committee as appropriate. However, it is recognised that on occasions the Leader or the Chief Executive Officer may need to respond to press or media enquiries.

(ix) Should any members of the Committee be approached direct by the media with enquiries relating to Committee business, they should be referred to the Council’s PRO to ensure a consistent response. The Committee member should endeavour to forewarn the PRO that they have received such an approach so that the enquiry can be anticipated.

6. BREACHES OF THE PROTOCOL

6.1 The workings of this Protocol will be monitored by the Committee, the Monitoring Officer and the PRO on an ongoing basis.

6.2 If it is considered that a member has breached this Protocol, that breach in itself could be regarded as misconduct and could be subject to investigation by the Standards Committee.

6.3 If it is alleged that an officer has breached this Protocol, the matter would be referred to their appropriate Chief Officer for disciplinary investigation.

6.4 Members of the Committee should also be aware that, under the Members’ Code of Conduct, it is a breach of that code to disclose confidential information without appropriate consent.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That the report be approved and recommend that it be adopted by Council as an addition to the Council’s Constitution.

Contact Officer: D.A.Hall Telephone No. (01388) 816166 Ext 4268 Email Address: [email protected]

- 3 - D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\1\6\AI00003615\MediaProtocolForStandaPagerdsCommitteeMembers0.doc 15 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16 Item 6

KEY DECISION

ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16TH OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Portfolio Housing

Sedgefield Borough Council Homelessness Review and Strategy 2003/4

SUMMARY

The Council is required by the Homelessness Act 2002 to carry out a review of homelessness and produce a Strategy to address this issue across the Borough.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued guidance on the carrying out of the review and development of a Homelessness Strategy from its findings. This Guidance has been followed in carrying out this work. The Review and drafting of the Strategy were carried out together with a consultant appointed to support the work and provide an independent overview of our services.

Key findings of the review are:-

• the need to further develop our current partnership working, • further developing our advice and prevention services, • development of private landlord accreditation scheme as a precursor to possible statutory licensing of Housing, • development of schemes to support for new tenants including furnished tenancies etc. • development and expansion temporary accommodation particularly of a specialist nature i.e. mental health medium term supported accommodation

These findings have been reflected in the key actions within the Homelessness Strategy. An existing multi agency homelessness working group will monitor the delivery of the Strategy. The Strategy will be reviewed after its first 12 months of operation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the findings of the Review and Strategy are adopted.

DETAIL

The Homelessness Act 2002 introduced a requirement for all Councils to conduct a homelessness review and produce a strategy to address the key issues identified.

The preparation work on the review commenced in early April 2003 following the ODPM Good Practice Guidance.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\6\AI00003618\HOMELESSNESSREPORT0.doc Page 17

The Review identified a number of key findings these are:-

The Homelessness Service currently deals with 100% more applications and homeless decisions than our nearest CIPFA County Durham Neighbour, Derwentside. The reasons for this are that the review found Homelessness Service to be very well developed, promoted effectively and easily accessible. The proportion of Homelessness acceptance however is broadly similar at 50-55% of all applicants. The Homelessness service was found to have generally strong partnership working arrangements.

The Service could however still be developed further in a number of areas including:-

• Strengthening partnership working • Strengthen advice and prevention work • Developing furnished tenancies, rent deposit scheme and landlord accreditation scheme • Provision of a broader range of temporary accommodation including clients with mental health problems • Generic tenancy support and specific support for specialist client groups such as teenage parents

A number of these actions can be developed in the short term over the next 12 months but other will be medium - long term actions.

These have been reflected in the key actions within the Homelessness Strategy; an existing multi agency homelessness working group will monitor the delivery of the Strategy. The Strategy is reviewed after its first 12 months of operation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Council has been awarded Homelessness Grant to support the development and delivery of its Homelessness Strategy during 2003/4 of £72,790, a provisional award of £25,000 has been made for each of the two subsequent financial years. The use of this grant will be subject to a separate report.

CONSULTATION

The development of the Homelessness Review and Strategy has involved consultation with service users and other agencies including Social Services, Primary care Trust, Housing Associations etc.

Contact Officer: Ian Brown Telephone No: (01388) 816166 ext 4228 Email Address: [email protected]

Ward(s) All Key Decision Validation The adoption of the statutory Homelessness Strategy will have a significant impact on two or more wards. Background Papers

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Good Practice Guide on Homelessness Review and Strategy

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\1\6\AI00003618\HOMELESSNESSREPORT0.doc Page 18 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY

2003

1 Page 19

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY

JULY 2003

Contents

1. Introduction page 3

2. Main aims and objectives page 5

3. Working in partnership in Sedgefield Borough page 5

4. The results of the review of homelessness services page 6

5. Specific Objectives for the Homelessness Strategy page 8

6. Implementation Action Plan page 9

7. Performance Management page 11

2 Page 20

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The requirement to publish a Homelessness Strategy

The government requires all councils to develop and publish a strategy for homelessness services by the end of July 2003. This strategy is based on a review which examined the prevalence of homelessness in the borough, the quality of existing services, and consulted with partner agencies. The review was undertaken by Paul Keenan, a housing consultant working in the North East. This strategy was developed based on the findings of our Review supported by Paul Keenan.

Sedgefield Borough Council is publishing this first Homelessness Strategy in order to ensure that services for homeless people continue to improve in future years.(The review is attached as an appendix to this strategy).

Sedgefield Borough has a vision for homelessness services developed with our partners –

We will work in partnership with local agencies to provide the best services for homeless people. We will ask all agencies and homeless people to feed back their criticism, thoughts, and praise to inform the future review and development of services.

We will help homeless people back into permanent housing and full membership of the community in schools for children, education, training, work, and health

We will not allow homelessness to damage a family through unnecessary use of Bed and Breakfast, or any poor temporary accommodation

Our strategy has been developed through partnership working, listening to service users, and reviewing the evidence of need for different services.

Sedgefield Borough is committed to providing and enabling a wide range of services, and a continual review and improvement of services. We know the needs of homeless people are changing, and our services will continue to change to met their needs. The government has laid out in some detail the elements it wishes to see in a Homelessness Strategy. These can be found in the report of March 2003; "More Than a Roof": Set out in the table below.

3 Page 21

The Government's Homelessness Objectives

• To strengthen help to people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness. • To develop more strategic approaches to tackling homelessness. • To encourage new responses to tackling homelessness. • To reduce the use of B&B hotels for homeless families with children. • To sustain the two-thirds reduction in rough sleeping. • To ensure the opportunity of a decent home for all.

‘More than a Roof’ also provided a guidance document for Councils - "Homelessness Strategies, a good practice handbook" (March 2002). This stated the main aims for the local homelessness strategies -

• The prevention of homelessness • Ensuring there is sufficient accommodation available for people who are or may become homeless • Ensuring there is satisfactory support for people who are or become homeless or who may need support to prevent them from becoming homeless again

The Homelessness Review therefore needs to establish as far as possible the gap between what is provided and the scale of need for accommodation and support services, and to set out how advice and prevention services help homeless or potentially homeless people in the area.

The first strategy is based on the evidence from the review. Sedgefield Borough and its partners will monitor progress on the strategy and review the evidence of need annually.

2. Main aims and objectives

The Council and its partners met in July in a workshop to examine the services for homeless people. This workshop, building on the initial research carried out as part of the review, identified the priorities for strategic aims and objectives.

The stakeholders were happy with the levels of co-operation and information exchange between agencies – especially in respect of young people (including those leaving care), families in temporary accommodation, and Domestic Violence.

Stakeholders wish the strategy to concentrate improvements in the following areas –

4 Page 22 • Improving preventative work - especially with young people and people in the early stages of arrears and/or anti-social behaviour in all tenures.

• Increasing the amount of appropriate temporary accommodation in the Borough – especially for non-priority homeless people, people with mental health problems, and young singles.

• Increasing the range of options for permanent housing – such as increasing use of registered social landlords.

• Increasing the support for people after rehousing – both floating support and practical matters like furniture.

These priorities are used alongside the results of the review to shape the specific objectives for this strategy.

3. Working in Partnership in Sedgefield Borough.

The Review of Homelessness found that links between local agencies were strong and all partners were confident in the work of each other. This was true for all types of cases – from ordinary homelessness as a result of relationship breakdown, through to high risk cases such as sex offenders where joint working with the Public Protection Team is essential.

The review of strategies and feedback from partner agencies revealed evidence of some weaknesses in co-ordination and influence between the local services and the County-wide services. The strategy will require effective representation within the Supporting People Partnership for the County.

There is some evidence of uneven levels of co-operation between Districts over individual cases, and protocols for rehousing vulnerable people – especially people fleeing Domestic Violence – need to be considered. These could be developed through the County-wide Accommodation Forum, which has recently broadened it remit to monitor all homelessness issues.

Specific priorities for Working in Partnership

• Steering group to ensure appropriate access and influence to the Supporting People Team and Core Strategy Group.

• Sedgefield Borough to propose development of protocols for rehousing homeless people outside of their own borough, with the other Districts, to ensure the minimum delays to rehousing.

5 Page 23 4. The results of the review of homelessness services

Executive Summary

The review and audit of services has found that Homelessness services in Sedgefield are well co-ordinated, work closely with partner agencies, and discuss issues openly and trust each other.

There are high levels of homeless applications in the Borough, and the applicants report very high levels of satisfaction with services. There is evidence that the high levels of applications are a result of good practice and advertising services – especially for victims of domestic violence and young people.

There are some significant gaps in services, and all agencies appear to agree where the gaps occur. Despite this agreement some gaps have been left unaddressed. This strongly suggests the local planning arrangements, and the liaison with Supporting People Team, and other County–wide agencies, needs to be strengthened and improved.

The main gaps in services are -

Temporary Accommodation

There is a small but important gap in temporary accommodation for non- priority homeless households. This might be provided by co-operating with neighbouring districts.

Teenage pregnancies

There is only a small number of cases but there is concern about the sustainability of rehousing and longer term support is required.

Rough Sleepers

A rough sleeper count and monitoring of rough sleeping is required.

Rehousing victims of Domestic Violence in other Districts

The County Durham districts need to co-ordinate efforts for victims who have to move between districts

Preparation and support for offenders leaving prison/institution.

Sedgefield Borough will work with Probation, Youth Offending Team, and other partners to improve the preparation for independence on leaving institutions, and reduce problems such as arrears for people in prison etc.

6 Page 24 Monitoring of repeat homelessness

Systems for monitoring repeat homelessness will be developed.

People with alcohol and substance misuse may need more places than the new service provides

The new service in partnership with Stonham Housing Association is important but needs monitoring. Most agencies believe there is a far greater need for suitable support and housing. This will be reviewed with the Supporting People Team.

Mental Health

The PCT and Sedgefield Borough are discussing means of providing short and medium term ‘intermediate care’ type supported housing for acute discharges and people with chronic recurring mental health problems.

Furnished Tenancies

Homeless households, and other households in need, want the option of furnished tenancies in the Council and Housing Association tenancies.

Private Landlords

There is a need encourage improved management and reduce homelessness/evictions from the private sector. The existing forum with private landlords has been growing and will be developed and strengthened.

Preventative Strategy.

More preventative work might reduce personal stress and demands on services. A prevention strategy will be developed, and give priority to education and outreach to young people, and other groups at risk of homelessness.

There has been an increase in floating support in the last year, and some of these gaps may be filled by the development of new services from Stonham and DART. The strategy will need to carefully monitor take up and effectiveness of these and other established services.

Future demand for homelessness services cannot be accurately predicted, but there is strong evidence that demand will continue at least at current levels. There is likely to be increasing complexity of need amongst service users – especially if drug and substance misuse continues to increase.

7 Page 25 5 Specific Objectives for the Homelessness Strategy.

The review of services highlighted gaps and areas for action. The partners also set some priorities for the strategy in four main areas. The objectives for the Strategy are therefore –

Improving preventative work.

The review found that there was no overall strategy for preventative work, with the exception of Domestic Violence. The strategy will need to develop a more comprehensive approach to preventative work.

The strategy will need to provide –

• Maintain efforts to reduce Domestic Violence.

• More information and advice for young people.

• Considering a mediation scheme – especially for young people evicted by parents.

• Increased preventative work with people getting into arrears – especially in the early stages, and including residents in RSls and private Sector.

• Increasing links with RSLs and Private Landlords to improve the flow of information on policies and support services to these bodies and their tenants.

Increasing the amount of appropriate temporary accommodation in the Borough

There is a shortfall in the number of temporary accommodation places in the Borough, too many homeless people have to move away to find accommodation in an emergency.

The homeless strategy will -

• Attempt to produce a definitive figure of the extra units required. The council will increase available temporary accommodation to ensure it continues to meet the Government targets for reduced B+B use.

• Agree the types of management and support services that will be appropriate for the new temporary accommodation.

• Agree a lead agency – possibly an RSL – to develop these units either from existing units or new build.

• Liase with the Supporting People Team and the County Accommodation Forum to ensure there is a co-ordinated approach across all districts.

8 Page 26

Increasing the range of options for permanent housing

The review found little evidence of effective use of appropriate RSLs and private landlords. There was also a shortage of suitable housing stock for singles in the district.

The strategy will –

• Agree referral mechanisms and targets for increased use of appropriate RSL stock.

• Examine the feasibility of implementing a rent guarantee and/or bond scheme for approved private landlords.

Increasing the support for people after rehousing

The recent increases in the number of floating support services needs to be carefully monitored and evaluated to ensure the effectiveness of the work. The new services are likely to be insufficient to meet demand from people with complex needs, especially people with alcohol and substance misuse problems.

The strategy will –

• Consider the commissioning of further work on the need for more support services to prevent homelessness.

• Examine the feasibility of increased support for the very young mothers rehoused without family support.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the new services annually.

• Develop a furnished tenancy option for council tenants.

6. Implementation Action Plan

The Homelessness review produced a long list of detailed findings about gaps and required improvements. These need to be dealt with by the Council and its partners, and the table below provides the framework for this action plan.

The implementation of these changes will often require several agencies. Each action is given a lead officer or agency to ensure progress is made.

9 Page 27 Action Client Notes group Lead Person and date

Estimate need for more All See section 5 I Brown/C temporary accommodation Fletcher – Jan 04

Developing a preventative All See section 5 I Brown/A Riley – strategy March 04

Increasing options for All See section 5 I Brown – permanent rehousing January 04

Increasing support after See section 5 I Brown/A Riley – rehousing March 04

Co-ordination with other All See section 3 A Riley – districts on casework February 04

Rough Implement count I Brown – Rough Sleeper count sleepers and report October 03

People leaving Institutions Improve I Brown – March working links 04 with YOT, Prisons, Probation and PPT Agree means of K Fothergill – Monitoring of repeat monitoring with January 03 homeless County Accommodation forum Intermediate care for MH Agree I Brown/C mental health specification of Fletcher – service, appoint November 04 lead agency to develop service. Consultation with service All Develop C Fletcher – users improved March 04 consultative arrangements with service users across partner agencies

10 Page 28 Review the Best Value All Monitor existing I Brown – March Performance indicators performance 04 and consider further challenging targets in the annual review

Review Progress on All Quarterly review Quarterly review Strategy of action plan by and strategy Homelessness Strategy Steering Group

Renew Strategy All Produced Homelessness renewed Strategy Steering strategy Group – July 2004

7. Performance Management

The Strategy steering group will become the Homelessness Strategy Implementation Group (HSIG). The HSIG will provide the monitoring and annual review of the strategy, and report findings of work to the partners, the Supporting People Team, and Accommodation Forum.

11 Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 30

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

HOMELESSNESS REVIEW

2003

1 Page 31 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

HOMELESSNESS REVIEW

JULY 2003

Contents

Executive summary page 3

1. Introduction page 5

2. Methods page 7

3. A brief profile of Sedgefield Borough page 9

4. The findings page 16

5. Mapping current services page 25

6. Routes into permanent accommodation page 35

7. Audit and evaluation of current service provision page 39

8. Future needs page 46

9. Strategic and Operational Links page 47

10. Sedgefield Borough Council Homelessness Strategy page 51

Appendices

Appendix One Membership of the Sedgefield Borough Homelessness Strategy Steering Group

2 Page 32 Executive Summary

Sedgefield Borough Council commissioned this review and the development of its Homelessness Strategy with Paul Keenan, a housing consultant based in the North East of England. The project was overseen by members of the Housing Department with advice, support and input from other partners including Social Services, Centrepoint etc. The review was independently and its findings reflect the current position of the service and the gaps identified as part of the study.

The review and audit of services has found that Homelessness services in Sedgefield are well co-ordinated, work closely with partner agencies, and discuss issues openly and trust each other.

The main gaps in services are -

Temporary Accommodation

There is a small but important gap in temporary accommodation for non- priority homeless households. This might be provided by co-operating with neighbouring districts.

Teenage pregnancies

There are only a small number of cases but there is concern about the sustainability of rehousing and longer term support is required.

Rough Sleepers

A rough sleeper count and monitoring of rough sleeping is required.

Rehousing victims of Domestic Violence in other Districts

The County Durham districts need to co-ordinate efforts for victims who have to move between districts.

3 Page 33 Preparation and support for offenders leaving prison/institution.

Monitoring of repeat homelessness

Systems for monitoring repeat homelessness will be developed.

People with alcohol and substance misuse may need more places than the new service provides

Mental Health

Furnished Tenancies

Homeless households, and other households in need, want the option of furnished tenancies in the Council and Housing Association tenancies.

Private Landlords

Preventative Strategy.

There has been an increase in floating support in the last year, and some of these gaps will be filled by new services from Stonham and DART. The strategy will need to carefully monitor take up and effectiveness of these and other established services.

4 Page 34 Future demand for homelessness services cannot be accurately predicted, but there is strong evidence that demand will continue at least at current levels. There is likely to be increasing complexity of need amongst service users – especially if drug and substance misuse continues to increase.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The requirement to publish a Homelessness Strategy

Sedgefield Borough Council is publishing this first Homelessness Strategy in order to ensure that services for homeless people continue to improve and develop in future years.

Sedgefield Borough has a vision for homelessness services, developed with our partners –

We will help homeless people back into permanent housing and full membership of the community in schools for children, education, training, work, and health.

We will not allow homelessness to damage a family through unnecessary use of Bed and Breakfast, or any poor temporary accommodation.

Our strategy has been developed through partnership working, talking to service users, and reviewing the evidence of need for different services.

The government requires all Councils to publish a strategy by the end of July 2003. We are therefore developing information exchanges and comparisons of need with our neighbouring Council areas.

The government has laid out in some detail the elements it wishes to see in a Homelessness Strategy. These can be found in the report of March 2003; "More Than a Roof":

5 Page 35 The Government's Homelessness Objectives • To strengthen help to people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness. • To develop more strategic approaches to tackling homelessness. • To encourage new responses to tackling homelessness. • To reduce the use of B&B hotels for homeless families with children. • To sustain the two-thirds reduction in rough sleeping. • To ensure the opportunity of a decent home for all.

The Government has set out the information they expect to see in the Homelessness Review:

• A picture of the scale and nature of homelessness in the Borough, and current and likely future levels of homelessness. • A map, audit, and evaluation of services, including the homelessness service, temporary accommodation, advice, prevention, access to permanent accommodation, and provision of support (all agencies). • The gaps in provision and any overlaps. • A review of resources available to be spent on homelessness (by all agencies). • A record of the views of stakeholders and users. • An analysis of the links between homelessness and other key strategies.

• The prevention of homelessness. • Ensuring there is sufficient accommodation available for people who are or may become homeless. • Ensuring there is satisfactory support for people who are or become homeless or who may need support to prevent them from becoming homeless again.

The first review of needs and services in Sedgefield Borough is therefore setting the starting point for future strategies and audits and commissioning of new services. This document provides a lot of descriptive material on services and needs. This is done to provide the evidence for the subsequent analysis and conclusions.

6 Page 36 1.2 Sedgefield Borough Homelessness Strategy

In order to comply with the second of the Government's objectives, local housing authorities are required to publish their Homelessness Strategy by July 31st 2003. Sedgefield Borough Council decided to do this by commissioning a Homelessness Review from Paul Keenan, a research consultant based in the North East.

The Review document must provide the evidence for the recommendations forming the Strategy. In Sedgefield Borough, the review supplements work done to prepare the County Durham Supporting People Strategy, as well as a number of tasks being carried out in both the Borough and county – such as the Domestic violence strategy, the housing strategy for people with learning difficulties, Leaving Care Plan, an Accommodation Strategy for people with drug problems and so forth. The links between these strategies are outlined in section 4.

Section 2 of this report describes how the Review was carried out and the sources of information used to inform the Review.

As recommended in the Good Practice Handbook, Homelessness Strategy Steering Group was established to steer the development of the Review and Strategy, and to advise the consultants. A list of the members of the Steering Group is in Appendix One.

2. METHODS

2.1 The methods

The Homelessness Review was compiled through a combination of desk research using existing research material, interviews with key people and groups of staff, a ‘whole system workshop’, and visits to temporary accommodation and agencies.

2.2 Desk research

This covered

• the range of strategies referred to later in this document. • statistical information provided by Centrepoint compiled from agencies. working with homeless young people from Sedgefield Borough. • enquiries from homeless people to the Council. • housing advice casework figures from the various agencies providing advice in the area. • information from a number of statutory agencies about the numbers of client they see who have housing as well as other problems. • policies, procedures, protocols, and letters to homeless applicants.

7 Page 37 Other sources of statistical and demographic information included:

• the 2001 Census. • the Housing Strategy 2003/4 –206/7. • the Housing Management Service Plan. • P1E –homeless data from the Council. • population projections . • Sedgefield Borough Homeless Service customer satisfaction survey 2002- 2003.

Information about supply of accommodation and other services came from:

• Centrepoint Directory of Services in County Durham and Darlington, January 2003. • Supporting People Shadow Strategy, Sept 2002. • Current supported accommodation services report for Supporting People. Partnership, Northern Housing Consortium, Oct 2002. • Domestic Violence Strategy 2002.

2.3 Interviews and discussions

Interviews in person or over the phone were held with the key staff of agencies providing homelessness or advice services in the Borough. These included at least one interview with each of - Neighbourhood Strategy Co- ordinator, Housing Support Officers (in the Homelessness and Advice Service), Durham Action Resource Team (DART), Stonham, Norcare, Social Services, Primary Health Care team, Sedgefield Information and Advice Service (CAB), Three Rivers HA, Housing Action North East (HANE), Centrepoint, Youth Offending Team, Orbit 21 Drug Advice Spennymoor, and Drug Action Team.

During the research work it has become clear that many homeless people from Sedgefield Borough use services in nearby Boroughs, and especially in Durham. The following agencies were approached and agreed to be interviewed, and allow access to groups of residents or service users for consultation – DASH (homeless accommodation and floating support in Durham), End House ( young people advice centre in Durham, Moving On (floating support service based in Durham, Salvation Army Sunderland, Mental Health Matters (supported housing in Sunderland and Easington).

2.4 Consultation

Users' views were sought through focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Only five users were interviewed due to limited time .The Sedgefield Borough Homeless Service Customer Satisfaction Survey surveys all homeless households, and a representative sample of 100 returns (10% ) of the wide range of households going through the assessment process was analysed.

8 Page 38 The survey was very valuable, but the relative lack of detailed comments from service users is a weakness, and some means of consulting users is required in the future.

Stakeholders were consulted through repeat visits from the consultant, copies of drafts and evidence arising during the review period, and finally at a half- day ‘whole system workshop’. The Steering Group also provided a good deal of information about homelessness in Sedgefield Borough at one of their meetings.

3. A BRIEF PROFILE OF SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH

3.1 The Borough

Sedgefield Borough is one of seven Local Authorities in County Durham and has a population of 87,200 (2001 census). The Borough comprises four main urban centres; the communities of Spennymoor, Ferryhill/Chilton and Shildon, which developed in response to 19th century industrialisation and coal mining, and Newton Aycliffe, a second generation New Town designated in 1947. These communities account for some 75% of the Borough’s population and are situated to the west of the A1 (M) corridor that bisects the Borough.

The eastern part of the area is more rural in character with a number of smaller settlements, including Sedgefield Borough Village, together with former coalfield communities in the north-eastern part of the area.

In overall terms the population profile of the Borough is in decline, having fallen from around 93,000 in the early 1980s and is also generally ageing but at a slower rate than other Durham Districts because the new town in Newton Aycliffe attracted a lot of young families to the Borough through the 1960s and beyond.

In economic and social terms the Borough is significantly disadvantaged. The DETR Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 places the Borough amongst the worst 40 districts in England (average ward ranking), with 18 of the Borough’s 22 wards being amongst the worst 2000 nationally (out of 8,414 wards). Indeed, over half of the wards are within the worst 15% of all wards, with three in the worst 5% nationally and a further three in the worst 5% to 10% band. The single biggest change in disadvantaged households has been a steady increase in lone parent households – from 1500 in 1991 to 2800 in 2001.

This level and concentration of disadvantage has led to the Borough’s inclusion within the Government’s 88 authorities (four in County Durham) eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund assistance as part of the National Strategy to address social exclusion.

Sedgefield Borough has the eighth lowest level of minority ethnic communities in England and Wales – with only 0.7% of the population.

9 Page 39 A distinguishing feature of the Borough’s economic characteristics is the fact that around 48% of all employment is in manufacturing and that this accounts for some 30% of all such employment in County Durham. This compares with regional and national manufacturing employment rates of around 23% and 18% respectively. A number of larger and significant international companies are located in the Borough.

This strong manufacturing emphasis to the Borough’s economic base results in the Borough’s main centres of Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, being of sub-regional importance and attracts workers from a wide area. However, because of this manufacturing concentration the local economy is vulnerable to wider economic forces and in particular the contraction of such employment in the United Kingdom as a result of global economic changes. In the last 12 months over 1000 manufacturing jobs have lost in the borough in clothing and tool manufacturing.

These jobs losses do not mean exactly the same number of households in the Borough are affected because a lot of these commuted from around the county. However it is a strong indication of increased stress for local families and the local economy.

The Borough has a resident workforce that is heavily biased towards the unskilled and semi-skilled groups with relatively low mean earnings compared to the rest of the country. This is demonstrated by the fact that the gross domestic product for County Durham is only about 70% of the UK average. The Borough has the highest number of unemployed people (claimant count) of all Durham Districts that is equivalent to about 5% of the Borough’s workforce. State benefits provide a major source of income to many households.

There are low levels of educational and skills attainment with the Borough’s schools attainment levels being 40.3% for 5* A-C passes compared with 40.9% in County Durham and 50% nationally. There are also high levels of people lacking basic skills, which is evidenced by the fact that some 35% of the Borough’s adult population have poor literacy and numeracy skills.

A further major characteristic of the Borough’s population is the high incidence of ill health. This is demonstrated by the fact that 32% of all households contain at least one person with a disability or mobility problem and 17 of the Borough’s 22 wards are rated by the government as amongst the worst 10% for ill health nationally.

In terms of housing, there are 39,900 dwellings in the Borough with some 30% in the social sector. 39% of these properties currently require some form of improvements to be undertaken to meet the Government’s decency standard by 2010. There is also a substantial amount of housing built prior to 1919 requiring investment to address disrepair and in many localities the occupiers of such properties are generally more elderly residents.

10 Page 40 3.2 Mapping the indicators of housing market stress and decline.

A recent study of housing markets in the south of County Durham has highlighted several of the indicators of future stress in the housing market in Sedgefield Borough. The study has found several parts of the Borough are exhibiting declining house prices and multiple indicators of poverty, empty properties, and unemployment.

These indicators are known to play a contributory factor in the stress that leads to increased risk of homelessness – such as relationship breakdown, domestic violence, property abandonment, and difficulty in access to suitable accommodation.

Sedgefield Borough has a disproportionate level of housing markets in decline. The following maps show Sedgefield Borough and the neighbouring boroughs highlighting two main concerns –

Areas of declining house prices – Sedgefield Borough has large area with overall house price decline

Settlements with multiple indicators of stress – the highlighted settlements each experience at least four major indicators of decline – such as poverty, high levels of empty property, unemployment etc

There are a small number of settlements with very high levels of recent private landlord investment. For example in Dean Bank, and parts of Chilton, nearly 50% of the terraced housing is now privately let on 6 month assured tenancies. The high turnover, and the relatively high incidence of poor management contribute to an unstable housing market.

11 Page 41 Map 1 -

Areas of weak or declining house prices in South Durham 1997-2002

The map shows a large area of Sedgefield Borough has missed out on the recent increases in house prices in the region from 1997-2002.

Red areas show post code sectors with declining house prices.

Amber areas show post code sectors with house price growth below 20% in the period.

The size of each post-code sector varies a great deal when viewed on a map. Rural sectors are larger areas than market towns because populations are more dense and closely linked in towns than the countryside. In practice we have found in this study that the sectors in towns may look smaller but each sector has a roughly equivalent number of houses and households.

12 Page 42 Map 2 -

Settlements with multi-indicators of stress in local housing markets

Further analysis has shown that areas with four or more indicators of market stress account for over 20% of the total dwellings in the area covered by the four Borough Councils. These settlements with multiple indicators of stress are shown in the map above.

The settlements with multi-indicators of stress are mainly found in Sedgefield Borough and Easington.

There is a strong correlation between these settlements and the postcode sectors in the map shown above. The areas with weak growth in prices, or price decline (the amber and red areas of price change) contain 70% of the total dwellings of the multi-indicator group.

13 Page 43 The importance of this evidence of weaknesses in the housing market is manifold. Some of the main implications for homelessness are –

The decline in the housing markets is a result of multiple factors – and especially decline in the labour market. This complex pattern of change affects homelessness directly through –

• increased family stress, • higher unemployment, • increased migration from area reducing support for vulnerable people left behind.

The access to housing for people in acute need may become unpredictable and hard to manage and co-ordinate by homeless services and the Council.

The increasing proportion of short term assured tenancies increases the turnover in many areas and means vulnerable households are more at risk of losing accommodation if problems arise and the landlord chooses not to extend the 6 month let.

Declining prices reduce confidence in investors and social landlords, and services may have difficulty in responding to change.

Sedgefield Borough Council is committed to working with neighbouring Councils and government agencies to reverse this decline. The research referred to is published in June 2003.

The homelessness strategy will link into the monitoring of the whole housing market to estimate future needs and reviews of services.

3.3 Tenure and demand

The Coalfields study has conclusively proved weak demand for owner- occupation in pre-1919 colliery terraces in many parts of the borough. The same areas and also most of the smaller ex-colliery villages have weak demand for social housing, often in the same locality.

At the same time there are pockets of terraced housing with rapid increases in private lets. Speculative landlords have bought a large number of cheap terraces and are attempting to manage them. There is high turnover, and local house prices continue to decline – providing further evidence for the marginal and high-risk nature of this work. In some areas – notably Chilton and Dean Bank nearly half of some terraces are now managed by these private landlords working in a weakening market.

3.4 Where services are located

The Homelessness and Housing Advice Team is based in the Council Offices near the centre of Spennymoor. The Senior Local Estates (Homelessness) Officer leads a team of three Housing Support Officers.

14 Page 44 The team has other duties such as co-ordinating disabled adaptations, and special projects. The full time equivalent posts for homelessness and housing advice is three staff.

The housing management function is delivered by five area teams, with offices in Spennymoor, Newton Aycliffe, Ferryhill, Shildon and Trimdon. In this way Housing staff are accessible in all areas of the Borough.

All local agencies and area housing offices operate a policy of referring enquiries about homelessness, and households considered to be a risk of homelessness –through tenancy enforcement, or mortgage arrears etc – to the homelessness and housing advice team.

The Social services Dept has an area office in Spennymoor. In addition there are other teams based in the Borough that have a countywide remit – the drug and alcohol misuse team, and the young peoples unit in Newton Aycliffe.

The voluntary sector services are based mainly in Spennymoor – Orbit 21 Drugs advice service, Stonham, DART. Norcare has staff based in its small housing project in Newton Aycliffe.

The CAB has offices open five days a week in Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, and a weekly surgery in every village in the borough.

3.5 Partnerships

Partnerships are complex in the county – there are two tiers of local government, and this complexity is further developed by cross borough agencies such as the Womens Refuge, Centrepoint, and Connexions etc.

Sedgefield Borough has a series of robust partnerships and service agreements relevant to homelessness, also link to our Local Strategic Partnership –

Supporting People Domestic Violence Forum Crime and Disorder Partnership Multi Agency Public Protection Panels Youth Accommodation Forum

There are several service agreements with agencies to provide advice and homelessness services. There is a multi agency protocol with Social Services for the assessment and rehousing of young people aged 16/17. Social Services have a partnership with DART to provide pathway planning for care leavers up to 21 years of age. Stonham, DAT, Social services and Housing have recently launched a floating support service for people with drug and alcohol problems. Sedgefield Borough Council grant aids the CAB to provide a wide range of advice services. The CAB has a further agreement with Shelter to provide a telephone advice in cases of unusual complexity.

15 Page 45 4 THE FINDINGS

This section is in two parts. The first section describes existing services and how they work together. The second part discusses some of the issues we have identified in visits, discussions, and feedback.

4.1 Current trends in homelessness in Sedgefield Borough.

This section analyses the main trends in homeless applications over the last three years. We have compared the figures for Sedgefield Borough with Derwentside because they are paired as similar areas by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). This comparison is the result of CIPFA identifying other districts with very similar populations, employment, household structures, etc. We have also provided average figures for the whole county to allow a broad comparison with neighbouring Councils.

4.2 Homeless Decisions

Sedgefield Borough Homelessness and Housing Advice team is a very busy service. Last year there were four hundred homeless priorities cases. Approximately one thousand households contacted the team for advice. The team liaised with agencies across the region for information, temporary accommodation, and to gather information to complete assessments.

Recent analysis by the ODPM has shown Sedgefield Borough has slightly higher rates of homelessness compared to the size of population, than the county as a whole. The difference is small - 1.4 per thousand households compared to 1.2, but it is further evidence of the effects of the multiple deprivation in the borough. It may also reflect the good accessible services that local people are confident to use. Our analysis suggests the high prevalence is a result of both these factors.

Applications to the homeless team range from 80-100 in an average quarter compared to 45-50 in Derwentside and 55-60 in the County as a whole. The new Homelessness Act has caused a rapid increase in applications amongst young people across the county, but it is too early to tell what impact this will have in the long term

The total number of applications in Sedgefield Borough has been gradually reducing over the three years. The declining number has been almost entirely caused by fewer applications from households who are not homeless, and fewer non-priority applications.

These trends are consistent with several features of Sedgefield Borough and the Homeless Services –

Firstly – all homeless applications are directed to the team, and this may mean the totals are slightly higher than other Boroughs who have different procedures.

16 Page 46 The research has consulted all local service providers, and other sources of data. These are reviewed later in the report. The comparison of these returns with the information from other sources appears to support the accuracy of the quarterly homelessness reports to the government – known as P1E.

Secondly – the prevalence of very deprived settlements with multiple indicators of stress create the circumstances for higher levels of difficulty in maintaining and finding a home – and thus higher homelessness rates.

Thirdly - the declining levels of applications from non-priorities and not homeless is consistent with declining demand for housing in many parts of the borough. Unsurprisingly, the greater availability of housing is reducing the levels of homeless even in the most deprived areas. There is increasing use of 6 month assured tenancies by many non priority homeless applicants, and this is likely to increase repeat homeless applications – a revolving door or short lets and repeat applications. The Council has recently introduced guidelines for staff on rehousing ex-tenants with arrears. The emphasis for the Council is establishing good repayment histories and long-term resolution of problems. Local agencies such as the CAB, and housing staff believe this is reducing homelessness applications.

The graph below shows the three years 2000,2001, and 2002. The Homelessness and Housing Advice team record every referral and interview, and when a homeless household signs an application this is reported to the government in the quarterly P1E reports. Sedgefield Borough 2000-2002 160

140

120

100 total priorities 80 total decisions 60 total not homeless 40 total non-priority 20 0 Value total intentional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Homelessness decisions

17 Page 47 County Durham 2000-2002 70

40 total priorities

30 total decisions

20 total not homeless

10 total non-priority

0 Mean total intentional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Homelessness Decisions - average number each quarter

Derwentside 2000-2002 70

40 total priorities

30 total decisions

20 total not homeless

10 total non-priority

0 Value total intentional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Homelesslessness Decisions

4.3 Main household types in priority need

The most common household types are small families or young singles.

The number of families applying has declined in the last part of the period, but it is not clear if this is a long-term change. Through the period Sedgefield Borough has had an average of 19-20 families a quarter compared to 12-13 for the County, and 12-15 for Derwentside.

Sedgefield Borough has had higher levels of young singles than either Derwentside or the County as a whole. Once again the difference is significant but not great – averaging only 5-10 young people a quarter. The new legislation is likely to both increase applications from young people, and may then even out acceptances across the county.

18 Page 48 The information from other agencies shows that whilst the Sedgefield Borough services have higher level of accepted young homeless, other County Durham districts have even higher levels of young people contacting CABs and voluntary agencies. For example the 51 Sedgefield Borough young people are matched by over 200 young people in both Easington and Derwentside. This appears to be very convincing evidence for the effectiveness of services and the network in Sedgefield Borough.

Applications from pregnant women are constant but at a low level. Most of these are very young women. Sedgefield Borough has a high level of teenage pregnancy

Sedgefield Borough 2000-2002 80

40 total priorities

young person 20 family

0 Value pregnant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Homeless Households in Priority Need

Main household types

County Durham 2000-2002 40

20 total priorities

young person 10 family

0 Mean pregnant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Homeless Households in Priority Need

19 Page 49

Derwentside 2000-2002 50

total priorities 20 young person

10 family

0 Value pregnant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Homeless Households in Priority Need

4.4 Main Reasons for Homelessness

The main reasons for homeless are the breakdown of a marriage, co- habitation, or between parents and children. These reasons account for 85- 95% of all priority homeless each quarter in Sedgefield Borough. The same reasons account for 80-90% in Derwentside, and 75-85% in the county as a whole. This is consistent with the effect of factors we outlined earlier – the higher levels of stress and deprivation.

Violent relationship breakdown accounts for 18-23 households a quarter in Sedgefield Borough, compared with 13-15 in Derwentside, and 8-10 in the county as a whole.

These figures reinforce the importance of the Domestic Violence strategy. They may also be a symbol of success in raising awareness locally – for example the publicity and access to advice may be encouraging victims to remove themselves from the violent partner.

The numbers of households appearing as a result of eviction – either from mortgage arrears or arrears with Council or Housing Association- is too low to show on these graphs (1 or 2 a quarter).

20 Page 50 Sedgefield Borough 2000-2002 80 total priorities

60 domestic violence

violent relationship

40 breakdown

relationship breakdo

20 wn

parent no longer abl 0 Value e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Homeless Priorities from family break-up

County Durham 2000-2002 40 total priorities

domestic violence 30 violent relationship breakdown 20 relationship breakdo

wn 10 parents no longer ab 0 Mean le 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Homeless Priorities from family break-up

Average cases each quarter

21 Page 51 Derwentside 2000-2002 50

total priorities 40 domestic violence

30 violent relationship breakdown

20 relationship breakdo

wn 10 parent no longer abl

0 Value e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Homelessless Priorities from family break up

4.5 Other reasons for vulnerability

We have concentrated on the major trends in homelessness in this section so far. We need also to highlight smaller groups of individuals who may need additional support in the future. We have reviewed the many reasons for a household to be considered vulnerable and to become homeless.

There is constant but small demand from people with mental health problems (often recently in hospital), people with physical disability, and elderly people (usually very elderly singles).

The small numbers of cases make comparisons with other areas difficult, and we have found figures vary enormously every quarter. The total number of applications has been gradually reducing over the three years.

22 Page 52 Sedgefield Borough 2000-2002 20

10 elderly

mental health

physical disability

0 Value young person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Single Homeless Priorities

Derwentside 2000-2002 14

6 elderly

4 mental health

2 physical disability

0 Value young person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

quarter

Single Homeless Priorities

4.6 Young Homeless People

Centrepoint has co-ordinated an information and survey service for several years. This concentrates on Yong Homelessness – i.e. below 25 years of age. The information provides some interesting insights into the younger homeless groups and is reproduced here.

Centrepoint have been gathering information on the numbers of young people approaching various agencies for assistance with housing since 1998.

23 Page 53 The information is dependent on agencies collecting information on each client who approaches them. This does not provide a comprehensive picture, but an indication of the needs within the county.

The figures for the financial year 2002/2003 are available for comparison with the statutory reports reviewed above.

The Centrepoint information for Sedgefield Borough supports the overall view that most homeless people are referred to the Homelessness and Housing Advice Team, and the network of services provides a strong level of support –

Centrepoint figures for young homeless are slightly lower than the Council figures (51 pa compared to 60 Council accepted homeless)– indicating a high level of referrals to the Council team without going through any other agency.

The experience of the young people reported to Centrepoint indicate a wide range of risks the young people are exposed to –

49 were homeless as a result of family relationship breakdown 12 young people had been homeless for over 3 months 11 have no home and are at risk of sleeping rough

4.7 Repeat Homelessness

The government has set all Councils a target of monitoring and reducing repeat homelessness. At the moment there is no systematic monitoring of repeat homeless applications in Sedgefield Borough. This will need to be developed as a matter of urgency. Anecdotal evidence from local agencies suggests it is a small number of cases, with very complex needs.

4.8 Conclusions

The reducing number of homeless applications is not a reason for satisfaction about access to housing and support and advice services. The increasing problem of low demand in the borough is producing more opportunities for short lets in the private sector – but these may create new problems of repeat applications and households living in poor housing and without support services.

The number of homeless households in priority need has not reduced significantly. A recent decline in families may be a new feature, but it is too soon to say. The Council has introduced new arrangements to rehouse people with previous arrears – this may be the driving force for this change, but it is too early to say.

Most homelessness in Sedgefield Borough is the result of breakdown in a previously permanent family relationship.

24 Page 54 There is a significant element of violent relationship breakdown, and advertising services and links with other agencies appears to ensure victims are aware of their options to leave.

Sedgefield Borough has been rehousing more young people than other parts of the county. The Borough has rigorously applied the code of guidance since 1996. The new legislation appears to be increasing provision in other areas, and this may bring them up to the level of acceptances and rehousing in Sedgefield Borough.

5. Mapping Current provision in Sedgefield Borough

5.1 The Homeless Services

The homelessness service is co-ordinated by

• Sedgefield Borough Homelessness Team – based in Green Lane, Spennymoor. The team carries out all homelessness assessments (including non-priority cases threatened with homelessness) and liaises with housing managers in Council and housing association teams to secure rehousing. • The Council has set three targets for homelessness in the Best Value Performance Indicators – • Reducing stays in bed and Breakfast by families from 4 weeks to two in two years – the number of admissions is less than five a year, and most stays are only one night. The actual target has been missed because of a single complex case that required an unusually long stay in Bed and Breakfast. • Reducing average stays for families in other temporary accommodation such as hostels from 8.5 weeks to 6 weeks in two years. The numbers are again quite small, but the target is likely to met in the next couple of years. • Increasing the proportion of families reporting domestic violence – this is an ambitious target to encourage further reporting of domestic violence. Reports are increasing slightly. The help available for victims is advertised widely.

The structure of services is summarised in the tables below. The table shows the main client groups and location for the relevant services. Each table is supported with a brief description of how the agencies described are working together.

25 Page 55

Homelessness Services 1 – Assessment, Advice, and Prevention

Client group Agency and location Notes

All Sedgefield Borough Provides advice to agencies and Homelessness Service individuals on housing advice, liaison with housing providers etc

Sedgefield Borough Provides housing advice in Spennymoor CAB and Newton Aycliffe

Care DART Young Persons Advisors in ‘Looked Leavers After’ Team – 1.5 posts covering county

Domestic Domestic Violence Strategy to increase education and violence Strategy/ Three Rivers awareness and provide new advice and HA accommodation project in partnership

Tenants at Sedgefield Borough Enforcement team liaises with area risk of Tenancy Enforcement offices and homeless team to discuss eviction Team/Homelessness options for enforcement and avoiding Service unnecessary homelessness

Vulnerable DART Legal Aid Franchise with outreach singles through surgeries, CAB, and referrals

End House (Durham) Durham Young Peoples Centre – advice on housing, training, sexual health, mental health, 12 young people from Sedgefield Borough in the last year. Orbit 21 - High St Drop in and referral point for people with Drugs and Spennymoor alcohol and drug problems Alcohol Mental Health

5.2 Summary of findings -

Written and computer-held information about homeless services is readily available in Sedgefield Borough. In the Council offices, there are posters and leaflets about domestic violence, Care & Repair schemes, and tackling neighbour disputes, as well as a poster advising homeless people how to get help.

26 Page 56

Leaflets and information on the prevention and support services are not widely distributed. The Domestic Violence strategy, Stonham drugs and alcohol support service, CAB, and DART, are advertised in wide variety of locations such as leisure centres and libraries.

Information on sources of permanent housing is readily available in housing management offices and homeless team. There is no central co-ordination of this, although the homeless team provides direct nominations to supported housing, RSLs, and Council Housing management teams.

5.3 Prevention

There is a wide range of services providing preventative advice and interventions in Sedgefield Borough. Preventative services aim to prevent homelessness occurring and to help homeless people settle and avoid repeated homelessness.

In the research for this report it has become clear that most agencies in the borough, and others in the county and beyond, have strong links and mutual understanding of their respective roles.

The housing and advice agencies know each other well and refer to each other for advice frequently. All agencies reported easy access to advice and a high level of trust in the advice received.

There is no overall preventative strategy. There is a need to develop systematic targeting of vulnerable groups, or inexperienced groups such as young people, in order to try and prevent homelessness through earlier access to advice and support.

The Sedgefield Borough Homelessness and Housing Advice Team issues all referrals with a customer satisfaction form, and receives approximately 15% responses. The sample must be treated with a degree of caution because unhappy applicants may be refusing to respond. For this study we selected a sample from the returns to give a representative cross section of household types.

The customer satisfaction survey provides a very positive picture of the advice and the quality of the service overall. Over 90% of applicants are satisfied with advice, and nearly all of these are happy with the reception and support they received. This was borne out in interviews with young people who had seen the Sedgefield Borough team. We interviewed 5 young people who all praised the friendliness and the accessibility of the advice team.

The CAB provides an extensive range of surgeries – at least one a week in every village, and daily sessions in Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. The CAB staff and volunteers have very good links with the Homelessness and Housing Advice team, and report they are happy to discuss any case, and

27 Page 57 represent their clients with confidence of a professional and sympathetic reception.

The area housing offices are also well used to the CAB, and they will negotiate repayment plans for arrears, and proposals for remedying breaches of tenancy with any of the offices. The CAB uses Shelter helpline for advice on case law a few times each year – and again they report that the Council services respond positively to these legal arguments.

The CAB receives approximately 1100 housing enquiries last year out of 34000 total enquiries (3%). The breakdown of cases is –

Sedgefield and District CAB Housing Advice cases 2002-2003

Arrears Other

Homeless

Neighbour problems Threatened homeless

Repairs Housing Costs

1178 cases of 34082 enquiries

This data indicates a relatively low level of involvement in actual homelessness (8%), and a high level of work in preventative advice – such as arrears (28%), budgeting for housing costs (8%), and advising on neighbour disputes (8%).

The CAB is currently improving the analysis of casework and this data will available for each village in the near future. This will provide a powerful tool for planning joint work across the borough in the future.

28 Page 58 5.4 Temporary Accommodation and Support

In the interviews with service users, and in the contacts with service providers themselves, there was a unanimous view that there is insufficient temporary and emergency accommodation in Sedgefield Borough. The table below sets out the type of temporary of accommodation current available in the Borough.

Homelessness Services 2 – Temporary Accommodation and Support

Client Agency and location Notes group

All Sedgefield Borough 5 maisonettes in Newton Aycliffe, 1 in Homeless Service Spennymoor. One B+B for short stays – usually used for singles only

Bed and breakfast Evidence of B+B use across the region including Tyne, Wear, and Darlington

Care DART Plans pathway to independence and Leavers supports young people leaving care alongside social worker

Domestic Domestic violence New refuge funding approved – opening violence Strategy/ Three Rivers approx 2005 HA

Vulnerable DASH Provides 8 single flats, 3 two bed shared singles houses, and 6 short-term floating support places in Durham. Houses small number of singles from Sedgefield Borough.

DART 29 floating Support places – mainly for young people – opened in March 2003

Norcare Supported Housing in Newton Aycliffe and Darlington Moving On Provides floating support for young people in Durham – helps approx two Sedgefield Borough people a year Stepping Stones Emergency and short term accom for young people in Newcastle – helps one or two people from Sedgefield Borough a year

29 Page 59 Salvation Army Sunderland hostels helps one or two Sedgefield Borough people a year Drugs and Stonham 5 floating Support places in the Borough– alcohol this service has an exceptional level of integration with drug treatment services. Opened in March 2003 – significant example of cross agency collaboration

Mental No specialist services identified, although Health CPNs and Drugs Misuse team make frequent use of Sedgefield Borough Homelessness team and secure referrals for rehousing etc. PCT has identified this as a gap in services

Homeless people sometimes have to leave the borough because they cannot find temporary accommodation. Many agencies highlighted the difficulties this creates for people trying to keep family and other contacts, keeping in touch with the Council and advice agencies, and for viewing properties when they become available. Several agencies also highlighted the risks of allowing vulnerable people to move into poor B+B away from their support networks and families.

The lack of temporary accommodation affects nearly all groups. The Council has very low levels of B+B use for families – and these are mainly late night emergency admissions for one night only. However the lack of specialist accommodation was highlighted in relation to young people, young mothers, mental health, and alcohol and drugs.

These concerns were very strongly expressed and demanded detailed investigation. We reviewed the available sources of information and considered how we could explore these risks.

This section can only give a partial analysis of the complex use of emergency and B+B accommodation. The subsequent development of the strategy will rely on the partners exploring these issues further in future years.

For households in priority need, the temporary accommodation options are:

• Temporary tenancies in Council stock • B&B • Possible use of other LA hostels • Hostels etc in other areas • The women's refuge

30 Page 60 Nearly all homeless priority households in Sedgefield Borough are offered temporary accommodation in Council housing. A significant number of homeless priorities prefer to stay with friends and family, but this often breaks down and the Council will then offer a temporary tenancy. We found no agency or customer satisfaction report that criticised or questioned the Council Service. The Council uses one B+B for out of hours emergency admissions when the other temporary units are not available – it is very rare for families to stay more than one night.

The Council uses five flats in Newton Aycliffe as temporary accommodation for homeless households. These have no on site staff, but can be allocated out of hours or the next day by the out of hours service

The Housing Corporation has approved funding for new accom for women fleeing domestic violence – beds and opening dates

Several agencies report that other vulnerable households appear to be placed in B+Bs by the County Social Services Department. This issue has been recognised by the Social Services Department and a review will be conducted this year.

Access to other supported housing in the Borough is very limited – DART and Stonham provide only 44 beds in total in floating support.

Outside the Borough, a number of sources of temporary accommodation are used. Newcastle Homeless Liaison Project is a rich source of information about homelessness for the whole region. It records all enquiries and discharges for all homeless provision in Newcastle, as well as their other needs, and reasons for people leaving this accommodation.

The Homeless Liaison Project does not keep records of the borough of origin for every enquiry and instead shows the figures for County Durham as a whole.

Newcastle Homeless Liaison Project - Enquiries for accommodation 2001 and 2002

Total Total Total enquiries enquiries discharges 2001 2002 2002 No. (%) from 49 (2.4%) 128 (6.55%) 39 (4.7%) Co. Durham Total 2087 1955 823

79 of the 128 people for whom enquiries were made could not be found direct access accommodation at the time. In 65 of these cases, the caller was advised to refer the applicant to the local authority as the applicant may be in priority need and should be found accommodation by the person's local authority. 44 people were offered advice on options outside Newcastle.

31 Page 61

Enquiries made in 2002 for people from Sedgefield Borough came from DART, and Probation. Other agencies making enquiries for people from Co. Durham, probably including some for Sedgefield Borough residents, were Shelter, Nightstop, Youth Offending Teams, and Social Services.

Age breakdown of homeless people from Co. Durham 2002

Total Discharges enquirers No. (% of total for No. (% of total) each age group) Under 18 6 (0.3%) 5 (2.7%) 19-21 61 (3.1%) 17 (3.7%) 22-24 22 (1.1%) 14 (5%) 25-59 38 (1.9%) 26 (2.5%) 60+ 1 (.05%) 2 (3.6%) Total 128 39

Other needs of people referred from Co. Durham

No. (% of total referred from Co. Durham) History of care 11 (8.6%) Mental health problems 30 (23.4%) Offending history 51 (39.7%) Drug problems 33 (25.8%) Alcohol problems 22 (17.1%)

Referrals made directly to provision in Newcastle in 2002 - Co. Durham referrals

We used this information to approach individual agencies and ask for specific information on referrals from Sedgefield Borough.

A separate survey was also conducted by Peter Fletcher Associates on behalf of Derwentside Council. Derwentside is a paired authority with Sedgefield Borough – meaning they are very similar in socio-economic factors like housing, employment, population etc. Thanks to the co-operation of Peter Fletcher Associates we can provide some comparisons for agencies supporting young people in the region.

Byker Bridge Housing 17 (8.7% of total referrals) from Co Durham. Association direct access No data on individual districts in the county. hostel Stepping Stones 73 referrals (48M 25F) from CO Durham\7% of total of 1024

Norcare Cumberland House, 1 referral with heroin addiction in past 6 months.

32 Page 62 Wavelength - last took someone from Sedgefield Borough about two years ago. Haven 45-50 referrals from Durham Prison but many of these will be people from Tyneside. Salvation Army Women's hostel: 5 from Co Durham Men's hostel: 6 total from Co. Durham, none from Sedgefield Borough Tyneside Foyer 15 referrals from Co. Durham, 6 admissions of whom 3 were 18 or under, and 3 were over 18 YWCA No-one taken from Sedgefield Borough in the past year or possibly longer Praxis One referral from Sedgefield Borough in last three years – also has additional mental health problems

People also go to Cyrenians but they do not keep figures for referrals separately from NHLP figures.

Enquiries made to agencies in Gateshead

Aquila Housing 7 women referred (3 under 18, 4 under 25), 2 accommodated St Bede's, Three Rivers Since January 2000 a total of 6 people from Sedgefield Borough have been housed at St Bede’s. A further 3 applicants were refused help. Of those that were housed only 3 returned to Sedgefield Borough.

St Bede's provided further information about what had led to the homelessness of the people they accommodated. The main reasons for needing accommodation at St Bede’s were:

• Relationship breakdown • Shortage of emergency accommodation Enquiries made to agencies in Sunderland

YMCA 8 people from Derwentside accommodated. No-one from Sedgefield Borough on record TZ In the last year 11 clients came from Derwentside, and 4 from Sedgefield Borough Salvation Army Around 12 people a year come from Durham prison, but not all of these will originate from Co. Durham

33 Page 63 Other enquiries

DASH (Durham) Provide a service for single homeless people up to 65. Provided accommodation for 3 people from Sedgefield Borough last year, this year 2 people North East Direct Access Mostly long term residents in their 60 (Plawsworth) beds. Of the others, around ¼ are from Co Durham, with a handful each year coming from Sedgefield Borough Stonham Stonham collect information on where people are referred Stonham have mixed sex hostels for homeless young people age 16-20 in: Shotton where 1 person from each of Derwentside and Sedgefield Borough was accommodated in the last financial year but none since. Brandon has had by far the largest number of referrals. In 2002/3 they had 18 referrals from the Derwentside and 7 from Sedgefield Borough Bishop Auckland where there is no record of housing anyone from Sedgefield Borough

Temporary accommodation in Darlington.

Four B+Bs were visited and were happy to discuss their work. None kept systematic records of referrals by district of origin. The owners and managers believed most residents were from Darlington, and other referrals came from across the county, and could not single out any district.

5.5 Temporary Accommodation for Sedgefield Borough - Interim Conclusions

It can be seen that a small but significant number of people go from Sedgefield Borough to Durham, Wearside, Tyneside, and Darlington each year, in the main not from choice.

The survey above shows approximately 20 Sedgefield Borough residents a year having to move for emergency accommodation. This is less than Derwentside – approximately 40 cases, - but it is significant.

Once there, people will return to the Sedgefield Borough area, either to remain homeless or to find accommodation, probably in the private rented sector. Accessing permanent social rented housing may be difficult if they are living outside the Borough;

34 Page 64 Sedgefield Borough's allocations policy allows people to register if they live outside the Borough, but in allocating there will be inevitable extra difficulties in contacting residents out of the Borough and also in insecure and rapidly changing temporary accommodation.

Some homeless people choose to stay in the area in which they have found temporary accommodation; loosening the links they have with family and other networks, and places additional stress on housing and other services in those areas. The likelihood of the person remaining in the new area is greater if they have been accommodated for a longer in supported housing such as the Haven or Wavelength.

The figures suggest that the problems of temporary accommodation are not quite as acute in Sedgefield Borough as in other parts of the County. The comparisons with Derwentside show a consistently lower level of young people having to move away. This is consistent with other findings in the research – vis –

• the homeless team is co-ordinating a network of advice and other agencies, and • young people are more likely to approach the Council for help, and • the advice and services are diverting them from some of the risks of moving away

The gap in emergency accommodation is very important but probably not very large. Further work is required to determine the best means of meeting this need. The numbers identified in this report suggest a small number of units are required – for example if each person who moved out of the area needed three months temporary support before finding a long term house this would result in demand for only 5 bedspaces.

The number of units and the management of the units will require more detailed analysis of the client needs – for example we cannot assume all the cases detailed above could be accommodated in a single project because their needs may be too divergent.

A feasibility study will also need to examine whether the emergency temporary accommodation required should be shared with other County Durham Districts. The agencies involved in this study all reported similar, often more acute, concerns in other districts.

6. Routes into permanent accommodation

Securing a permanent home is just the start of solving homelessness. The government has recognised the importance of reducing tenancy failure and repeat homelessness.

Sedgefield Borough will be introducing monitoring of housing outcomes to ensure the new strategy monitors and reduces recurring homelessness – known as the ‘revolving door’ of poor housing and subsequent homelessness.

35 Page 65

At present rehousing rates meet the demand, but the market decline and stress noted in earlier sections emphasise the importance of monitoring trends very closely in the future.

The lack of suitable small singles flats and adapted accommodation has also been noted.

The development of floating support services for singles and people with alcohol and drug problems is intended to reduce tenancy failure, and this will be evaluated through the Supporting People Team and DAT in the future.

Access routes to permanent accommodation through the homelessness service are set out in the table below.

36 Page 66

Homelessness Services 3 – Access to permanent housing

Client Agency and location Notes group

All Sedgefield Borough The homelessness team works with Council Homeless Service and RSLs to frequently secure permanent rehousing for non-priority applicants.

Sedgefield Borough The Council and RSLs accept applications from Allocations policies all needs groups, and policies and procedures appear to encourage rapid access to housing. 20% of Council allocations are now co- ordinated by the homelessness service. Small units and adapted units are in very short supply

Housing Associations Links with general needs housing is not strong for most voluntary agencies. Further work on nominations etc will be required in the future.

Private Rented Sector Increasing number of units is concentrated in a few areas of poor housing and market decline. A landlord forum exists but its role needs to be increased and strengthened. There is no rent guarantee scheme to assist appropriate rehousing. Care DART DART plans housing options and contacts Leavers Homeless Team to use protocols for rehousing for care – the protocols are highly valued, and although some cases challenge the system, there is evidence it makes a significant contribution to reducing B+B, and housing breakdowns.

Domestic Domestic violence The Sedgefield Borough Strategy places violence Strategy emphasis on protecting the victim in their own home – but the Council has a pragmatic and sympathetic service for those who wish to move.

Vulnerable Various Access is difficult in many areas because of singles shortage of appropriate housing. Some singles report difficulties because of previous low level arrears – particularly with the RSLs Drugs and Stonham The 5 floating support units linked with alcohol treatment services will provide access to permanent housing with medium term support.

37 Page 67 Resources available for homelessness in Sedgefield Borough

The table below sets out the resources spent on homelessness in 2002/3.

Organisation Staff Temp. Grant Other Total accom aid/contracts . CAB N/A N/A £130 000 £130 000 DART 5 N/A Supporting People Contract for 25 floating support places. Homeless Grant £41,000 advice services & joint protocol support Enforcement 4 N/A Funded by SBC team Homeless 3 6 units Team

Stonham 2 Supporting People Contract Floating Support for 5 households with substance and alcohol misuse problems 3 Supporting People Contract floating Support for 10 Young People Norcare 3 Supporting People houses Contract for 3 units of temporary supported housing

It has proved very difficult to disaggregate the SSD spend on homelessness in Sedgefield Borough, and arrangements have changed significantly since the introduction of Supporting People.

38 Page 68 7. Audit and evaluation of current homelessness service provision

Summary

The lack of emergency accommodation in Sedgefield Borough is the major issue of concern to agencies working with homeless people in the Borough. It causes significant number of people each year to go outside the Borough in order to find a bed for the night. This separates people from their family and other networks, sometimes permanently, and puts pressure on facilities elsewhere.

The lack of specialist services for key groups of clients is evident from the description of existing services and the views of existing services themselves.

Authorities in County Durham do not currently use each other's temporary accommodation. Sharing some specialist or small provision between several authorities would help to ease the financial burden.

The Homelessness Service and partners need to develop a means of monitoring repeat homelessness

The gaps in specialist services appear to be –

Young people supported temp accom

Specific services for vulnerable women in addition to domestic violence – especially very young mothers

Services for people with mental health problems – especially supported housing for a short/medium term ‘intermediate care’ model

Improved links with private landlords – including setting management standards and a rent deposit scheme

Furniture and furnished tenancies are required by a significant number of young people, and probably other homeless households as well.

Other comments related to offenders who lose their tenancies because of an inability to pay rent whilst they are in custody, or are treated as having moved out or abandoned their tenancy.

Agencies working with offenders also commented that offers for rehousing may be in areas where it is difficult for them to stop going back to re-offending

Agencies also called for more education work with young people on housing and homelessness

Prevention work is limited but has some successful elements, such as the work to prevent evictions in the owner occupied sector and in Council housing.

39 Page 69 Areas that need more attention are prevention of homelessness amongst people with mental health problems and offenders, including those with substance misuse problems. For both groups, rent arrears problems, which lead to the loss of a tenancy, may be avoidable with proactive work based on effective early warning systems. Tenancy support schemes for both groups would help to avoid a loss of tenancies.

7.2 Analysis of feedback from services on each needs group.

In this section we will review the qualitative information provided by the service users and agencies by needs groups.

7.3 Rough Sleepers

Evidence from homeless people and other organisations suggests a small number of incidents of rough sleeping – but these appear to occur outside the Borough more often than within it as the homeless people move away in search of temp accom

A rough sleeper count will be introduced as a regular survey from Oct 2003(?)

7.4 Teenage pregnancies

There is a persistent, though small, demand for supported housing for very young mothers. The number of young homeless mothers suggests small scheme will be viable, but this underestimates the need because a small number of other mothers are ‘hanging on’ in unsuitable circumstances because they have no access to any other source of support.

Numerical information on teenage pregnancies is available at a Borough level for those under 18 but only at a county level for under 16’s. Overall, the rate of pregnancies is slightly higher for the County than the national rate, and Sedgefield Borough has a slightly higher rate for under 18’s than the County.

The County figures for under 18’s show a steady decline but these figures need to be treated with some caution, as the numbers involved across the whole County are small:

Year Numbers % pop. under 18 1998 499 0.54 1999 469 0.51 2000 435 0.47 2001 398 0.44

In Sedgefield Borough the figures are aggregated over several years:

Year % per pop under 18 1996-98 0.55 1999-01 0.48

40 Page 70 For those under 16 there are only County level figures:

Year Numbers % per 1000 pop. under 16 1998 108 11.7 1999 87 9.4 2000 83 8.8

7.5 Offenders and people at risk of offending

The Home Office is now collecting figures showing where people go to when they leave prison. This has not been an easy task, but it is to be hoped in the future that prisons will collect data in similar ways across the country, and that it will be used to look at the housing issues for prisoners. The number leaving to go back to Sedgefield Borough in 2002 - is awaited

A survey of the caseloads of Probation officers and Youth Offender Teams (YOT) staff in January and February 2002, for the Supporting People Partnership, revealed that across Co. Durham, 61 (26%) of youth offenders had accommodation difficulties, with 12 being homeless at the time of the survey, and around 300 (15%) of adult offenders had accommodation difficulties. This is likely to be an underestimate, since not all staff from each agency took part in the survey. Offenders with other support needs such as drug/alcohol problems, or mental health problems, were most likely to have difficulties securing appropriate accommodation. A significant proportion of the offenders were thought to require supported accommodation to help with these specialist needs, with accommodation needed at each stage: direct access temporary accommodation, supported accommodation, and floating support.

The Probation Service notes that accommodation is a significant need for offenders, and loss of accommodation undermines their work of addressing offending. There is not enough reasonable quality accommodation available for rent, especially for single people.

Sedgefield Borough has reviewed the allocations procedures and the Homelessness Team co-ordinate rehousing for offenders leaving institutions. There is no practice of excluding offenders. The Homelessness Team and Area Housing teams negotiate plans for rehousing – addressing any outstanding issues such as arrears. Other agencies reported there were some disagreements with the Council, but the agreements were flexible and as one respondent said – ‘they (the Council) listen to the client and make a realistic proposal, so you can trust them’ .

Several agencies noted that many offenders need help in preparation for managing a tenancy, perhaps through an induction programme. There is a Countywide initiative in preparation and this will help cover this need. The Stonham service will also help offenders – but the small number of places will limit the usefulness.

41 Page 71 Family breakdown and domestic violence are frequent causes of homelessness cited by offenders. These are normally crisis situations, and people need a rapid response, which is not easy to provide in an area with no temporary accommodation. Many offenders have extended family living in a very compact area, and are not keen on travelling far afield to find accommodation.

Several agencies reported that there are indications of needs amongst mentally disordered offenders but no information about levels or types of need.

7.6 People with an alcohol or substance misuse problem

The main problems in Sedgefield Borough continue to be related to alcohol. Although drugs are a growing problem they do not appear to have reached the scale of other areas as yet, and at the moment between 60 and 70% of those with problems relate to alcohol.

There are no detailed statistics on the numbers approaching DAT services with an accommodation problem but it is estimated that they are in the region of 40 to 60 per year in Sedgefield Borough.

DAT have recently produced a housing strategy for the county that sets out a broad range of housing needs they believe that need to be addressed across the County. There are no specific figures and the needs to relate the County as a whole.

The DAT is currently developing a new strategy for integrating housing advice, provision, and support for people with drug and alcohol misuse problems. The approach is being led by Stonham and will integrate housing services into the tiers of service recommended for effective alcohol abuse treatment. The strategy will require policy development in all housing providers and the initial requirements from Sedgefield Borough are -

¾ Greater involvement in generic housing planning at the Borough level, to ensure that people with drug problems are not excluded from general social housing or specialist supported accommodation ¾ Seek assurances from Borough Chief Officers and Housing Associations that they will “proactively engage on a cross county basis” ¾ Building closer links with the Supporting People strategy ¾ Introduce specialist substance misuse worker funded through Supporting People ¾ Development of floating support services for people with drug problems ¾ Training a wide range of stakeholders on the issues of substance misuse ¾ Training for housing staff on dealing with drug problems ¾ Training specialist staff on housing requirements, with a view to them taking on an advocacy role

42 Page 72 ¾ Engage with and develop more generic supported housing: - Emergency access - Homeless - Care Leavers - Offenders - 7.7 Domestic Violence

No comprehensive research has been undertaken on this issue in County Durham but the number of reported incidents of domestic violence in Sedgefield Borough is higher than the County average at around 18-23 per quarter over the last three years.

Sedgefield Borough has a well-developed policy forum that addresses these issues and there are a number of policies included in other strategies that support the overall domestic violence strategy. The police and Social Services, and advice agencies all report very high levels of satisfaction with the Homelessness Service.

However, the increasing commitment to exclude violent partners from the home does have the side effect of creating homelessness amongst single males. National research also suggests a high proportion of perpetrators of violence will have alcohol problems and this will add to demands for services. DART's figures confirm that view: in 2001, almost half their caseload was made up of single people separating from a partner. At the moment there is no balancing policy or procedure that will address the needs of the displaced person, and a number appear to be moving away to find temporary accommodation outside of the Borough.

There is no Women’s Refuge service in Sedgefield Borough. A new service is currently being commissioned in partnership with Three Rivers.

This review is taking place at a time when a major part of the service is not available and therefore it is inappropriate to draw definitive conclusions. However, the following conclusions are suggested:

• A county-wide protocol should be considered for re-housing people fleeing domestic violence, to reduce the current levels of “ red tape” involved in facilitating rehousing in another Borough • The policy of excluding 100 % of violent partners does have consequences as it also creates another homeless person. The policy therefore needs to be refined to also address the housing needs of the displaced person as well.

43 Page 73 7.8 Mental Health

Mental health problems are a major cause of ill health. It is estimated that 20% of women and 14% of men may have had a serious mental illness. When common mental health problems (e.g. depression and anxiety) are taken into account, it is estimated that between one third and up to half of the population have experienced mental health problems at some point in their lives. Mental disorders account for a significant level of the total expenditure on health and social care.

Levels of mental health problems in County Durham and Darlington are generally high and they are higher in poorer areas. The York Psychiatric Index (YPI) is a measure of need related to deprivation that compares the level of need in a community to an average score of 100 for the country as a whole. The YPI was used in a study of mental health problems in adults of working age in Durham and Darlington in 1998. The scores for Sedgefield Borough indicate that its rate of mental illness is above the national average. It is likely then that homelessness might be a feature of the difficulties facing this group in the Borough.

The issue of homelessness crops up frequently with clients of the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT). People with mental health problems may have difficulties in maintaining tenancies. The development of the Stonham floating support service is therefore an important new step in preventing homelessness and helping those who have been homeless to establish them selves in new accommodation.

The Primary Care Trust is keen to see the provision of some intensive supported housing for people going through acute episodes of mental illness in the Borough. At the moment approximately 12 people are admitted to hospital in Darlington each year and have problems moving back to their old home – through either relationship breakdown, loss of private home, or loss of confidence and skills.

The PCT wishes to establish a short stay (up to 12 months) housing project to assist residents back to independence. Similar schemes exist in Chester le St, and with Mental Health Matters North Tyneside.

There are a lot of people who leave prison who have a mental health problem who also have accommodation problems. The majority of these are men and many of them end up in B&B that is not always suitable. There is some evidence of people who end up in B&B drifting around from one hotel to another. However, there is not a big problem with transient homeless people.

There are numbers of people with drug/alcohol problems and a mental health problem. Alcohol is a bigger problem but the use of drugs is a growing problem mainly affecting young people, commonly also linked with an alcohol problem. There is no temporary accommodation in Sedgefield Borough that will take people with these problems.

44 Page 74

7.9 People with learning disabilities

Information about this group was expected to have come from the Learning Disabilities Housing Plan but this was not completed in County Durham in time to be included in this report. There is some suggestion within the Supporting People Shadow Strategy that there may be some hidden needs for people with mild learning disabilities, and it could also be inferred that there is a potentially risk for those who are currently being supported by ageing parents. There is no specific indication of the level of need.

7.10 Gaps in existing services

The main gaps highlighted in these reviews are –

Teenage pregnancies – supported tenancies for the small number of cases

Rough Sleeper Counts

Arrangements for rehousing victims of Domestic Violence in other Districts

Preparation and support for offenders leaving prison/institution.

Monitoring repeat homelessness

People with alcohol and substance misuse may need more places than the new service provides

Mental Health – specialist supported units on ‘intermediate care’ model

Furnished Tenancies

Flats and suitable small units for singles are in short supply – many singles don’t want a house with garden

Links with Private Landlords to improve management and reduce homelessness/evictions

Preventative strategy – including education and outreach to young people, and other groups at risk of homelessness

45 Page 75

8. Future needs

Estimating future needs is notoriously difficult. Looking at the evidence provided by the homeless figures over the past few years, and information on supply, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• The continued existence of areas of housing market decline and stress will cause difficulties and unpredictable outcomes for vulnerable households. This may cause some increases in homelessness.

• The reducing demand for social housing in many settlements, and the willingness of social landlords to develop services, suggest more offers of housing will become available in the future. This may improve access to housing and offset some of the effects of the housing market decline – but this should not be taken for granted. A careful co-ordination of initiatives and encouraging and sharing best practice will be required.

• There is no evidence to show that numbers of people who find themselves homeless in Sedgefield Borough are likely to change greatly, with the exception of drug users (see below) and a possible decrease in homelessness amongst new households as a result of the introduction of several tenancy support schemes in the Borough.

• Relationship breakdowns are likely to continue to result in homelessness, both for families with children leaving the family home, and single men leaving the family home. Attention to the latter group, in particular, may see an increase in numbers on a short term basis, as it look as if this is a hidden need at present.

• Numbers of people leaving prison without accommodation may reduce as more initiatives to provide more effective and earlier housing advice take effect.

• Nationally the number of people with drug problems is increasing. Although the alcohol problem is greater in Sedgefield Borough, there is some evidence that the drug problem is likely to grow, and with this the housing difficulties that ensue. Planning for this growth across the County should be put into place as a matter of priority (as suggested by the DAT), particularly given the low base of provision in the County at present.

• The low base of supported accommodation in the County as a whole means that many people have to move to find temporary

46 Page 76 accommodation, and that longer term needs are not met adequately. The recent increases in floating support will help this, but further research and monitoring is required to ensure the trends in needs are understood and met

9 Strategic and operational links

9.1 Strategic links – introduction

The Homelessness Strategy is a very demanding project. The requirement to bring together a wide range of agencies and agree a set of objectives is far from simple. A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (March 2003) highlighted difficulties in almost aspect of joint planning. The definition of needs groups, especially the hard-get-to groups represented in the homeless – were of particular concern.

It is therefore important to stress that this strategy is the starting point for service improvement. We will be working together in future years to develop common planning and definitions of services.

The single most difficult task in this work has been to gather information that can be related to the needs of Sedgefield Borough. Other research projects have already identified the difficulties in working in an environment where very few statutory boundaries are coterminous. For example, “A Review of Housing Strategies and provision for people with substance misuse problems” produced for County Durham DAT, notes that where information was available, it was provided at a county level, and it was difficult to break down in to the needs of each Borough.

This work has faced similar problems. It also covers a subject area for which most local authorities have very limited co-ordinated information about needs. Although the position is improving as a result of the impact of Supporting People and the work done by Centrepoint, there are still significant gaps.

It is therefore difficult to judge the impact that initiatives have had on meeting the needs of homeless people in Sedgefield Borough. Both County Durham Supporting People team and Sedgefield Borough Council have recognised these problems and through the commission of a number of research projects are beginning to address this issue.

9.2 Community Plan

Sedgefield Borough Council’s Community Plan was not finalised at the time of this study, but key principles are already agreed and are shaping the new strategy –

Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies are the principle means of consulting and agreeing the priorities for the future. These plans do appear to have considered homelessness as an explicit part of their work, but there are a number of complimentary strategies designed to reduce social exclusions,

47 Page 77 improve access to advice, and improve preventative services. The examples include –

Support for the multi-agency Pioneer Care Partnership centre

Providing joint office accommodation with Social Services and the voluntary sector to improve joint working and information exchange

Increasing Intermediate Care provision

9.3 Housing Strategy

The Housing Strategy and Best Value Plan set a series of priorities and Targets for the Homelessness service. The priorities reflect most of the points raised in the analysis so far –

Supporting Sure Start as a preventative strategy – Sure Start confirmed that links with the housing and homelessness service were very strong and positive

Supporting the Learning Difficulty Housing Strategy when it comes to consultation

Mental Health – developing more supported housing. The Homelessness Team and the PCT is currently working on the proposed service specification for intermediate accommodation.

Rough Sleepers – the count was expected to commence in early 2003, but is now expected to commence in Autumn 2003.

Alcohol and substance misuse – the strategy committed the Borough to introduce new services in partnership with PCT and voluntary sector – now in place, although there are reasons to believe it is too small

Young People – the strategy committed the Borough to continued support and co-operation with the Youth Accommodation Forum, chaired by Centrepoint. This has been maintained and the rehousing and support of young people is highly valued by local agencies.

Supporting People – the strategy envisaged developing services to fill known gaps in services. This has been partly achieved with increased floating support from Stonham and DART. However the lack of temporary accommodation was known several years ago and the lack of development shows some weakness in the Supporting People Partnership.

48 Page 78 9.4 Regional Housing Strategy

The role of the Regional Strategy is now increasingly important to the strategic direction of Local Housing Authorities. The 2001 Housing in the North East: A Framework for Action plan set the regional context and gave Local Authorities some direction:

“The provision of supported housing, with the needs of teenage parents and vulnerable young people particularly highlighted. Developing cross boundary procurement is also a priority”

It also emphasised the linkage between deprived areas and the disproportionate numbers of young people with drug and alcohol problems that come from those areas.

The County Durham Sub-group has identified the need for increasing “joint working” on supported housing as a key priority, particularly in relation to the needs of young people.

9.5 Youth Justice Plan

The plan contains a specific section on accommodation although interestingly the Borough Council Housing Services are not referred to at all in this section. Overall there appears to be no housing representation on the Steering Group of the YOT despite accommodation being a key target.

The plan identified progress towards development of a multi-agency approach to the provision of accommodation but also recognised that considerable work needs still to be done. In particular it noted the problems of youth homelessness and unsatisfactory accommodation for 16-17 year olds.

9.6 Drug Action Plan

There is recognition that substance misuse is a rapidly growing problem particularly for younger people. Services are therefore being developed and expanded to meet these needs.

County Durham DAT has been keen to recognise the need for a joint approach to addressing the problems of drugs and alcohol. It has encouraged the development of related services that will work closely together with housing, social services, and drugs specialists – such as the new Stonham Floating Support service

However, the emphasis of their strategy has been on treatment and crime reduction and there has been little development of thinking on long term housing issues. The DAT is currently developing new proposals to improve this (see above)

49 Page 79 9.7 Teenage Pregnancy Strategy

Sedgefield Borough is part of the County Durham Teenage Pregnancy group. The County's Strategy document for 2001/2 contains a set of aims for Better Support - Housing:

a.. To provide a range of core and cluster model and semi-supported accommodation across County Durham for young parents and their children who are unable to live with family or partner and are not yet ready to live independently in line with TP Unit guidance. b.. To promote the welfare of the young parent and child we aim to ensure settled living arrangements to prevent adverse impact upon the pregnancy...and to improve the life chances of the young mother’

The Strategy notes that housing-related support to young parents will be provided through a bid for Housing Corporation support. This bid has now failed and alternative plans are urgently required. The Tackling Teenage Pregnancy Co-ordinator and the Supporting People team will continue to discuss provision in this Borough to ensure that it meets established need.

9.8 Young People Leaving Care

The County Social Services Department has agreed protocols with Sedgefield Borough for the rehousing of young people and those being rehoused from care. The protocols provide an assessment of need and agreements on the level of support for the young person. The system appears to work well, and all agencies reported that they meet and discuss the needs of individuals and monitor plans and outcomes.

DART provides an independent and lead role in planning rehousing from care and reports that the Homelessness Service meets all requirements for the rehousing plans of young people.

9.9 Strategic links - Conclusions

Identifying issues about homelessness in strategic documents is difficult in Sedgefield Borough since many of the documents relate to countywide activities or services, and information about Borough-wide plans is very limited.

The Sedgefield Borough strategic documents which cover or touch upon homelessness refer to the need to address youth homelessness, domestic violence, supported housing for teenage parents, drug and alcohol problems, rent arrears, and anti-social behaviour. Some of the actions mentioned include preventative work such as reduction of evictions through more intervention on rent arrears amongst Council tenants.

50 Page 80 Most of the Countywide plans and strategies do not currently recognise the need to tackle housing and support needs as part of other approaches. The Supporting People Shadow Strategy does identify a range of actions which will impact on homelessness, and makes very clear links between the two initiatives of Supporting People and Homelessness Strategies, and recent documents focusing on mental health, and substance misuse, do recognise the need to build the links between housing and these areas of social and health care.

Strategic links are strong in relation to housing management and the local voluntary and statutory agencies. Links with Supporting are good, but the strong local networks must be better represented in Countywide decision making in the future

10. The Homelessness Strategy for Sedgefield Borough.

This review will from the basis for the Homelessness Strategy for Sedgefield Borough. The Strategy will be agreed by the steering group of partner agencies, and this group will then form the Homelessness Strategy Implementation Group.

The Implementation Group will be responsible for consultation on the future strategy, implementing the action plan, and completing an annual review of the strategy.

10.1 Conclusions

The review and audit of services has found that Homelessness services in Sedgefield are well co-ordinated, work closely with partner agencies , and discuss issues openly and trust each other.

There are significant gaps in services, and all agencies appear to agree where the gaps occur. Despite this agreement some gaps have been left unaddressed. This strongly suggests the local planning arrangements, and the liaison with Supporting people and other County–wide agencies, is not as strong as it should be.

The main gaps in services are -

• Teenage pregnancies – supported tenancies for the small number of cases

• Rough Sleeper Counts

51 Page 81 • Arrangements for rehousing victims of Domestic Violence in other Districts

• Preparation and support for offenders leaving prison/institution.

• Monitoring of repeat homelessness

• People with alcohol and substance misuse may need more places than the new service provides

• Mental Health – specialist supported units on ‘intermediate care’ model

• Furnished Tenancies

• Links with Private Landlords to improve management and reduce homelessness/evictions

• Preventative strategy – including education and outreach to young people, and other groups at risk of homelessness

• There has been an increase in floating support in the last year, and some of these gaps will be filled by new services from Stonham and DART. The strategy will need to carefully monitor take up and effectiveness of these and other established services.

• Future demand for homelessness services cannot be accurately predicted, but there is strong evidence that demand will continue at least at current levels. There is likely to be increasing complexity of need amongst service users – especially if drug and substance misuse continues to increase.

52 Page 82 APPENDIX ONE

Membership of the Sedgefield Borough Homelessness Strategy Steering Group

Sedgefield Youth Accommodation Forum is meeting in November 2003 to consider expanding and reviewing their role to take on monitoring of the Strategy. The revised Forum will be given the lead responsibility for monitoring progress on the Strategy and agreeing the annual review. The Forum will have a wider membership, and will have the lead role in agreeing relevant parts of other strategies such as the Domestic Violence Strategy and Crime and Disorder Strategy.

Proposed Model

Local Strategic Partnership

Supporting Borough County Other People Council Groups LA’s Partnership

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Homelessness Strategy Steering Group

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Domestic Supported Floating Other Violence Lodgings Support agencies Forum Group Providers

53 Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84 Item 7a KEY DECISION ITEM NO.

REPORT TO CABINET

16TH OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Housing Portfolio

REVIEW OF THE ALLOCATIONS POLICY

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To outline the outcome of the review of the Allocations Policy and to recommend changes to meet current guidance and legislative requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• That Cabinet approves the revised Allocations Policy

BACKGROUND

The existing points based system was introduced in 1992 with minor changes and updates to the policy in 1997 and 1999. With the introduction of the Homelessness Act in February 2003 and the release of the Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation for Local Authorities it was necessary to review the policy to take account of the issues within the Act.

In addition the Government has stated all local authorities must have a Choice Based Lettings scheme in place by 2012 that offers people greater choice in where they live.

REPORT DETAIL

The main policy objectives of the Act with regard to the allocation of council property are: -

• To offer new applicants and existing tenants a more active role in choosing their accommodation • To ensure that existing tenants seeking a transfer of accommodation have their application considered on the same basis as new applicants • To break down existing barriers to cross-boundary applications, so that authorities can no longer exclude applicants who are not residents of the Borough. However, councils can give existing residents some element of priority for their local connection • To ensure wider access to social housing by removing authorities’ power to implement blanket exclusions of certain categories of applicant. In its place, councils are given the power to decide that individual applicants are “ineligible” as a result of serious anti social behaviour • To widen the priority homeless need criteria to include 16 and 17 years olds, care leavers aged 18 to 21 years, people vulnerable due to violence (not including domestic violence) and Armed Forces and prison leavers who are considered vulnerable

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 85 • To remove the duty on local authorities to maintain a Housing Register, although councils can continue to do so if they wish

The review of the policy had to take into account all of these issues and the new proposed policy now fully reflect the necessary changes.

THE REVISED ALLOCATIONS POLICY

An informal sub group of Scrutiny Committee 2 was established in September 2002. A separate report of the sub group is attached. The group considered the Council’s Allocations Policy and all changes that were required to meet the policy objectives within the Homelessness Act 2002.

The proposed revised Allocations Policy is attached. The key changes to the current policy are: -

• Persons between 16 and of 18 years to be accepted on the waiting list, if in priority need. The Council operates a Joint Protocol (with Durham Social Services and other support providers) in line with good practice, to assess the needs of homeless young people and to enable them to make informed housing choices, and provide support thus reducing the likelihood of failed tenancies.

• Council tenants to be eligible to transfer after 6 months tenancy of their current property, subject to their tenancy having been conducted in a satisfactory manner.

• The age restriction for family accommodation to be lowered to 18 years

• Owner/occupiers to sign an undertaking that their own property has been sold/is up for sale or they will arrange to sell it within an agreed timescale

• Applicants to be awarded points for both medical conditions and social needs if these apply. Previously, only the category, which scored the higher award of points, could count towards an applicant’s points total.

• Applicants from outside of Sedgefield Borough to be eligible to apply for Council housing

• Applicants residing within the Borough to be given 10 residency points

• Applicants to be free to choose more than one township

• The ‘adequately housed’ rule to be removed

• Substantially adapted properties to be offered to applicants whose needs best match the properties, not necessarily the person at the top of the waiting list

• Applicants to no longer have 30 points deducted from their points total for refusing a ‘reasonable’ offer of accommodation. This will reflect the Government’s wish to give applicants more choice about where they live.

This could, in theory, mean that an applicant could “block the system” by continually refusing offers and remaining at the top of the waiting list. To prevent this from

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 86 occurring housing staff will ensure that they determine an applicant’s exact needs and choices so that only property, which is appropriate for their requirements, is offered to them.

• The existing exclusions policy to be removed and an “ineligibility” policy adopted. Under the new Guidance, a person can only be made ineligible for rehousing if his/her behaviour was such that had he/she been an existing tenant of the Council, the Council would have been able to obtain an Immediate Possession Order as a result of that behaviour. Only recent behaviour can be taken into account.

The following are examples of unacceptable behaviour which may result in an applicant being made ineligible:-

Applicants, including anyone to be rehoused with them, who have in the previous 2 years been convicted of or had legal action (legal action refers to a conviction, or the serving of an injunction or a Court Order) taken against them in connection with: violence, domestic violence, harassement, racial harassement, threatening behaviour or other forms of anti-social behaviour, or physical or verbal abuse towards Sedgefield Borough Council officers

The list is not exhaustive and each case will be considered on its individual merit.

This is likely to increase in the number of people eligible for access to the Housing Register who would previously have been excluded. This change to the policy should be set against those remedies available to the Council to deal with any tenant demonstrating anti social behaviour.

MEDICAL POINTS SCHEME

The Council’s current medical points scheme came into effect, with the Allocations Policy, in 1992. The numbers of people applying for, and being awarded, medical need points has increased. This has several consequences. In many cases, particularly the 2 bed bungalow lists, the points awarded are having little effect on the applicants’ actual list positions. As so many applicants are being given medical points, the overall effect is merely to move everybody up the points scale but not alter their list positions.

The increased number of applicants seeking medical points is also placing an increasing burden on housing office staff that administer the scheme.

As a result it is proposed to look again at the Medical Points Scheme to examine how these issues can be addressed. A separate report on the Medical Points Scheme will be presented when this review is complete.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

Before the Allocations Policy can be implemented work needs to be done administratively to change the Housing Application Form and all associated forms and letters. In addition, all staff, Members and the Residents Federation and Housing Services Focus Group will require training on the new Policy prior to implementation.

It is expected that if approved the new policy will be fully implemented no later than 1st February 2004.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 87 CONSULTATION

Two tenants were part of informal Scrutiny 2 Sub Group that considered the Allocations Policy. Scrutiny 2 received a presentation on the proposed changes to the policy in April 2003 with a follow up report on progress in August 2003.

The revised Policy was presented to Housing Services Focus Group on 3rd September and 27th August 2003. Sedgefield Residents Federation received a presentation on 15th September 2003.

Contact Officer: Graham Scanlon Telephone No. (01388) 816166 Ext 4207 Email Address: [email protected]

Wards All

Key Decision Validation

This is a key decision since it may significantly affect all wards

Background Papers

Housing Working Group Report – 27th August 2003 Scrutiny Allocations Working Group minutes The Homelessness Act, 2002 Code of Guidance for Local Housing Authorities on the Allocation of Accommodation 2002

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 88 ITEM NO.

REPORT TO MANAGEMENT TEAM

6TH OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Housing Portfolio

REVIEW OF THE ALLOCATIONS POLICY

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To outline the outcome of the review of the Allocations Policy and to recommend changes to meet current guidance and legislative requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• That Management Team recommends the policy for approval by Cabinet

BACKGROUND

The existing points based system was introduced in 1992. There were minor changes and updates to the policy in 1997 and 1999. With the introduction of the Homelessness Act in February 2003 and the release of the Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation for Local Authorities it was necessary to review the policy to take account of the issues within the Act.

In addition to this the Government has stated all local authorities must have a Choice Based Lettings scheme in place by 2012 that offers people greater choice in where they live.

REPORT DETAIL

The main policy objectives of the Act with regard to the allocation of council property are: -

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 89 • To remove the duty on local authorities to maintain a Housing Register, although councils can continue to do so if they wish

THE REVISED ALLOCATIONS POLICY

An informal sub group of Scrutiny Committee 2 was established in September 2002. They considered the Council’s Allocations Policy and any changes that might be required as a result of the Homelessness Act 2002.

The revised Allocations Policy is attached. The key changes to the current policy are: -

• Persons under the age of 18 years to be accepted on the waiting list, if in priority need. The Council operates a Joint Protocol (with Durham Social Services and other support providers) in line with good practice, to assess the needs of homeless young people and to enable them to make informed housing choices, and provide support thus reducing the likelihood of failed tenancies.

• Council tenants to be eligible to transfer after 6 months tenancy of their current property, subject to their tenancy having been conducted in a satisfactory manner.

• The age restriction for family accommodation to be lowered to 18 years

• Owner/occupiers to sign an undertaking that their own property has been sold/is up for sale or they will arrange to sell it within an agreed timescale

• Applicants from outside of Sedgefield Borough to be eligible to apply for Council housing

• Applicants residing within the Borough to be given 10 residency points

• Applicants to be free to choose more than one township

• The ‘adequately housed’ rule to be removed

• Substantially adapted properties to be offered to applicants whose needs best match the properties, not necessarily the person at the top of the waiting list

This could, in theory, mean that an applicant could “block the system” by continually refusing offers and remaining at the top of the waiting list. To prevent this from occurring housing staff will ensure that they determine an applicant’s exact needs and choices so that only property, which is appropriate for their requirements, is offered to them.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 90 • The existing exclusions policy to be removed and an “ineligibility” policy adopted. Under the new Guidance, a person can only be made ineligible for rehousing if his/her behaviour was such that had he/she been an existing tenant of the Council, the Council would have been able to obtain an Immediate Possession Order as a result of that behaviour. Only recent behaviour can be taken into account.

Consideration must also be given to whether an applicant would be able to sustain a tenancy with the right level of support and, if that is the case; they must be accepted onto the list.

This may led to an increase in the number of people eligible for access to the Housing Register who would previously have been excluded. This change to the policy should be set against those remedies presently available to the Council to deal with any tenant demonstrating anti social behaviour.

MEDICAL POINTS SCHEME

The increased number of applicants seeking medical points is also placing an increasing burden on housing office staff that administer the scheme.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

CONSULTATION

Two tenants were part of informal Scrutiny 2 Sub Group that considered the Allocations Policy and the necessary changes. Scrutiny 2 received a presentation on the proposed changes to the policy in April 2003 with a follow up report on progress in August 2003.

The revised Policy was presented to Housing Services Focus Group on 3rd September and 27th August 2003. Sedgefield Residents Federation received a presentation on 15th September 2003.

Contact Officer: Graham Scanlon Telephone No. (01388) 816166 Ext 4207 Email Address: [email protected]

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 91 Wards All

Key Decision Validation

This is a key decision since it may significantly affect all wards

Background Papers

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 92

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

ALLOCATIONS POLICY AND PROCEDURE

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 93 POLICY STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

This statement outlines Sedgefield Borough Council’s Policy on the letting of Council properties. The Policy contains details of the scheme which the Council uses in deciding between competing applicants requesting housing.

A full copy of the Policy is available for inspection at all of our housing offices and at the Council Offices, Green Lane, Spennymoor.

THE LETTINGS POLICY

The Council’s Lettings Policy aims to achieve a balance between assisting those in greatest need and ensuring that there are opportunities for rehousing for all those who require it. It is designed around a points system with points awarded according to an applicant’s housing need and waiting time. An applicant’s points total will indicate their priority for rehousing. Reasonable preference will be given to those applicants with the most urgent housing need as identified in s167 of the 1996 Housing Act, with this need being reflected via the award of points. Where applicants qualify under more than one of these categories, the categories will not be treated in isolation from one another but will be treated cumulatively.

The Policy aims to give applicants wherever possible a wide choice of accommodation in their preferred locations. Applicants are free to make their own choices.

Where the Council owes a homeless applicant a duty to rehouse them, the offer of accommodation will take account of the wishes of the applicant in terms of its location and type. However, the availability of property, its suitability and the likliehood of being able to rehouse the homeless applicant within a reasonable timescale will also be considered by the Council. The right of the homeless applicant to appeal against the offer of accommodation on the grounds of its suitability without prejudicing their access to housing is recognised within this policy.

The Policy seeks to be open and to enable applicants to clearly understand their prospects for rehousing given their particular needs, circumstances and preferences.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 94

EQUALITY OF ACCESS

Sedgefield Borough council recognises its responsibilities in respect of Equal Opportunities, including the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the CRE Code of Practice in Rented Housing and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as well as with other EEC Directives. The Authority supports the principle of Equal Opportunities in employment and within the community and opposes all forms of unlawful or unfair discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, ethnic or natural origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disability or otherwise unjustifiable discrimination in all areas of its activities.

The Lettings Policy is designed to ensure that it does not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on grounds of race, ethnicity, sex or disability and that all applicants receive equal treatment. Applicants will be requested to provide information in their application regarding their race/ethnic origin, gender and disabilities which the Council will use to monitor equality of treatment.

Information on the Lettings Policy is available in different languages, Braille and audio formats.

Assistance is available in Local Housing Offices for those applicants who may require help in making a housing application.

DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT

Sedgefield Borough Council adheres to the principles and conditions of the Data Protection Act, 1998. Information which applicants provide about themselves and their circumstances will only be used for the purpose for which it has been collected. It will be kept securely and will not be passed on to others indiscriminately.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 95 THE LETTINGS POLICY

1. Who qualifies for Inclusion on the Housing Register?

Applications for inclusion on the Housing Register will be considered against the Statutory Requirements of Sections 161 – 163 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Act 2002.

1.1 Persons under the age of 18 years will not normally be considered. However, where they are deemed to be in priority need under the terms of the 2002 Act, they will be approved and will be allocated accommodation in conjunction with the Council’s Joint Protocol with County Durham Social Services and D.A.R.T., which aims to provide support to young people. This Protocol will also be used when a young person requires rehousing under the Children Leaving Care Act 2000, the Children Act 1989 and for lone parents under 18 years of age. The Policy recognises the Council’s duty to cooperate with Social Services in enabling children in care to move on under Section 27 of the Children Act 1989. Assistance will be offered on the basis of the Joint Protocol and the establishment that a suitable pathway plan exists with adequate levels of support available for the applicant.

1.2 Council tenants may apply for a transfer after six months tenancy of a property

1.3 The accommodation sought should be appropriate to the circumstances of the applicant and accordingly the Acceptance Criteria specifies the match of applicant, property type and size which will normally apply

1.4 In regard to applications for bungalow accommodation and some flatted accommodation, priority will be given to applicants of pensionable age, though persons under pensionable age will be considered, particularly if they have a severe medical problem or disability. Certain properties may be declassified and able to be let to non pensioners at the discretion of the Director of Housing and Environmental Health

1.5 Single persons over 18 years of age will be eligible for 2 bedroom houses, as well as flats

1.6 Owner occupiers will be eligible to register for rehousing with the Council, with no distinction being made regarding the value of their property. However, prior to being signed up for a Council property they will be required to sign an undertaking that:- a) their own property has been sold, or b) their own property is up for sale, or c) they will arrange for their own property to be put up for sale within six months

1.7 Applications from private tenants will be accepted and determined on their particular circumstances

1.8 Armed Forces personnel, upon notice of discharge, will be considered for housing. They may either apply directly via the Housing Register or as homeless under the amended provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

1.9 Applications will be accepted from single persons, “living-in” applicants, persons expecting a child, engaged couples and couples living together in a stable relationship, whether married or common law, friends who want to share, and from applicants seeking accommodation as a result of marital breakdown

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 96

1.10 Applicants who have met the Acceptance Criteria will be considered on medical and social needs grounds against the Statutory and Council criteria for such assessment where appropriate

1.11 The Council reserves the right to re-assess approved applicants

Unacceptable Behaviour

1.12 Where it is considered that an applicant’s behaviour or history is unacceptable and that were he or she already a tenant of the Council an Immediate Possession Order could be obtained from the Court, the Council may deem them to be ineligible for rehousing.

The following are examples of unacceptable behaviour which may result in an applicant being made ineligible:-

The list is not exhaustive and each case will be considered on its individual merit.

1.13 Where the Council has reason to believe that an applicant’s unacceptable behaviour is due to a physical, mental or learning disability, consideration will be given as to whether he would be able to maintain a tenancy with appropriate care and support, before treating him as ineligible. The Council will consult with Social Services, health professionals and providers of supported housing, care and housing related support services in reaching a decision

1.14 Applicants who are deemed to be ineligible for housing with the Council will be notified in writing, stating the reason for refusal, their right of appeal against the decision and advising them of appeal procedures.

1.15 Appeals must be made in writing within 28 days of the notification of the applicant being made ineligible, and addressed to the Director of Housing and Environmental Health.

1.16 Where an applicant who has, in the past, been deemed by the Council to be ineligible considers his unacceptable behaviour should no longer be held against him as a result of changed circumstances, he can make a fresh application. However, unless there has been a considerable lapse of time, normally around 12 months, it will be for the applicant to show that his circumstances or behaviour have changed.

Out of Borough Applications

1.17 Persons currently residing outside of Sedgefield Borough are eligible to apply for housing with the Council. However, preference will be given to existing residents of the Borough. The H.O.M.E.S. Scheme will also enable applicants from outside of the Borough to be rehoused with the Council

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 97 Schedule 1 Offenders

1.17 Applications for rehousing from Schedule 1 offenders will be considered on the basis of a joint assessment with Police, Probation Service, Social Services, health professionals and other relevant bodies. Regard will be given to the Guidance issued by the Department of Transport and the Regions in November 1999

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 98

2. Making an Application

Applicants must complete a Sedgefield Borough Housing Application Form.

2.1 Forms may be obtained form the Council Offices, Spennymoor, Local Housing Offices, the Leisure Centres at Shildon, Ferryhill and Newton Aycliffe or appropriate Citizens Advice Bureau Offices

2.2 Completed Housing Application Forms should be returned to the Council Offices in Spennymoor or to any Local Housing Office. If necessary, the application will be the subject of further investigation by Housing staff. This may involve seeking further information, or clarification from the applicant

2.3 Applicants may apply for accommodation in any or several township(s) in the Borough, and switch between townships for the same category of accommodation sought. There will be no award of any additional points to applicants who apply for housing in their current township

2.4 How long an applicant may wait to be rehoused will depend upon:

(i) Assessed housing need (ii) Their choice of property, type and estate (iii) Current demand

Some areas are more popular than others and waiting times will vary accordingly.

2.5 Applicants are free to make their own choices. The Application Form asks applicants to indicate preferred estate(s) and property type(s). Where possible, an offer of a property will be made in an applicant’s desired area. Local Housing Management staff will advise applicants upon request of the levels of demand for particular areas/estates and provide some indication about the length of time they have to wait to be rehoused.

2.6 The property type approved/offered will normally be based on family size and circumstances of the applicant

2.7 Following receipt of a Housing Application, where the applicant(s) meet the Acceptance Criteria and qualify for inclusion on the Housing Register, housing need will be assessed against the agreed Housing Need Factors and the applicant advised, in writing, of the numbers of points awarded. Further notification will be issued on each occasion an applicant’s housing circumstances are amended.

Refusals, Cancellations and Appeals

2.8 Applicants who are deemed to be ineligible for housing with the Council will be notified in writing, stating the reason for refusal, their right of appeal against the decision and advising them of appeal procedures.

2.9 Similarly, applicants who apply for an additional points assessment (for example Social Needs points) will, when notified of the additional points awarded, be advised of their right of appeal should they disagree with the award.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 99

2.10 Appeals must be made in writing within 28 days of the notification of their being made ineligible, and addressed to the Director of Housing and Environmental Health.

2.11 An applicant’s right of Appeal will be referred to in written communications and detailed in the Applicant’s Guide

2.12 The Housing Register will be reviewed annually and applicants requested to confirm the status/circumstances of their application. Applicants who do not respond to this enquiry within 28 days may have their application removed from the Housing Register.

2.13 Changes in application details, personal or family circumstances may affect an applicant’s points allocation and status and should, therefore, be notified to the Council immediately.

2.14 Knowingly or recklessly giving false information or withholding information may result in criminal prosecution and the application being cancelled: where a property has been let as a result of an applicant giving false information or withholding information, the Council may take action to repossess the property.

2.15 The deliberate worsening of current housing circumstances to generate increased priority may result in an application being cancelled.

2.16 The granting of all new tenancies and transfers will be subject to compliance with the terms of the Tenants Charter.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 100

3. Lettings Procedures

3.1 Applications for inclusion on the Housing Register will be determined in accordance with the Council Policy under the authority delegated to the Borough Housing and Estates Manager.

3.2 Applications are assessed against the Policy and where, approved, given a points value by Local Housing Management staff. In cases where applicants seek additional priority under the “Medical” category, an interim points total will be given and, following assessment of a completed questionnaire, any medical points will be awarded. Where additional priority is sought under the “Social Needs “ category again an interim points total will be given. Then, following receipt of a completed questionnaire, together with independent supporting evidence, a decision regarding the award of additional points against the agreed criteria will be made by the Borough Housing and Estates Manager under delegated authority.

3.3 Applicants will be duly informed of the outcome. Approved applications will be valid from the date of application. Applicants will be assessed on the basis of housing need, and points awarded over a range of approved categories. The applicant with the greatest number of points will be top of the list and therefore will be offered accommodation first. In the event of an equality of points between applicants, letting will be determined by reference to date of application, with priority being awarded to the application having the longer time on the Housing Register.

3.4 Applicants will be allowed a ‘reasonable’ period of time to consider the suitability of an offer of accommodation (normally 48 hours). In certain circumstances this may be extended for applicants who have difficulty viewing a property such as those in hospital, refuge or temporary accommodation

3.5 Where the accommodation is substantially adapted, or in other cases where a clear justification can be made for doing so, the offer will not necessarily be made to the applicant at the top of the list. Rather, the applicant whose needs most match the available property will be considered first. This element of the Policy will also apply to the nomination of tenants to housing associations for specialist housing. Lettings of this type, as well as those relating to the letting of sheltered housing, will be undertaken in conjunction with partners in Durham Social Services and Sedgefield Primary Care Trust.

3.6 There will be no restriction on the number of offers made to an applicant and no penalty for refusal of an offer.

3.7 Pre-allocation of property will be undertaken. A prospective tenant will be selected from the Housing Register for a property due to become available and where an offer is accepted it will be binding on both the applicant and the Council unless an applicant can show good reason why they would subsequently wish to reject an offer due to a change in circumstances.

3.8 In the event of occupation of a property not being taken up within 28 days of commencement of the tenancy, the tenancy may be terminated

3.9 Normal lettings procedures may be suspended or varied in the interests of better management/use of stock (for example the need to set aside properties for use as

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 101 transit accommodation). Such cases will be decided by the Director of Housing and Environmental Health under delegated authority.

3.10 Where applicants for accommodation have a long term commitment, for example a married couple or where adults share accommodation as friends or unpaid live-in carers, any offer of accommodation will normally be on the basis of a joint tenancy.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 102

4. Special Categories

4.1 Statutory Provisions

Applications for accommodation from persons in the following statutory categories will be dealt with outside of the normal lettings policy:-

(i) Persons occupying statutorily overcrowded housing – Section 325 and 326 of the Housing Act 1985

(ii) Succession – S89 of the Housing Act 1985 (see the Council’s separate Policy and Procedure)

(iii) Assignment S91 (3) and S92 of the Housing Act 1985

(iv) Property Adjustments Orders – Section 24 of Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973 and Section 17 (1) of the Matrimonial & Family Proceedings Act 1984

(v) Orders for Financial Relief against Parents – paragraph 1 of the Children Act 1989

(vi) Duty to Rehouse Residential Occupiers – S39 of Land Compensation Act 1973

(vii) Grant of Tenancy to Former Owner/Occupier for Statutory Tenant of a Defective Dwellinghouse – Section 554/Section 555 of the Housing Act 1985

(viii) Tenancy Amendments – S159 (b) of the Housing Act 1996

(ix) Introductory Tenancy becomes a Secure Tenancy – S160 of the Housing Act 1996

4.2 Exceptional Lettings

In addition to the above statutory provisions, Exceptional Lettings Status will apply in relation to: the suspension of normal lettings procedures under resolution of the Council: decisions to award individual applicants this status having regard to their circumstances, subject to a written request from the applicant prior to determination by the Director of Housing and Environmental Health under delegated authority: applicants who are awarded 9 points under the Medical Points Scheme: and the lettings of substantially adapted properties which are determined by the Council’s Medical consultant in consultation with Durham County Council’s Social Services Department and within the context of the Lettings Policy

Key Worker

If an employer in the Borough requires a specialist worker, essential to the manufacturing or service provision, for his/her business and finds it necessary to appoint someone not resident in the Borough an offer of accommodation may be made. The employer will be required to complete a Key worker Assessment Questionnaire, which will be determined by the Director of Housing and Environmental Health against Sedgefield Borough’s Policy statement on Key Workers. This Statement is available on request.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 103

4.4 Medical Conditions or Disability

Where applicants seek accommodation on medical/disability grounds, a Medical Questionnaire will be forwarded to the applicant’s G.P. and, upon return, will be assessed and prioritised by an independent medical consultant on behalf of the Council.

4.5 Social Need Category

The principle of the Social Need category is to enable the Council to give extra priority to applicants to take account of extreme social circumstances.

Social Need would constitute issues that would relate to extreme circumstances which make it particularly difficult for the applicant to remain in his/her present accommodation. These could include:-

Risk of serious assault or sexual attack Serious harassement from neighbours Serious social harassement Racial harassement amounting to violence or threats of violence Serious harassement towards same sex couples Violence or risk of violence towards witnesses of crime or victims of crime Particular domestic reasons Domestic violence Where any claim is made within this category, independent supporting evidence will be required form, for example, Police or Social Services.

Where applicants seek recognition of special social circumstances, completion of the appropriate section of the Housing Application Form will result in a Social Needs Questionnaire being forwarded to the applicant for completion.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 104 5. The Points Structure

Applications are assessed using housing need points and the scheme is designed to balance the need to give the greatest number of points to those applicants in greatest need whilst recognising the aspirations of existing tenants to be able to move within the Local Authority social housing market.

A series of factors are taken into account in the assessment of a points total. These are:-

CATEGORY POINTS

(1) RESIDENCY Applicants resident in Sedgefield Borough 10

(2) TIME ON WAITING LIST (5 points per year – maximum 20 points) 5

(3) TIME IN EXISTING TENANCY (5 points per year after 2 years) 5 per year (Local Authority and Housing Association Tenants) (max 50)

(4) OVERCROWDING (per bedroom) Non statutory overcrowding (allocated after 28 days residence) Family 35 Couple 15 Single person 10

(5) UNDEROCCUPANCY (transfers from 4-5 bed properties where in excess of 1 unused bedroom) 20 maximum

(6) LACK OF AMENITIES Bath/Shower 20 No hot water, electricity, Gas or adequate heating 20 Inside w.c. 20 No kitchen 20

(7) DISREPAIR Minor 15 Major 30

(8) SEPARATED FAMILIES Without children 10 With children 15

(9) LIVING AT HEIGHT Pregnant 10 With children under 10 years 25

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 105 (10) SECURITY OF TENURE Lodger/living-in/Sleeping Rough Family 25 Couple 15 Single Person 10 Tied/Service Tenancy/Forces Applicant 15

Couple or Single Person with pregnancy 5 additional

Assured Shorthold Tenancy Single 5, NTQ 15 Couple/Pregnancy 10, NTQ 20 Family 15, NTQ 25 Licence 5 per year (max 10) Bed/Breakfast (priority groups only) Family 30 Other family groups 20 Statutory Homeless 20 Engages Couples 5 Statutory Homeless 20

(11) MEDICAL Medical Category 1-4 x Multiplier of 10 (Max 40) “ “ “ “ 5-10 x Multiplier of 20 (Max 200)

(12) SOCIAL NEED With supporting evidence 50

(13) AGE

70 - 80 15 –55

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 106 6. Other Means of Moving

6.1 Mutual Exchanges

The Housing Act 1985 gives secure tenants the right to exchange their properties with other tenants. Introductory tenants do not have this right, but may be allowed to exchange at the discretion of the Council.

Further detail about mutual exchanges and the council’s procedures for dealing with them can be found in the separate “Mutual Exchanges Policy and Procedure “ document.

6.2 H.O.M.E.S. Nomination Scheme

The Council participates in the national H.O.M.E.S. Nomination Scheme which enables tenants to move to another area of the country to take up employment or for social reasons.

Details of the Scheme are available, upon request at any Local Housing Office.

6.3 Nominations to Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations)

There are a number of Registered Social Landlords with properties in Sedgefield Borough.

A list of these, the type of properties they have and where they are located, is available from Local Housing Offices.

If applicants are interested in Registered Social Landlord property, they can apply direct to the Association or, alternatively make application via the Council where Sedgefield Borough has a tenant nomination arrangement with the Association.

Before accepting an RSL tenancy, applicants should ask for information about Assured Tenancies and how they differ form Council tenancies.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\2\6\AI00003620\ReviewOfTheAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 108 Item 7b REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S HOUSING ALLOCATION POLICY

REPORT OF MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW SUB- COMMITTEE

1. Introduction

Scrutiny Committee 2 at its meeting held on 2nd July 2002 (Minute ref: SC(2)2/02 refers) gave consideration to possible areas within its responsibilities for an in-depth review and agreed to establish a Sub-Committee to consider the operation of the Council’s policy, procedures and practices in relation to housing allocations.

2. Scope and Remit

The Sub-Committee met on 3rd September 2002 and proposed the following scope and remit:

To consider the operation of the Council’s housing allocations policy, procedures and practices having regard to:

(a) Best Practice elsewhere

(b) The role of elected members in the process and access to information

(d) The extent to which anti-social behaviour issues can be taken into consideration when making decisions on allocations.

Scrutiny 2 Committee at its meeting on 17th September 2002 approved the proposed scope and remit of the Sub-Committee.

3. Review Approach

The existing operation of the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy was seen as the main focus for the Sub-Committee and an important starting point for the Review. It was intended that the Review would initially focus on whether the policy was being implemented on a fair and equal basis. Clarification was also to be sought on what letting rights the Borough Council had in respect of Registered Social Landlords.

Contributions were to be sought from the Borough Housing Policy Officer and the Borough Housing Manager.

Arrangements were made to co-opt two tenant representatives.

4. Main Conclusions

Members of the Sub-Committee met informally on 7th November and 5th December 2002, 7th January, 4th February, 18th March and

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\2\6\AI00003621\ReviewoftheHousingHousingAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 109 2nd April 2003 and reported details of the progress to Scrutiny Committee 2 on 21st January and 15th April 2003.

Following a request from the Sub-Committee for assurance that applications for housing were correctly pointed up, the Housing Department introduced a system whereby Senior Housing Officers would undertake quarterly audits of lettings. Such checks revealed that the vast majority of application forms had been accurately assessed and in those cases where mistakes had been made, remedial action had been taken.

The Sub-Committee also received a report detailing the percentage nomination rights the Council had to Housing Association properties within the five areas of the Borough.

The Sub Committee also considered how the Council’s existing points based Housing Allocation Policy could be revised to comply with the provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002, Government Guidance on Allocations, Choice Based Lettings, Comprehensive Performance Assessment, the Best Value Review of Housing Management and Good Practice. The Sub-Committee supported the following changes:

■ Persons under the age of 18 to be accepted, if in priority need. ■ Council tenants to be allowed to apply for a transfer after 6 months tenancy of a property, subject to their current tenancy having been conducted in a satisfactory manner. ■ Age restriction for family accommodation to be lowered to 18 years. ■ Owner/occupiers to sign an undertaking stating that their own property had been sold/was up for sale or they would arrange to sell it, within an agreed timescale. ■ Applicants to be awarded points for both medical conditions/ disability and social needs if these apply. Previously only the category that awarded the higher amount of points was used to assess applications. ■ Applicants from outside Sedgefield Borough to be eligible to apply for Council housing. Applicants to be free to choose more than one town. Applicants residing within the Borough to be given 10 residency points. ■ The rule regarding being adequately housed, to be removed. ■ The existing exclusion policy to be replaced by an ‘ineligibility policy’. A person could only be made ineligible for housing if his/her behaviour was such that had he/she been an existing tenant of the Council, the Council would have been able to obtain an Immediate Possession Order in view of that behaviour. Only behaviour at the time of the application or recent past would be taken into account. Consideration would also be given to whether an applicant would be able to maintain a tenancy if he/she had adequate care or support. ■ Substantially adapted properties to be allocated, wherever possible, to applicants whose needs best matched the property. ■ Applicants were not to be penalised for refusing reasonable offers of accommodation. Under the existing policy applicants lose 30 points for each ‘reasonable’ offer they refuse. The change would

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\2\6\AI00003621\ReviewoftheHousingHousingAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 110 reflect the Government’s wish to give applicants more choice about where they live.

The revised Housing Allocations Policy document would be submitted to Cabinet for consideration.

RECOMMENDED : That the report be received.

------Members of the Sub-Committee Councillor V. Crosby Councillor K. Thompson Mary Thomson – Tenant Representative Christine Ridley – Tenant Representative

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\2\6\AI00003621\ReviewoftheHousingHousingAllocationsPolicy0.doc Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 Item 8

KEY DECISION

ITEM NO. 8

CABINET

16th OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF REGENERATION MANAGER

Portfolio – Regeneration

STATEMENT OF USE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUND 2003/04

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Sedgefield Borough is a Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) eligible authority. It is a requirement of authorities in receipt of NRF to prepare an annual Statement of Use for the funding on behalf of the area’s Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for submission to the Government Office for the North East (GONE).

1.2 The purpose of this report is to advise Cabinet on how NRF is being used to improve the delivery of services to the more disadvantaged communities of the Borough and in particular its use during 2003/04. The report also sets out the procedure that has been adopted by the LSP to allocate NRF resource in 2004/05 and 2005/06.

1.3 A copy of the submitted NRF Statement of Use 2003/04 will be available from the Regeneration Section on its completion.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That Cabinet endorse the proposed use of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund in 2003/04 for inclusion within the NRF Statement of Use 2003/04.

3.0 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH NRF PROGRAMME

Background 3.1 As part of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund was established in January 2001. Sedgefield Borough was allocated £2.563m of NRF resource, over the period April 2001 – March 2004. The purpose of NRF is to provide additional resource to local authorities, working as part of a LSP to support the sustainable improvement of mainstream services in the most deprived areas, producing outcomes that meet national and local targets in terms of increased employment and improved economic performance, reduced crime, better educational attainment, improved health and better housing. In committing this resource LSPs and the Accountable Body for the funds locally, are required to ensure that the measures supported will have a real and recognised impact in communities being targeted.

3.2 As previously reported to Cabinet (November 2002) work has been undertaken with partner agencies to identifying those neighbourhoods in the Borough with the most acute levels of disadvantage by reference in particular to the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. The outcome from this confirmed attention should be focused on:

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 113 the Western Area of Newton Aycliffe, Shildon, the Coalfield Communities of West Cornforth and the Trimdons, and the older housing areas within Ferryhill and Chilton wards (Dean Bank and Ferryhill Station).

3.3 A Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy for the Borough has been prepared as required under the conditions of receipt of NRF as reported to Cabinet on in September 2002. The Strategy identifies how actions will be taken by the LSP to secure improvement in the delivery of public services and the quality of life opportunities for residents of the Borough’s most disadvantaged communities. The key aim of the Strategy is to create strong and vital neighbourhoods across the Borough that are more prosperous, attractive and healthy. In formulating proposals full account has been taken of the recent Community Appraisals of the targeted neighbourhoods identified in the Strategy.

3.4 Sedgefield Borough Council has a key role in the NRF Programme. The Borough Council is the Accountable Body for NRF expenditure, acting on behalf of the LSP to administer the funding.

4.0 NRF PROGRAMME 2001 - 2004

4.1 Cabinet considered a report from the Regeneration Section on the use of NRF in 2001/02 in November 2002. In summary NRF resource in 2001/02 has been focused on West Ward in Newton Aycliffe with a particular emphasis to tackling issues affecting young people. NRF has been used to support activity in Primary Schools in western Newton Aycliffe to increase Maths and English scores at KS 2 through the use of ICT and research the Full Service School Model to address educational attainment at KS 4 were to be implemented in future years of the Programme. Rates of anti social behaviour, and new and repeat young offenders have been reduced as a result of activities to involve young people in diversionary activities.

4.2 2002/03 and 2003/04 The final outturn of NRF spend in 2002/03 was £905,409 against an allocation of £1,139,906; this figure included a £285,711 carry over from 2001/02. Government Office North East have agreed that the underspend from 2002/03 (£234,497) can be carried forward into 2003/04. Therefore the available NRF resource in 2003/04 is £1,167,763.

4.3 In allocating NRF resources in 2002/03 and 2003/04 a range of activities and services that contribute to the implementation the Borough’s Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy have been supported. Each of the six Policy Groups prioritised activity for NRF support that directly contributed to the achievement of relevant Strategy targets. A number of cross cutting activities were supported which have enabled, the establishment of a Community Response Fund and a pilot Neighbourhood Management Initiative in Newton Aycliffe. Support was also provided towards the management and administration of the LSP and the NRF Programme.

4.4 The Community Response Fund was established to empower the local community to make decisions about how best to improve local services delivery in their neighbourhoods. Partnerships within each neighbourhood are responsible for administering the fund and have been successful in starting to improve the delivery of services particularly in relation to services for young people.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 114

4.5 The allocation and use of resources in 2001/02 and 2002/03, and the planned programme for 2003/04 is summarised in Annex 1. Annex 2 contains a commentary on NRF achievements to date. This information will be used in the preparation of the Statement of Use for 2003/04. It is a requirement of NRF support that the LSP complete a Statement of Use setting out the NRF financial outturn and against each activity details of key achievements, contribution to national and local NRF targets, identified baselines, output achievements and progress towards identified targets and outcomes. The Statement of Use must be submitted to GONE and the Regeneration Section, as Secretariat for the LSP, is co-ordinating the preparation of this report.

5.0 NRF PROGRAMME 2004 - 2006

5.1 In April 2003, Government Office for the North East announced a two year extension to the NRF Programme and the Borough Council has been allocated a further £2.278m to deliver the Borough’s Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (LNRS).

5.2 The process for allocating NRF in 2004/05 and 2005/06 will differ from previous years with greater emphasis being placed on the identification of key service improvements that need to take place in order for the LNRS targets to be achieved. Each Policy Group is in the process of preparing a Service Improvement Plan (SIP) which will set out how they propose to spend NRF on mainstream service improvements within our targeted neighbourhoods. The SIPs will also identify the organisations responsible for delivering the service improvements and the targets and long term outcomes that will be achieved through the use of NRF. The LSP Board will consider the SIPs in January 2004.

5.3 As well as using NRF to support specific service improvements within each Policy Group area, resources will also be top sliced to support crossing cutting proposals in line with previous years. There will continue to be an NRF contribution to the, the administering the LSP and the management of the NRF Programme, a Community Response Fund and the Neighbourhood Management Initiative for the Western part of Newton Aycliffe.

6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The five year NRF Programme will brings £4.841 million of external investment into the Borough to enhance existing mainstream service spending. Financial implications for the Borough Council are minimal and mainly relate to an element of staff time in overseeing the effective co-ordination and management of the NRF Programme and LSP.

7. CONSULTATION

7.1 The LNRS is the delivery document for the NRF Programme and it reflects the needs and aspirations of the Borough’s targeted areas. The Strategy takes into account the priorities of the community in the policies and actions. A five month community appraisal exercise was undertaken between October 2001 and February 2002 to determine social and economic needs of the areas to be targeted through the NRF Programme. The LNRS was subject to an extensive consultation exercise carried out in August and September 2002. The consultation exercise was planned to enable as many people as possible to make a contribution to the Strategy, over 30 organisations participated in the consultation helping to shape the final Strategy document.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 115

7.2 The development of the NRF Statement of Use will be the subject of consultations with partner agencies contributing to the work of the LSP’s Policy Groups and with CAVOS and the Borough’s Community Network.

8. SECTION 17, CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

8.1 An important part of the NRF Programme has been to tackle community safety issues, particular emphasis has been placed on addressing fear of crime and anti social behaviour. A range of activities aim to reduced the number of reported incidents of anti-social behaviour across the Borough by 7% and in the targeted areas of Ferryhill Station, West Ward and Dean Bank by 10%.

9.1 LA21 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

9.1 Creating Attractive Neighbourhoods is a key theme within the LNRS, NRF will be used to provide decent housing in clean, safe and attractive environment that meets everyone’s basic needs and contributes to sustainable communities. The purpose of NRF is to support sustainable mainstream service delivery improvements within our most deprived areas. The LNRS aims to secure the future of out most deprived areas and improve the quality of life for local residents.

Contact Officer: Richard Prisk Telephone No: 01388 816166 ext 4360 Email Address: [email protected]

Key Decision Validation:

• Likely to have a significant impact on two or more wards. • Involves expenditure in excess of £100,000

Background Papers Sedgefield Borough Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy 2002-07 – Regeneration Section, Sedgefield Borough Council, September 2002 Special Grant Report – Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 27th February 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 116 Annex 1 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Supported Activity in 2001/02

Service Activities Lead Agency Anticipated Actual NRF NRF Spend Spend

Raising Attainment at Key Stage 2 DCC Education £55,000 £55,000 ICT provision into the five primary schools serving West ward. Full School Model Research DCC Education £5,000 £5,000 Research into proposals for how to improve pupil support services centred on the primary schools in Shildon and Greenfield School in Newton Aycliffe. Youth Inclusion Programme Youth Offending £20,000 £20,000 Establishment of young persons group, parents Service support group and provision of youth shelter. Community Health Initiatives Sedgefield £25,000 £25,000 Establishment costs associated with PCT/Pioneering developing mental health support structures. Care Partnership West Ward Master Planning Sedgefield Borough £25,000 £46,291 The development of a Master plan to provide a Council framework for the future physical improvement of the area. New Shildon Renewals Area Sedgefield Borough £45,000 £45,000 Continued implementation of projects as part of Council the New Shildon Renewals Area, including the South Street Group Repair Scheme and the Redworth Road Routeway. Silverdale Community House Sedgefield Borough £50,000 £52,336 Improvements to the existing facility to enable Council it to accommodate additional activities. Community Appraisals Sedgefield Borough £35,000 £15,125 Completion of economic, social and Council environmental appraisals in each of the targeted communities. Administration and Management Sedgefield Borough £40,000 £20,000 Council

TOTAL £300,000 £283,752

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 117 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Supported Activity in 2002/03

Activity Lead Agency Anticipated Actual NRF NRF Spend Spend Theme – More Prosperous Neighbourhoods

Economy Jobsearch Job Centre Plus £42,075 £42,075 Outreach job search support into Cornforth and Shildon and initiatives to link local people with emerging employment opportunities. Fostering Entrepreneurship Sedgefield Borough £7,000 £7,000 Delivery of outreach self employment and Business Service small business start up advice into targeted communities. Enterprising Communities Business Link £2,000 £1,000 Community enterprise development and support in target communities.

Sub Total £51,075 £50,075

Lifelong Learning Out of Hours Learning Support DCC £15,000 £15,000 ICT to support out of hours learning and Education/Sedgefield homework clubs in Trimdon. Community College Access to Impact Educational DCC Education £45,000 £45,000 Programme Enable alternative provision to be made for pupils at Greenfield and Sunnydale School in Key Stage 4 who are likely either high absence record or may be excluded. Raising Attainment through ICT DCC £15,000 £15,000 Additional ICT tutor support to work across Education/Ferryhill primary and secondary schools in Ferryhill to Comprehensive provide better continuity between KS 2 and 3 and better access to the curriculum at KS 3. Full Service Schooling DCC £44,000 £44,925 Implementation of the agreed full service Education/Greenfield school model focussed on Greenfield School School. Community Counselling DCC £20,000 £20,000 Extend counselling services available to Education/Ferryhill pupils at Ferryhill School to include families Comprehensive in the community.

SUB TOTAL £139,000 £139,925

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 118 Activity Lead Agency Anticipated Actual NRF NRF Spend Spend Theme – Attractive Communities Housing West Masterplan Study Sedgefield £9,209 £9,209 Completion of the West Masterplan Study Borough Council Improving Service Delivery, Access and Sedgefield £30,000 £30,000 Community Engagement Borough Council Develop the Shildon gateway project in the context of neighbourhood management Improving Social Housing Sedgefield £85,000 £85,000 Undertake improvements in Borough Council Borough Council owned housing stock to ensure that it remains on target to meet the target of all housing meeting the decency standard by 2010. Private Sector Housing Renewal Sedgefield £105,000 £125,000 Commission an options appraisal to illustrate Borough Council different practical ways on intervening to tackle poor housing conditions in the private sector. Implementation of the West Ward Master Sedgefield £20,000 £35,000 Plan Borough Council Assist in implementing the housing aspects of the West ward Master Plan and a ‘Home Zone’ scheme.

Sub Total £249,209 £284,209

Environment Under 18’s Swimming Sessions Sedgefield £10,000 £10,000 Support free swimming for young people Borough Council under the age of 18 in Neighbourhood Renewal targeted areas. Young People & Physical Activity Sedgefield £16,000 £16,000 To support a study to investigate trends of Borough Council young peoples involvement in physical activity between the ages of 11 and 16. GP Links to Leisure Services Sedgefield £3,000 £4,500 Support work with local GP’s to ensure they Borough Council are aware of the physical activity facilities and services available within the Borough. Affordable Warmth Sedgefield £50,500 £19,723 Support grant aid schemes to households to Borough Council help them to implement energy efficiency measures.

Sub Total £79,500 £50,223

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 119 Activity Lead Agency Anticipated Actual NRF NRF Spend Spend Theme – Healthy Neighbourhoods Community Safety Neighbourhood Wardens Sedgefield £35,578 £28,067 Maintain the 3.5 Neighbourhood Warden Borough Council posts operating in West ward, Dean Bank, Ferryhill Station and Shildon Domestic Violence Sedgefield £33,170 £33,170 Support to the Domestic Violence Co- Borough Council ordinator post and associated interventions. Tackling Antisocial Behaviour Sedgefield £19,850 £21,200 Diversionary youth activities including Mobile Borough Council Skatepark sessions in West ward. Substance Misuse DISC £40,000 £40,000 Support for the High Street project which provides a responsive service for substance misusers and their families across the borough.

Sub Total £128,598 £122,437

Health and Social Care Tackling Teenage Pregnancy Sedgefield £10,000 £10,000 Young person clinics to be developed in West Primary Care ward and the Trimdons Trust Extension of Sure Start Service Principles Sedgefield £30,000 £30,000 Extend core elements of the Sure Start Primary Care initiative in to Cornforth and the Trimdons. Trust Community Mental Health Worker Sedgefield £20,000 £20,000 Provision of a dedicated health promotion Primary Care resource to support preventative agendas, Trust/Pioneering community development, capacity building Care Trust and the expert patient initiative in the field of mental health. Passport to Health Sedgefield £20,000 £20,000 Support additional smoking cessation and Primary Care community support courses and fit for life and Trust/Pioneering healthy lifestyle courses targeted particularly Care Trust at young people with a weight problem. Improving Community Equipment Sedgefield £8,000 £8,000 Services Primary Care Provide local access to equipment through an Trust/Pioneering equipment shop. Care Trust Improvement of Services to Older People Sedgefield £30,000 £30,000 and People with Disability Primary Care Improve the performance of services for older Trust people and people with a physical disability including improvements to the systems for accessing and supplying Community Equipment services.

Sub Total £118,000 £118,000

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 120

Activity Lead Agency Anticipated Actual NRF NRF Spend Spend Cross Cutting Issues Community Response Fund Sedgefield £60,000 £60,000 Allocation of a fund for each of the three NRF Borough targeted areas to empower local communities Council/Local to improve the delivery of mainstream Community services in their local area. Partnership Neighbourhood Management Pilot Sedgefield £55,000 0 Support to implement a pilot Neighbourhood Borough Council Management Initiative in Western Newton Aycliffe. Administration of the LSP Sedgefield £60,000 £20,000 Provide dedicated staff resources to enable Borough Council the effective administration of the Borough’s LSP. Development of the Learning Plan Sedgefield £20,000 0 Develop an Learning Plan for the Borough’s Borough Council LSP NRF Admin & Management Sedgefield £60,000 £60,000 Support the cost of appointing a dedicated Borough Council member of staff to co-ordinate and manage the NRF Programme.

SUB TOTAL £255,000 £140,000

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 121 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund – 2003/04 Commitments

Activity Lead Agency Anticipated NRF Spend Theme – More Prosperous Neighbourhoods Economy Jobsearch Job Centre Plus £50,000 Outreach job search support into Cornforth and Shildon and initiatives to link local people with emerging employment opportunities. Fostering Entrepreneurship Sedgefield Borough £7,000 Delivery of outreach self employment and small Business Service business start up advice into targeted communities. Enterprising Communities Business Link £15,000 Community enterprise development and support in target communities. Sedgefield Training Retail Initiative Bishop Auckland £42,732 Support the development of a training College programme to assist local residents to access employment at the new TESCOs store.

Sub Total £114,732

Lifelong Learning Out of Hours Learning Support DCC £15,000 ICT to support out of hours learning and Education/Sedgefield homework clubs in Trimdon. Community College Raising Attainment through ICT DCC £15,000 Additional ICT tutor support to work across Education/Ferryhill primary and secondary schools in Ferryhill to Comprehensive provide better continuity between KS 2 and 3 and better access to the curriculum at KS 3. Full Service Schooling in Newton Aycliffe DCC £35,000 Implementation of the agreed full service school Education/Greenfield model focussed on Greenfield School. School Full Service Schooling in Shildon DCC £45,000 Implementation of the agreed full service school Education/Shildon model focussed on The Primary Schools in Primary Schools Shildon. Community Counselling DCC £15,000 Extend counselling services available to pupils Education/Ferryhill at Ferryhill School to include families in the Comprehensive community. Access to Impact Educational Programme DCC Education £40,000 Enable alternative provision to be made for pupils at Greenfield and Sunnydale School in Key Stage 4 who are likely either high absence record or may be excluded. Sedgefield Learning Borough Bishop Auckland £50,000 Support the development of a Learning Borough College Initiative to co-ordinate learning provision within the Borough.

Sub Total £215,000

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 122

Prosperous Neighbourhoods – Proposals Under Consideration Business Enterprise Training Ferryhill £13,000 Support a fund to support enterprise activity by Comprehensive young people Community & Education Liaison – West Spennymoor School £12,000 Cornforth Support the appointment of an additional member of staff to work with students to improve attendance and attainment rates.

Theme – Attractive Communities

Housing Improving Service Delivery, Access and Sedgefield Borough £40,000 Community Engagement Council Develop the Shildon gateway project in the context of neighbourhood management Integrating Community Services Primary Care £80,000 Support the integration of work between the Trust/Sedgefield (To be borough Council, Social Services and the PCT Borough Council confirmed) to deliver more effective joined up services in Sedgefield.

Sub Total £120,000

Environment Under 18’s Swimming Sessions Sedgefield Borough £10,000 Support free swimming for young people under Council the age of 18 in Neighbourhood Renewal targeted areas. Young People & Physical Activity Sedgefield Borough £17,500 To support a study to investigate trends of Council young peoples involvement in physical activity between the ages of 11 and 16. Affordable Warmth Sedgefield Borough £105,777 Support grant aid schemes to households to Council help them to implement energy efficiency measures. Dean Bank Environmental Improvements Groundwork East £80,000 Support a programme of environmental Durham (To be improvements aimed at improving the confirmed) environmental quality of the area. Civic Pride Rapid Response Team Groundwork East £26,000 Add value to the existing Prospect ILM project Durham to enhance the delivery of services within targeted neighbourhoods.

SUB TOTAL £239,277

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 123

Activity Lead Agency Anticipated NRF Spend Theme – Healthy Neighbourhoods

Community Safety Neighbourhood Wardens Sedgefield £40,066 Maintain the 3.5 Neighbourhood Warden posts Borough Council operating in West ward, Dean Bank, Ferryhill Station and Shildon Domestic Violence Sedgefield £34,655 Support to the Domestic Violence Co-ordinator Borough Council post and associated interventions. Substance Misuse DISC £41,200 Support for the High Street project which provides a responsive service for substance misusers and their families across the borough. Removal of Abandoned Vehicles Sedgefield £30,168 Support the quicker removal of abandoned Borough Council vehicles in partnership with Sedgefield Borough Council, DVLA and Durham County Council. Homesafe Sedgefield £30,000 Support the installation of target hardening Borough Council equipment to vulnerable households in crime hot spot areas within the Borough. SMART Bus Youth Offending £31,500 Provide a specialist bus as a facility for young Service people and the wider community to provide health, education and training and diversionary activities and services.

Sub Total £207,589

Health and Social Care Tackling Teenage Pregnancy Sedgefield £20,000 Young person clinics to be developed in West Primary Care ward and the Trimdons Trust Extension of Sure Start Service Principles Sedgefield £30,000 Extend core elements of the Sure Start Primary Care initiative in to Cornforth and the Trimdons. Trust Community Mental Health Worker Sedgefield £30,000 Provision of a dedicated health promotion Primary Care resource to support preventative agendas, Trust/Pioneering community development, capacity building and Care Trust the expert patient initiative in the field of mental health. Passport to Health Sedgefield £30,000 Support additional smoking cessation and Primary Care community support courses and fit for life and Trust/Pioneering healthy lifestyle courses targeted particularly at Care Trust young people with a weight problem. Improving Community Equipment Services Sedgefield £18,000 Provide local access to equipment through an Primary Care equipment shop. Trust/Pioneering Care Trust

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 124

Integrating Community Services Sedgefield £95,000 Support the integration of work between the Primary Care borough Council, Social Services and the PCT Trust/Sedgefield to deliver more effective joined up services in Borough Council Sedgefield.

SUB TOTAL £223,000

Activity Lead Agency Anticipated NRF Spend Cross Cutting Issues Community Response Fund Sedgefield £96,000 Allocation of a fund for each of the three NRF Borough targeted areas to empower local communities Council/Local to improve the delivery of mainstream services Community in their local area. Partnership Neighbourhood Management Pilot Sedgefield £55,000 Support to implement a pilot Neighbourhood Borough Council Management Initiative in Western Newton Aycliffe. Administration of the LSP Sedgefield £60,000 Provide dedicated staff resources to enable the Borough Council effective administration of the Borough’s LSP. Development of the Learning Plan Sedgefield £20,000 Develop an Learning Plan for the Borough’s Borough Council LSP NRF Admin & Management Sedgefield £30,000 Support the cost of appointing a dedicated Borough Council member of staff to co-ordinate and manage the NRF Programme.

SUB TOTAL £261,000

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 125 Annex 2 ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE

2001/02 NRF supported service improvements in 2001/02 were focused on West Ward in Newton Aycliffe with a particular emphasis to tackling issues affecting young people. Activities have worked through mainstream education in Primary and Secondary Schools and also less structured youth services. The result has seen an increase in Maths and English scores at KS 2 through the use of ICT. On average Primary Schools in West achieved a 6 point improvement. Research into new ways of implementing methods of service delivery to address educational attainment at KS 4 were investigated to be put into practise in future years of the Programme through the Full Service School Model. Rates of anti social behaviour, and new and repeat young offenders have been reduced as a result of activities to involve young people in diversionary activities.

Year one put in place the building blocks for activities in future years, Community Appraisals provided a clear picture of the local community priorities in the Borough’s most deprived wards and established a starting point for the preparation of the Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. The West Master Plan will set the framework for the implementation of a Neighbourhood Management Initiative. To begin investment in the local community infrastructure in West Ward, improvements to Silverdale Community House have increased local access to services and a community development worker will seek to reduce levels of depression and reengineer the way mainstream health services are provided in the local community.

Investment in New Shildon has reduced level of unfit private sector housing in Shildon and should also assist in attracting new private sector housing investment to the area.

2002/03 Within 2002/03 the NRF Programme has support a wide range of activity across all six Policy Group areas aimed at creating Strong Neighbourhoods across Sedgefield Borough. The Programme has built on activities in the first year but also supported new service improvements which will assist in the delivery of the Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy and its constituent themes.

Prosperous Neighbourhoods Actions to address unemployment rates and low levels of new business start ups within the Borough’s targeted areas have included the provision of local access to Work Personal Advisors in Shildon and Cornforth and targeted support for people entering self- employment. In Shildon and Cornforth 20 residents have been assisted to gain employment. A range of actions have been put in place to raise educational attainment within our most deprived areas. Actions to support students socially and emotionally have been put in place in recognition of the wider issues that can impact on pupil’s ability to succeed. The Full Service School at Greenfield School provide educational, health and social support services to pupils and their families to enable pupils to succeed. At Ferryhill Comprehensive the Health Centre enables pupils to access counselling support on a wide range of issues which inhibit pupils from succeeding at school. The delivery of this counselling service has contributed to 3% increase in attendance and the number of exclusions in the school being halved. Support is also available for young people who are at risk from becoming disengaged from mainstream education. Alternative ways of delivering educational services have been developed to support out of hours learning support, providing ICT access at an outreach venue in Trimdon Village.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 126 Healthy Neighbourhoods A range of actions have been introduced to change the way health services are delivered in the local community, services are being provided locally to tackle issues such as teenage pregnancy, support for people with mental health problems, and older people. Building on the success of the Young Persons Health Clinic in Shildon, plans are underway to establish a Drop in Clinic in Newton Aycliffe. Consultation with young people has been completed and ‘Baby Think It Over’ Programmes delivered in Woodham School and Aycliffe Young Peoples Centre. The Drop in Clinic will be fully operational by September.

Activities to tackle community safety issues have focused on the identified crime hot spots of West ward, Shildon, Dean Bank and Ferryhill Station. The Neighbourhood Wardens have reduced the level of reported anti social behaviour to the Community Force by 21% across the Borough. Supporting vulnerable people from domestic violence and burglary has also been a priority within 2002/03.

Attractive Neighbourhoods Actions identified in the West Masterplan have been implemented, the housing environment of West has started to be improved through the provision of definable garden areas to 58 properties. 13 Tenant Led Improvements have also been implemented in West ward aimed at reducing the number of social sector houses in the Borough that fall below the decency standard.

Initial research has concluded that fuel poverty affects 20% of households in the borough, a strategy for provide advice and financial assistance to those in greatest need has been developed to reduce the number of households in fuel poverty.

Community Response Fund £12,000 of NRF has been allocated to each of the deprived wards in Shildon (Sunnydale and Thickley), the Trimdons (Old Trimdon and New Trimdon and Trimdon Grange) and Cornforth. The purpose of the Community Response Fund is to empower the local community to make decisions about how best to improve local services delivery in their neighbourhood. Partnerships within each neighbourhood are responsible for administering the fund. Although it has taken a little while to establish the fund has been a success in each area. All three communities highlighted the need to address facilities and services for young people. The Response Fund has been used to support a range of activities aimed at raising the aspirations of young people within both social and educational settings. Due to delays in the Fund starting to support local services, much of the activity which started in 2002/03 will continue into 2003/04.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\2\6\AI00003624\StatementofUseofNeighbourhoodRenewalFund2003040.doc Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 128 Item 9 KEY DECISION

ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16th October 2003

REPORT OF REGENERATION MANAGER

Regeneration Portfolio

USE OF PLANNING DELIVERY GRANT FUNDING 2003/04

1 Summary

1.1 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced a Planning Delivery Grant as a means to support improvement in the operation of the local authority planning functions. Under this award the Council received an allocation for 2003/04 of £103,484.

1.2 This report identifies a series of proposals to improve the efficiency and quality of the Development Control service provided by the Borough Council. The key areas are firstly, to provide additional capacity to respond to the levels of planning applications by the appointment of a second Senior Development Control Officer; secondly the creation of an Enforcement Officer position to respond more effectively to enforcement and monitoring issues; thirdly to introduce a post of Geographic Information System (GIS) Officer to support the planning service and corporate e-government enabled work and fourthly amending the current responsibilities of an existing member of staff to respond to information enquiries and to provide technical support to individual Planning Officers.

1.3 These improvements are designed to assist the current Development Control maintain a greater focus on the processing and determining planning applications and an effective ‘One Stop Shop’ operation in order to meet and improve upon national targets set for development control performance.

2 Recommendation

2.1 That Cabinet agree to the use of the Planning Delivery Grant as set out in the report at Section 3 and that the Planning Services staffing establishment be amended to include:

a) A Senior Development Control Officer at a grade of PO B; b) An Enforcement Officer at a grade of SO1; and c) A Geographic Information Systems Officer at a grade of SO2.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\6\AI00003625\UseofPlanningDeliveryGrantFunding2003040.doc Page 129

3 Use of the Planning Delivery Grant: Key Priorities Background 3.1 The Planning Delivery Grant, announced in February 2003 by ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), provides £350m to local authorities over the period 2003- 2006. This fund is dedicated to planning services, and is focussed on the delivery of Local Development Frameworks and meeting Best Value Development Control targets by the end of 2006/7. The grant to be distributed in 2003/04 is £50m, of which all authorities received a minimum of £75,000. Sedgefield Borough received £103,484. 3.2 The Planning Delivery Grant is specifically allocated to drive up performance in the delivery of planning functions, both in respect of development control and plan making. Importantly, the Government has made it clear that there will not be a minimum allocation in future years and that authorities will need to continue to secure further improvements in performance in order to receive money in future years. The criteria on which grant awards of £130m for 2004/05 and £170m in 2005/06 will be made are currently the subject of a consultation exercise. . The assessment period for the Planning Delivery Grant is year ending September.

3.3 At the meeting of Scrutiny Committee 3, Regeneration and Environment, held on 28 January 2003 in response to the Development Control Service Review – Service Improvement Plan Update Report, Members unanimously recommended to Cabinet that the Planning Delivery Grant be ring-fenced for use in supporting the Development Control service.

Development Control Performance 3.4 In the period 1 January to 1 August 2003 the workload of the Development Control Team has comprised of 491 planning applications (an increase of 41% since the equivalent period in 2000); 647 informal enquiries; 65 enforcement cases; and, 8 planning appeals.

3.5 The table below compares the Borough’s performance against the key indicators and Government targets between the year ending March 2003 and the projected performance for the year ending September 2003 (the year-end for calculating the Planning Delivery Grant).

Indicator Government 1 April 2002 – 1 October Targets 31 March 2003 2002 – 30 September 2003 (projected*) Major applications determined within 13 weeks 60% 48% 60% Minor applications determined within 8 weeks 65% 69.5% 63% All other applications determined within 8 weeks 80% 79.2% 74% *Based on period 1 October 2002 to 4 August 2003

3.6 Whilst the Borough has improved performance for major applications, there has been deterioration in performance against the other two indicators. The significant increase in planning applications, informal enquiries and enforcement cases submitted to the Council, coinciding with adjustments to responsibilities arising from senior management vacancies in the Department has significantly increased the individual workload of Development Control Officers.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\6\AI00003625\UseofPlanningDeliveryGrantFunding2003040.doc Page 130 Proposed use of the Planning Delivery Grant 2003/04 3.7 The structure and responsibilities of the Development Control function have been examined to identify improvements to increase the efficiency of the service and help achieve the specified Best Value Planning Performance targets. Three improvement areas have been identified – firstly, the appointment of an additional Senior Planning Officer and an Enforcement Officer to deal primarily with enforcement and monitoring issues; secondly, amending the current responsibilities of the current Investigations Officer post to be responsible for ensuring an efficient service for informal enquiries and providing technical support to individual Planning Officers; and thirdly, the appointment of a Geographic Information System (GIS) Officer for the planning service. These improvements are to ensure that Development Control staff can concentrate on the processing and determination of planning applications.

3.8 The costs of these arrangements are detailed at Appendix 1.

Senior Planning Officer 3.9 The introduction of a second senior Development Control Officer post will provide additional capacity at a senior level to assist in responding to the more complex and controversial planning applications and provide support for the other Planning Officers in the Section. This should ensure performance against the major applications target is improved upon as well as the minor and other application categories. This will contribute towards encouraging new development to assist delivery of the Local Plan and Community Strategy’s key physical development objectives around housing, employment and town centre developments.

3.10 It is proposed that this post be graded at Scale PO B, which is consistent with the other Senior Officer post in the Section.

Enforcement Officer 3.11 The significant increase in both planning applications and informal enquiries has meant that enforcement matters had to be accorded a low priority for staff attention. The provision of a new member of staff will allow Development Control Officers to concentrate primarily on processing planning applications in the timescale that meet Government targets. Whilst enforcement matters was acknowledged as an area for improvement in the Development Control Best Value Review and whilst the ‘gap’ has been filled by the appointment of a monitoring officer, a dedicated enforcement officer is required who will be capable of progressing cases to their conclusion. The provision of a dedicated enforcement officer will mean that the Council will be more pro-active on enforcement issues, including monitoring compliance with planning approvals, rather than reactive.

3.12 It is proposed that this post be salaried at Scale SO 1, which is consistent with similar posts in neighbouring authorities.

Planning Support 3.13 The introduction of the One Stop Shop planning service has been a success and is now a key function of the planning service. However, the volume of work generated by the informal enquiries to the One Stop Shop requires a significant amount of time to provide a considered response and this results in a reduction in the available time for Development Control Officers to process formal planning applications.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\6\AI00003625\UseofPlanningDeliveryGrantFunding2003040.doc Page 131 3.14 To help facilitate Development Control Officers to concentrate further on processing planning applications, it is proposed to re-allocate responsibilities for providing technical support to Officers and responding to typical informal enquiries, such as the erection of a conservatory to the current Investigations Officer. This change is commensurate with the current grade of the post.

Geographic Information Systems Officer (GIS Officer) 3.15 The role of a Local Plans Technician has significantly changed over the last few years, moving away from providing traditional planning support towards a more specialised GIS Officer. There is a clear need for a dedicated and suitably qualified GIS Officer to take the Planning Service forward in a manner that can provide an electronic planning service. The existing Planning Technician post on the establishment would support this post.

3.16 In addition to providing support to the Local Plans Team, the post will need to provide GIS support to Development Control and provide support to the E- Government Officer. This corporate role will help develop the National Land and Property Gazetteer in the Borough, roll out the Planning Portal and other e- government initiatives, and allow for data capture and spatial analysis of GIS planning issues. In order to appoint a suitably experienced person, it is evident from similar posts elsewhere that the post should be placed with the SO2 salary range.

Training and Continued Professional Development 3.17 It is vitally important that monies are set aside for planning staff to attend specific training courses relating to the improvement and efficiency of the Planning service. The identification of training needs of individual officers will be established through regular staff appraisals. The infrequent nature and occurrence of training events on specific planning subjects, such as expert witness training for planning appeals/informal hearings, will require that Planning Delivery Grant monies are made available over a three-year period to ensure that resources and training needs can be managed in an effective and efficient manner.

Upgrade to the DataWright and Other IT Support 3.18 The DataWright system helps support Development Control to produce reports and planning certificates for approval or refusal and provides statistical analysis. This system has the capability to be developed further to improve the efficiency of the development control function. The Government continually update planning legislation, for example, the General Permitted Development Order has been altered to ensure that all certificates for planning permissions and refusals from 5 December 2003 make specific reference to the relevant Policies in the adopted Local Plan. It is therefore important that some monies should be retained to facilitate improvements to the DataWright system to ensure that it remains up-to- date.

3.19 In addition further IT based support will be required in connection with the work of the GIS Officer to support corporate usage and communication of information.

Development of Local Plan 3.20 The development of the Local Plan Review is ongoing. Whilst the core strategy and site specific proposals will be developed in-house, it would be beneficial to employ consultants to undertake discreet projects on specific sites or action areas, such as development options appraisals, to help improve the delivery of the Local Plan.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\6\AI00003625\UseofPlanningDeliveryGrantFunding2003040.doc Page 132 4 Financial Implications

4.1 This report highlights the areas where the Planning Delivery Grant 2003/04 will be spent to improve the Planning service, spread over three years. It is assumed that the Council will receive contributions of at least £75,000 for each of the next two years. Appendix 1 provides a breakdown of costs.

5. Consultations

5.1 No external consultation issues arise from this report.

6. Section 17, Crime And Disorder Act 1998

6.1 No Section 17, Crime And Disorder Act 1998 arise from this report.

7. LA21 Sustainability Issues

7.1 No LA21 Sustainability issues arise from this report.

Contact Officer: Richard Prisk Telephone No: (01388) 816166 ext 4360 Email Address: [email protected] Ward(s) Not applicable

Key Decision Validation: Involves expenditure in excess of £100,000

Background Papers Office of the Deputy Prime Minister letter announcing the award of the Planning Delivery Grant to the Council.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\6\AI00003625\UseofPlanningDeliveryGrantFunding2003040.doc Page 133

APPENDIX 1

Financial Costs: Planning Delivery Grant 2003/04

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Total Senior Planning Officer (Grade POB) 7695 31307 32145 71147 Enforcement Officer (Grade SO1) 6,580 27,217 28,092 61889 GIS Officer (Grade SO2) 6580 29802 30780 67162 Future Pay Awards at 3% 0 2650 5460 8110 Training and Continuing Professional Development 1000 3000 3000 7000 Development of the Local Plan Content 1000 3000 3000 7000 Upgrade to DataWright and Other IT systems 3,000 6,000 3000 12,000 Equipment and Office Support Costs 6000 3000 2000 11,000 Advertising and Recruitment 5000 0 0 5,000 Balance 3176 3,176 Total 36855 105976 110653 253484

Planning Delivery Grant 103484 75000* 75000* 253,484

Notes All costs based on 2003/04 costs Incremental salary costs included 2003/04 costs relate to a 3 month period *Assumes a grant income of £75,000 for next two years

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\6\AI00003625\UseofPlanningDeliveryGrantFunding2003040.doc Page 134 Item 10

KEY DECISION

ITEM NO.

REPORT TO CABINET

16TH OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

PORTFOLIO - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS 2003/2004

1. SUMMARY

The Council has recently sought tenders for insurance cover to commence on 1st November 2003 at the end of the current 5-year long-term agreement with Zurich Municipal.

The report shows the results of the tender exercise and makes a recommendation regarding the details of the cover to be obtained from the insurance companies providing the most appropriate terms.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

That the terms and quotations provided by Zurich Municipal be accepted.

3. BACKGROUND

The present 5-year long-term agreement for insurance cover is due to end on 31st October 2003. Zurich Municipal (ZM) were appointed as the Councils Insurers in 1998 following a tendering exercise at that time when there was a soft insurance market. As a result of that tendering exercise, despite the fact that ZM were the only insurer to provide a quotation for the entire package of insurance cover required by the Council, a 43% reduction in premiums was achieved compared to the previous year with premiums falling from £271,230 to £155,614.

Since 1998 however there has been an unprecedented hardening of the insurance market, leading to a dramatic increase in insurance premiums to take into account:- • Increased value of claims • Stock market decline and the resultant poor investment returns. • Increased claims frequency as a result of ‘ambulance chasing’ and no win/no fee cases • Increased claims severity • Increased disease claims such as asbestosis

1 Page 135 • Large property losses mainly affecting schools but causing all property premiums to rise significantly • The effects of events in America on 11th September 2001

The total value of insurance premiums paid by the Council since 1997 are as follows: Insurance Year £ Change(£) % Comments 1997 271,872 1998 155,614 -116,258 -43 Tender Results 1999 162,994 + 7,380 + 5 Inflationary Increase 2000 168,668 + 5,674 + 3 Inflationary Increase 2001 193,721 + 25,053 +15 Deteriorating Claims 2002 271,230 + 77,509 +43 Deteriorating Claims & Sept 11th Problems

In essence, the savings made at the beginning of the five year period have completely eroded due to the strengthening of the market and claims experience.

Quotations were sought in February 2003 to engage a firm of insurance brokers, to maximise the interest of insurers, in the tender process and to ensure competitive terms could be obtained in the hardening market place.

Marsh UK Ltd. were subsequently appointed and undertook the normal procurement process through the Official Journal of the European Commission (OJEC) to advertise the Councils requirements and appropriate tender documents including details of the Councils Risk Management processes and claims history was forwarded to interested parties.

Although there were 19 tender documents sent out to prospective tenderers, it was disappointing to note that very few responses were submitted.

The tender process brought a package response from the Councils current insurers, Zurich Municipal. One other insurer quoted for Property, Vehicles and Liability insurance but not for engineering cover nor personal accident and travel cover. Two stand alone engineering quotes were received and a stand alone personal accident/travel quotation was also received .

A summary of the tender comparisons is attached at Appendix 1.

Although there were marginal savings from the stand alone quotes these were effectively eliminated from the evaluation exercise once the package discount was taken into account.

So far as the Property cover is concerned the quotation from ZM was clearly the most competitive and should be accepted.

In view of the competitive quotes received for Vehicles and Liability cover a detailed evaluation has been undertaken. In terms of these covers, whilst on the face of it the quote for Vehicles from Quote B was extremely competitive, the Company was

2 Page 136 not willing to split this policy from the Liability cover. Taken together the quotes for both Vehicle and Liability cover show a premium requirement of £194,136 (Quote B) compared to ZM ‘s requirement of £215,573. However the comparison is not ‘like for like’ in that under Quote B there is a requirement for a minimum excess on the Vehicle policy (including any third party vehicle damage and/or personal injury claims) of £10,000 with an annual aggregate of £100,000, whilst there is only a £5,000 ‘own damage’ excess on the ZM policy.

If the last 3 years average vehicle claims history was to be repeated, it could cost the Council an additional £22,000 per annum to meet third party vehicle damage and personal injury claims. If the Council’s claims experience deteriorates, the maximum increased claims costs could amount to £100,000 per annum if the cover was to be accepted under Quote B.

Package Discount ZM are willing to provide a package discount of £25,000 if all classes of business are retained by them.

Conclusion ZM package price to cover all classes of business is £314,295 .This still represents an additional premium requirement of £43,065 (16%) in comparison to the previous years costs which will have to be built into the 2004/5 Budget Framework.

Whilst this is a further substantial increase in insurance premiums it does seem to reflect current market conditions.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications are considered within the body of the report.

5. CONSULTATION None appropriate.

Contact Officer: Harold Moses Telephone No: 01388 816166 Email Address: [email protected]

Key Decision Validation Expenditure of over £100,000

Background Papers Various tender documents.

3 Page 137

APPENDIX 1

Sedgefield Borough Council Insurance Tender Comparisons 2003/04

Premium Summary of Cover Tendered Prices 2002/03 A B C D E £53,546 Property £84,154 £119,635 - - - £113,145 Vehicles £143,978 £70,882 - - - £71,519 Liability £71,595 £123,254 - - - £24,234 Engineering £30,437 - - £24,280 £31,894 £8,786 Miscellaneous £9,131 - £8,213 - - £271,230 £339,295 £313,771 £8,213 £24,280 £31,894 Package Discount -£25,000 - - - - £271,230 £314,295

NoteAll prices include insurance premium tax (IPT) at the rate of 5% where applicable.

4 Page 138 Item 11

ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16th OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF REGENERATION MANAGER

Regeneration Portfolio

NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUND RESIDUAL ALLOCATIONS

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) announcement of the release of additional Neighbourhood Renewal Funds (NRF) to selected areas out of the 88 eligible district local authority areas. Under the announcement Sedgefield Borough was not included in the list of areas to receive additional support.

1.2 The report provides information on the deprivation indicators used to determine the NRF resource allocations and the relative position of Sedgefield Borough against these indicators.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement on additional NRF allocations and the assessment of disadvantage be noted.

3. CALCULATION OF NRF ALLOCATIONS

3.1 The ODPM on 16th September announced a further release of £175 million of Neighbourhood Renewal Funds (NRF), to assist in revitalising the most deprived neighbourhoods facing the greatest challenge to turning around long-term multiple deprivation. The £175 million represents the final part of the £975 million settlement from the 2002 Spending Review. The first £800 million distribution was announced in April 2003 and this followed early awards of £200 million in 2001/02, £300 million in 2002/03 and £400 million in 2003/04.

3.2 Unlike previous NRF awards, this final tranche of NRF has been targeted specifically at 26 of the 88 eligible local authority areas. In the North East of England seven local authority areas out of the eligible 14 will receive the additional NRF support. In County Durham, Easington Derwentside and Wear Valley districts will benefit under this latest announcement as indicated below:

Table 1. Residual NRF Resources For 2004/05 And 2005/06

District 2004/05 2005/06 Easington £1,260,484 £3,151,209 Derwentside £421,456 £1,053,639 Wear Valley £485,117 £1,212,793

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\3\6\AI00003631\NeighbourhoodRenewalFundResidualAllocations0.doc Page 139

3.3 The areas that received additional NRF support were selected on the basis of their ranking in the 'lowest 10 districts against two or more indicators'. The purpose of this was to focus resources on those areas facing the furthest distance to travel in tackling multiple deprivation, as measured against the achievement of established Government floor targets. Each of the indicators was chosen on the basis of discussions with the Government department responsible for individual targets and had to be an indicator which related directly to the target, used public data sets if possible, was robust, and covered the whole of England at local authority district level.

3.4 The Sedgefield Borough area is amongst the worst 10 districts against one indicator, rural prosperity. The relative position against each of the indicators is shown in Table 2. A definition for each indicator is attached at Appendix 1 and the relative positions for Sedgefield Borough and the other Durham NRF Districts is shown at Appendix 2.

Table 2 Relative Position of Sedgefield Borough in Ranking of all NRF Local Districts

88 NRF Local Authority Indicator Sedgefield Districts Borough (1 = most disadvantaged) Ranking Ranked 1 to 10 Rural prosperity Top 10 Ranked 11 to 22 GCSE A to C Grades 19th Vat Registrations 29th Female Life Expectancy 20th Ranked 23 to 44 Male Life Expectancy 38th Ranked 45 to 67 Key Stage 3 57th Teenage conceptions 57th Ranked 68 to 88 Key Stage 2 68th Housing conditions 69th Road casualties 73rd Crime 86th

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Sedgefield Borough will have received £4,841,000 of NRF support over the period 2001-2006 as shown in Table 3. The purpose of this funding is to assist the improvement of services into the Borough’s most disadvantaged communities.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\3\6\AI00003631\NeighbourhoodRenewalFundResidualAllocations0.doc Page 140

4.2 The lack of an additional award of NRF resources will require greater attention by the Borough’s LSP as to how the existing NRF allocations for the next two years are used in conjunction with mainstream spending to assist in implementing the Borough’s Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy.

Table 3 Annual NRF Allocations

NRF Allocations Sedgefield Borough 2001/02 £570,000 2002/03 £854,195 2003/04 £1,138,926 2004/05 £1,138,926 2005/06 £1,138,926 Total £4,840,973

5. CONSULTATION

6.1 Not applicable to this report

6. SECTION 17, CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

6.1 Tacking community safety issues is a key action under the Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy for the Borough, and as such any additional external resources would have benefited this service area.

7. LA21 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

7.1 Not applicable to this report

Contact Officer: Richard Prisk, Regeneration Manager Telephone No: 01388 816166 ext 4360 Email Address: [email protected]

Key Decision Validation: This is not a key decision.

Background Papers

1. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Press Release on the Allocation of Residual NRF allocations, September 2003. 2. Government Office North East background information on the NRF allocations methodology.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\3\6\AI00003631\NeighbourhoodRenewalFundResidualAllocations0.doc Page 141

Appendix 1 Residual NRF Allocation Indicators

1. VAT Registrations (DTI) - Number of VAT registrations, per 10,000 population, 2001

2. Conception Rate (DH) - Rate of conceptions to women aged 15-17, per 1000, 2001 ONS

3. Crime (HO) - Burglary, Robbery and Theft of or from a vehicle, Notifiable offences, per 1000 population, 2002/03

The crime ranking has taken the three elements into account, by taking a sum of their individual rankings and using this to re-rank the authorities. This then results in one combined ranking for all three crimes.

4. Performance at Key Stage 2, Key Stage 3 and GCSE performance (DfES) The Key Stage 2 (11 year olds) has taken literacy and numeracy performance into account by taking a sum of their individual rankings and deriving a new combined rank from them. The Key Stage 3 (14 year olds) was derived in a similar fashion taking into account English, Maths and Science performance. GCSE (16 year olds) performance is for 5+ A*-C grades. Data based on 2002 local authority district estimates from DfES

5. Road Casualties (DfT) - Road casualties per 1000, 2001

6. Local Authority Stock Condition (ODPM) - Authorities with the greatest expected need for housing repairs and improvements based on numbers and types of dwellings they own as described in the Housing Subsidy Base Data and the English House Condition Survey.

7. Life Expectancy (DH) - Life expectancy rates for males and females separately, 1999/2001

8. Rural Productivity (DEFRA) - This indicator is based on earnings per person. The Survey of Personal Incomes has been used to obtain the aggregate earnings of people of working age in each district. The denominator (taken from the Labour Force Survey) is the number of people of working age excluding those who are both economically inactive and in education. The districts used for the indicator are those with a predominantly rural population, with a low productivity figure and where other selected indicators also pointed towards poor relative economic performance.

9. Employment Rates (DWP) - 10 lowest local authority districts (LADs) from among the 30 LADs with the least progress on employment rate (LFS) spring 2001 – spring 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\3\6\AI00003631\NeighbourhoodRenewalFundResidualAllocations0.doc Page 142 Appendix 2

NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUND (NRF) RESIDUAL ALLOCATIONS

Indicator Definition and Rankings Sedgefield Easington Derwentside Wear Valley Employment 10 lowest local authority districts (LADs) from among the 30 LADs with the least Outside 6 Outside top Outside progress on employment rate (LFS) spring 2001 – spring 2003 top 30 30 top 30 Housing Authorities with the greatest expected need for housing repairs and improvements 69 59 67 79 based on number s and types of dwellings they own as described in the Housing condition base data and the English House Condition Survey 2003/04 VAT Number of VAT registrations per 10,000 population, 2001 20 6 10 22 Registrations Conception Rate of conceptions to women aged 15-17, per 1000, 2001 57 20 82 75

Page 143 Rates Road Road casualties per 1000, 2001 73 76 85 77 Casualties Key Stage 2 This has taken literacy and numeracy performance into account by taking a sum of 68 53 63 62 their individual rankings and deriving a new combined rank from them. Data based on 2002 local authority estimates Key Stage 3 This has taken literacy and numeracy performance into account by taking a sum of 57 15 53 58 their individual rankings and deriving a new combined rank from them. Data based on 2002 local authority estimates GCSE GCSE (16 year olds) performance for 5+A*-C grades 20 (36.9) 5 (32.1) 34 (41.4) 35 (41.4) (Figures in brackets related to actual rates) Male Life Life expectancy rates for men, 1999-2001 38 (73.9) 36 (73.8) 41 (73.9) 22 (73.4) Expectancy (Figures in brackets related to actual rates) Female Life Life expectancy rates for women, 1999-2001 20 (78.5) 28 (78.9) 29 (78.9) 9 (78.1) Expectancy (Figures in brackets related to actual rates)

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\3\6\AI00003631\NeighbourhoodRenewalFundResidualAllocations0.doc

Indicator Definition and Rankings Sedgefield Easington Derwentside Wear Valley Crime Burglary, Robbery and Theft of or from a vehicle, Notifiable Offences, per 1000 86 80 88 79 population, 2002-03 The crime ranking has taken the three elements into account by taking a sum of their individual rankings and using this to re-rank the authorities. This then results in a new combined ranking for all three crimes. Rural Based on earnings per person. The Survey of Personal Incomes has been used to Top 10 Outside of Top 10 Top 10 Productivity obtain the aggregate earnings of people of working age in each district. The top 10 denominator (taken from the Labour Force Survey) is the number of people of working age excluding those who are both economically inactive and in education. The districts used for the indicator are those with a predominantly rural population, with a low productivity figure and where other selected indicators also pointed towards poor relative economic performance.

Page 144

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\3\6\AI00003631\NeighbourhoodRenewalFundResidualAllocations0.doc Item 12

ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16th October 2003

REPORT OF REGENERATION MANAGER

Portfolio: Regeneration and Supporting People

COUNTY DURHAM DRAFT SCHOOL ORGANISATION PLAN 2003-2008 CONSULTATION BY DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the Durham County draft School Organisation Plan. The intention of the Plan is to clearly set out the Local Education Authority’s plans to provide sufficient school places in order to promote higher standards of achievement.

1.2 In summary the Organisation Plan relates to the need for action to remove a significant level of surplus school spaces from schools in each area of the County. In the short and medium term, the emphasis is on the primary sector and in the longer term the secondary sector.

1.3 An outcome of the Plan’s implementation is likely to lead to a change in local school provision.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the comments detailed in the report be forwarded to Durham County Council.

3. SCHOOL ORGANISATION PLAN

Introduction 3.1 Durham County Council on behalf on the School Organisational Committee have published for consultation a draft School Organisation Plan for the period 2003-2008. Comments on the Plan are required by 17th October.

3.2 The main proposals in the Plan revolve around the reorganisation of primary and secondary school provision in the County and set out a means to address the growing problem of over-capacity in terms of surplus places being maintained in the County’s schools. This problem is particularly acute in the primary sector. The Plan set out a policy based approach around a number of key principles and is based on the current position for each school in the County regarding its capacity and expected number of pupils.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 145

Background 3.3 The need to monitor the provision of school places is the responsibility of the Local Education Authority (LEA). However the power to make significant changes to schools under the School Standards and Frameworks Act 1998 rests with a Schools Organisation Committee. This is independent of the LEA and is required to produce a Schools Operation Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to set out clearly how the LEA plans to meet its statutory responsibilities to provide sufficient school places in order to promote higher standards of achievement. Relevant factors in this are arrangements to increase diversity, encourage each school to have a distinctive character and ethos and encourage collaboration amongst schools so as to raise standards.

Demographic Trends 3.4 Since 1988 the County’s population has been relatively stable, however the school population is now predicted to fall. This is illustrated by the fact that at January 2003 the number of 6 year olds in school totalled 5596 and this compares with 6005 14 year olds, a reduction of almost 7%.

3.5 Primary school roll projections indicate a fall in numbers of 17% over the period 1997 to 2008, and over the period 2002 to 2018 the number of pupils will fall by 5,000. As a consequence for the County as a whole there is an increasing problem of surplus capacity in the primary sector and in the longer term in the secondary sector. At present there is approximately 17.5% surplus capacity in the primary sector and 13.3% in the secondary sector.

3.6 For Sedgefield Borough the figures suggest:

• The number 3 and 4 year olds will fall from 1019 and 1053 respectively at 2001/02 to 859 and 839 by 2007/08. This equates to 15.7% and 20.3% falls for the respective age groups • A 15% reduction in the number of pupils (5-15 years) by 2021 and for this level of reduction to occur by 2007. (8% fall in primary sector and 9% in the secondary sector). • Surplus primary school places currently amount to 14.2% (1257) of places and this will increase to 21% (1864) by 2021 (and first reach this position by 2005/2006). This is equal to the closure of up to 6 primary schools. • Surplus secondary places currently amount to 13.4% of places and this will increase to 21.0% by 2021, (first reaching this level by 2011). This is equivalent to the closure of one secondary school. • On the assumption of maintaining a 13% level of surplus spaces as the norm for school place management, 1194 primary and 200 secondary places require to be removed from the Borough’s schools.

Key Issues in Reviewing School Place Provision. 3.7 The LEA has a duty to maintain quality education in a cost effective manner on the basis that better school premises improve the quality of education and the standards attained by pupils. It is also recognised that schools play an important life in local communities and that this needs also to be considered. However the overriding factor is that the pattern of provision should contribute to school improvement and the raising of pupil achievement and attainment.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 146 3.8 The LEA’s current preference is the development of all-through primary schools (5 to 11 year olds) and that for the secondary sector a reorganisation of schools is required in connection with PFI bidding for school development resources. With the most appropriate and distribution and pattern of schools agreed a number of critical factors will be taken into account to decide on the detail of provision:

• The location of the school (are other schools available nearby?) • The quality of the education being provided and the standards achieved by pupils • The number of surplus spaces • Is the current accommodation appropriate in terms of allowing the National Curriculum to be delivered in an appropriate manner • What community involvement and activities are there within the school and views regarding educational needs

3.9 In summary, action is needed to remove a number of surplus spaces from each area of the County and the short and medium term emphasis is on primary schools and in the longer term on secondary schools. The actual changes in each local area will depend on local circumstances and locally derived information.

3.10 A schedule of detailed information for each school in the Borough and the future options has been obtained to complement the Operation Plan. The possible implications for the Borough’s schools are attached at Annex 1. However it should be noted that the options listed form part of an initial the consultation process with schools and are subject to change due to the representations received to date by the LEA. Furthermore a number of recent government statements are encouraging LEAs to see school buildings as a resource capable of meeting wider needs than education.

3.11 It is anticipated that the outcome of the consultation process on the Operation Plan in respect to addressing the surplus place issue will be known by the end of 2003 when a Final Plan has to be published. Alongside this, the LEA are continuing to consider the implications for individual schools and the outcome of this will is also expected to be known shortly.

4. RESPONSE TO THE SCHOOL ORGANISATION PLAN

4.1 It is evident from the 2001 Census that the population profile for County Durham is changing and taking on an older structure than in the past. This change is most significant in the household formation age ranges (18-34 years) with a significantly declining share of the population total. The consequential impact of this trend is in the size of the future school population when compared with the capacity of the County’s schools. The conclusion drawn by the Operation Plan from these demographic trends is that there is a need to reduce surplus school places to ensure educational resources are devoted to improving the quality of education and the standards attained by pupils (and that the school estate is as fit as possible for this purpose), rather than maintaining spare school capacity.

4.2 As is acknowledged by the Schools Operation Plan the pattern of future school provision will reflect a number of critical factors including proximity to other schools and the level of the school’s local community involvement in addition to matters such as teaching standards and the suitability of the existing accommodation.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 147

4.3 In taking the Operation Plan forward it is felt that the School Organisation Committee as well as giving attention to the specified key criterion of cost effective education provision, should also give more weight to the successes achieved by individual schools as well as the role schools as community assets can play in the regeneration and sustaining of local communities. Such an approach would:

• Contribute towards area regeneration and neighbourhood renewal actions in line with the ODPM’s Sustainable Communities Plan and the National Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy as well as the Borough’s Community Strategy and Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. • Recognise other public sector led investment to support schools in working with their local communities through such initiatives as SRB programmes, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and individual Sure Start programmes. • Have regard to the relative position of individual settlements and communities on the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the impact of a change to the school provision might have for the wider regeneration proposals for the area. • Reflect the role schools can play alongside their mainstream educational use in providing opportunities for communities to access lifelong learning and provide a venue for the delivery other public services as well as community activities.

4.4 A key consideration in this process should be consultation with other local agencies and communities affected by the proposed changes to school provision. In addressing this it is felt to be important that: • The Borough’s Local Strategic Partnership is fully engaged. The LSP Board has asked its Policy Group for Lifelong Learning to further consider the local pattern of school provision and arrangements for the introduction of changes. • At the community level there is maintained a dialogue with local community partnerships were they exist, as well as with the Council’s Local Area Forums and the Borough’s Community Empowerment Network. • The Borough Council is involved in the shaping of options and recommendations, given the close links to the planning of housing land supply, housing and area renewal and community based regeneration.

4.5 On more specific points, it is felt important that the County Council’s attention should be drawn to a number of concerns as detailed below and further discussions sought on the proposals. This should also include consideration of the option of bringing about reduced class sizes through this process of change.

Proposals for individual Schools Small Schools 4.6 Proposals for the reorganisation of the primary sector provision across the smaller villages of the Borough are of concern. Firstly, it is evident that smaller schools that have an absence of surplus spaces and are delivering good educational outcomes (eg. Kirk Merrington Primary/Rosa Street Primary/Aycliffe Village Primary) have been identified for attention with the purpose of assisting to maintain larger primary schools in nearby larger centres. Secondly, as in the case with schools serving the Trimdons the proposals to concentrate on one school site will further undermine the identity of each community as an entity and adversely impact on their regeneration prospects. Thirdly such action reduces choice for parents. Fourthly, from such revised school arrangements, there will be an increase in the distances children are travelling to schools with consequential increases in local car journeys.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 148

Dean Bank Primary School 4.7 Three Rivers Housing Association in conjunction with the Borough Council has produced a comprehensive plan for the regeneration of the Dean Bank area in support of the Borough’s Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. This envisages actions to address the current problems of low housing demand in the area, vacant properties and the impact of private sector landlords. Proposal include the introduction of new family housing by the part re-development of the area along with other community regeneration measures and attention to the environmental and ‘green space’ quality of the area. Implementation of this Area Plan is currently the subject of a wider Housing Demand Study and discussions with English Partnerships over funding support through the coalfield communities priority within the ODPM Sustainable Communities Plan and the draft Regional Housing Statement.

4.8 Through these proposals the potential exists to attract new family housing and to redress the more elderly population profile of the area. The presence of the local primary school is seen a critical part of the future promotion of the area as an attractive residential location

Western Newton Aycliffe 4.9 It is accepted that in this area of Newton Aycliffe there is a need to address the surplus places issue, and which appears to be particularly acute at Elmfield Primary. In consideration of the future school provision for the area discussions should include the local Sure Start Programme to ensure that the opportunity presented by the implementation of the Operation Plan can be co-ordinated with actions to develop the bases from which Sure Start services will operate within the area. Any proposal s should also reflect the priority afforded to the area for local regeneration in terms of housing choice, environmental quality and local service provision and the fact a Local Neighbourhood Management scheme is being piloted in the area.

Sunnydale School, Shildon. 4.10 This school is the focus for 11-16 education in the town and has played a major part in the delivery of the town’s SRB programme over the period 1997-2003. Through this the school has received significant support to help establish a Community Learning Centre to encourage people to return to learning, support for IT teaching and a range of measures to assist the school improve its GCSE performance. This included support for vocational courses with smaller class sizes and assistance from local Further Education Colleges. Continuation of the Community Learning Centre is a critical component of the exit strategy of the Shildon SRB Programme.

4.11 The loss of the town’s secondary school would have significant impacts on the future of the town as a residential location. Further, the school is also connected with the Council’s Leisure Centre and the adjacent athletics arena and therefore has a wider relationship with the local community for learning and recreational activities. Maintenance of the school would serve to maximise this potential and so help address the high levels of disadvantage, particularly in educational terms found in Shildon. This is again in accordance with the Borough’s Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. Retention of the school would also complement the planned investment in the redevelopment of the adjacent St John’s Church of England School currently being advanced.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 149

Secondary School Provision in Spennymoor and Ferryhill 4.12 The option of the reorganisation of these schools is felt to require careful consideration in terms of the impacts on the Ferryhill community and the choice afforded to residents of the communities served by the existing secondary schooling arrangements. However it is accepted that there could be some potential advantages from such a change in providing for a more enhanced sixth form provision in the area.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no financial implications for the Borough Council.

6. CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Consultation on the Organisation Plan is primarily a matter for Durham County Council, however the matter has been referred to the Borough’s LSP and its Lifelong Learning Policy Group for further consideration. In addition, the views of individual schools in the Borough on the draft Operational Plan have been sought. A number of schools have responded and those subject to some change have sought to set out the strong offer of the school not only on educational achievements but also to local community life.

7. SECTION 17 CRIME AND DISORDER ACT

7.1 Not applicable.

8. LA 21 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

8.1 The alternate and future uses of any school building declared surplus to requirements should be fully investigated to ensure alternative uses are fully considered. This will be important particularly in respect to playing field areas that can assist maintaining the environmental quality of settlements. Any redevelopment of the developed areas of such sites could contribute towards ‘brownfield’ land targets. It should also be recognised that the any planned changes could increase the level of local car journeys linked to ‘school runs’.

Contact Officer Richard Prisk Telephone Number 01388 816166 Ext 4360 E-mail address [email protected]

Wards: Borough wide

Key Decision Validation:

Background Papers:

County Durham Draft School Organisational Plan 2003 –2008. Data on Individual Schools and Future Issues, June 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 150 ANNEX 1 SCHOOL OPERATIONAL PLAN INITIAL DRAFT OPTIONS FOR CONSULTATION WITH SCHOOLS

Options – Primary Sector Schools No change Tudhoe Colliery Primary Oxclose Primary Cleves Cross Primary Fishburn Primary Shildon Primary. Timothy Hackworth Primary Byerley Park Primary Sugar Hill Primary Retain and increase Middlestone Moor Primary (to accommodate Rosa Street capacity Primary/Kirk Merrington Primary) North Park Primary (to accommodate King Street Primary) Broom Cottage Primary and Nursery Unit (to accommodate Dean Bank Primary) Retain but remove Chilton Primary surplus spaces Byers Green Primary Ferryhill Station Primary West Cornforth Primary Vane Road Primary Bishop Middleham CE Primary Consider for Trimdon Grange Infant and Nursery Unit/ Trimdon Village reorganisation involving 2 Community Infants/Trimdon Junior or more schools Woodham Burn Infants/Woodham Burn Junior This might result in the closure of 6 Schools in Sedgefield Primary/ Hardwick Primary addition to those listed below Stephenson Way Primary/ Elmfield Primary

Horndale Infants/ St. Francis Consider for Closure Kirk Merrington Primary Aycliffe Primary King Street Primary Rosa Street Primary Dean Bank Primary

Options –Secondary Schools Sector No change Woodham Community College Greenfield Community and Arts College Retain but remove Sedgefield Community College surplus spaces Consider for Tudhoe Grange Technology College/Ferryhill closure/reorganisation Comp/Spennymoor Comp involving 2 or more schools Consider for Closure Sunnydale School

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 151

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\3\6\AI00003633\CountyDurhamDraftSchoolOrganisationPlan200320080.doc Page 152 Item 13

ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16th October 2003

REPORT OF REGENERATION MANAGER

Regeneration/Supporting People Portfolios

BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The Department for Education and Skills (DfES), have put forward a strategy to replace or significantly upgrade all required secondary schools throughout the country during the next 10-15 years. Local Education Authority’s (LEA) have been invited to submit proposals on the basis of natural groupings of secondary schools with priority afforded to areas with relative social disadvantage and with lower attainment standards.

1.2 Durham County Council in response to this initative have indicated that is their intention to put forward a first tranche bid based upon East Durham including six schools in Easington and Sedgefield Community College. A consultation programme associated with development of proposals for all secondary schools in the County has begun and this will inform the basis of a second tranche bid due to be made by December. This will have major implications for all retained secondary schools in the Borough and the way they are operated as a resource for the benefit of local communities and for future sixth form provision.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Council through the Borough’s Local Strategic Partnership seeks to influence the County Council’s Building New Schools for the Future Programme submission to maximise the benefits for the schools and communities of Sedgefield Borough.

3. BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE - PROGRAMME

Background 3.1 A consultation document from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), ‘Building Schools for the Future’ put forward a strategy to replace or significantly upgrade all required secondary schools throughout the country during the next 10-15 years. The purpose of this investment is to raise standards in all schools and for schools to include services and facilities that are of practical resource for local communities. To support this programme it is indicated that an additional £2.2 billion would be made available starting in 2005-2006. The DfES anticipates that approximately £1.2 billion will be made available through Private Finance Initiative credits (PFI) and that between 10-20 geographical areas nationally will begin to receive investment in 2005-2006.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\3\6\AI00003634\BuildingSchoolsForTheFuture0.doc Page 153

3.2 In order to gain a place in the first tranche of developments under the Initiative (i.e. 2005-06), Local Education Authorities are required to make a submission to the DfES by 31 October 2003. The DfES are keen to ensure that any LEAs involved in early rounds for PFI are in a strong position to invest the capital funding on time to deliver both the educational vision and the economic best value and that all schools and potential partners are signed up to any strategic changes that are needed. The DfES have identified that such submissions need to be in the range of £50-150 million and will be considered on the basis of natural groupings of secondary schools on a geographical basis and considered against the essential criteria identified by the DfES:

a) Educational Standards - an assessment of the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE grades A-C between 2000-2002. Priority will be given to those LEAs where such achievement is particularly low and judged against the national average. b) Deprivation - to be judged against the number of pupils eligible for free school meals.

3.3 It is anticipated that an announcement of the successful submissions in the first tranche will be known by the end of December 2003. This could result in new secondary schools being available to pupils by 2008. Proposals for secondary school developments not included in the first tranche (2005-2006) need to be submitted to DfES by 19 December 2003.

Proposed Approach for County Durham 3.4 The ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme is seen as a major opportunity to radically improve the quality and use of secondary school buildings in the County and to make them fit for purpose and a source of pride to all. It will assist to address the current level of repairs and maintenances required across the school buildings stock and the removal of surplus school places will also be part of the consideration. The Programme will in addition provide a means to respond to the County Durham Vision document and its ambition to provide world class schools by investing in new school building and for schools to become community hubs for learning.

3.5 The scale of the Government’ planned programme means that schools will need to be placed into geographical groups and schemes brought forward in a phased manner over the medium term. The DfES criteria related to schools in areas of relative social disadvantage and with lower attainment standards will influence the priority for individual school groups.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\3\6\AI00003634\BuildingSchoolsForTheFuture0.doc Page 154

3.6 Durham County Council have in the light of the criteria indicated that is their intention to put forward a first tranche proposal based upon an East Durham area including six schools in Easington and Sedgefield Community College. A community consultation process on this proposal has commenced with a meeting held at Sedgefield Community College on 16th September. The purpose of the consultation is to not only to communicate the process, but more importantly begin to involve local interests in determining the content of the school building proposals in respect to other community services such a health, lifelong learning and libraries for example that might be included in a new build package. It should be noted however that the provision of such additional community facilities would need to be financed by the respective service provider.

3.7 The remaining secondary schools in the County (and the Borough) will be submitted as part of the second bid tranche in December as a series of phases for implementation over the next 10 to 15 years.

Implications for Sedgefield Borough 3.8 The ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme presents a major opportunity to improve the Borough’s secondary schools and make them fit for purpose. Such investment will greatly complement other investment around neighbourhood renewal and the promotion of economic and social well-being. Through this process there will the potential for schools to become a resource for local communities in a much wider sense than providing secondary school age education. This also support the implementation of the Borough’s Community Strategy and its ambitions regarding educational attainment as well as create the opportunity to improve community access to services.

3.9 It needs to be recognised however, that the County Durham submissions form part of an ambitious national programme and the period for implementation is long term. This will mean some schools are placed at the ‘end of the queue’ and so it will be important that the support to these schools is maintained so that their pupils receive a quality of education comparable to that in school’s benefiting from early new build schemes. The length of the programme and therefore the placing of schools in tranches may also impact on whether schools in Sedgefield Borough are seen as a single geographical group or part of several groups for the South Durham area. It is also evident that the school proposals on a geographical area need to consider future post 16 provision in terms of access 6th Form education. This raises issues of the distribution of 6th Forum provision across the Borough and the wider South Durham area.

3.10 As noted, the second tranche of bids needs to be submitted by December 2003. This leaves little opportunity for local community interests to be actively consulted on the envisaged programme. The LSP’s Lifeleong Learning Policy Group has agreed to hold a consultation event for key stakeholders on the Building Schools for the Future’ programme and as part of this to consider the future post 16 form of provision to provide the best opportunities for young people in the Borough. It is hoped that this will help shape the County Council’s final proposals and the scheduling of groups of schools as well as the outcome for future options for 6th Form provision.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\3\6\AI00003634\BuildingSchoolsForTheFuture0.doc Page 155

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are no direct financial implications for the Council.

5. CONSULTATION

5.1 A presentation on the Building Schools for the Future’ programme was made to the LSP Board in July and further consultations through the LSP’s Lifelong Learning Policy Group have been requested.

6. SECTION 17, CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

6.1 Not applicable

7. LA21 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

7.1 Not applicable

Contact Officer: Richard Prisk, Regeneration Manager Telephone No: 01388 816166 ext 4360 Email Address: [email protected]

Key Decision Validation: This is not a key decision.

Background Papers 1. Presentation at Sedgefield Community College, 16th September 2003. 2. Reports to Durham County Council’s Cabinet July and August 2003.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\3\6\AI00003634\BuildingSchoolsForTheFuture0.doc Page 156 Item 14 ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16th OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF HEAD OF CONTRACT SERVICES

Resource Management Portfolio

PURCHASE OF A REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE AND A ROAD SWEEPER

1. SUMMARY

The Council needs to replace one of its Refuse Collection Vehicles and a Road Sweeper.

Tenders have been sought by advertisement and an evaluation of vehicles, their specifications and annual leasing charges has been undertaken.

In circumstances where the preferred option is not the cheapest Cabinet is required to approve the acceptance of tenders.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council leases a Dennis Elite Refuse Vehicle and a DAF FALF 55.180 Johnson 600 Road Sweeper.

3. DETAIL

The preferred Refuse Vehicle is a Dennis Elite chassis with a Dennis Phoenix body and Zoeller rotary lift. This particular model is the current version of the vehicles currently operated by the Council. The Dennis product has proved reliable with its chassis and body being engineered by the same manufacturer ensuring complete compatibility. Standardisation of the fleet ensures familiarity with the equipment operated/repaired and a reduction in the value of spare parts to be held on stock.

The Road Sweeper proposal is for a DAF FALF 55.180 chassis cab fitted with a Johnson 600 Road Sweeper. This chassis is specifically designed for the sweeper application.

The vehicle currently operated by the Council is a similar model that has been both reliable and efficient.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The annual leasing charges for the Dennis Elite Refuse Vehicle are £19,610 compared with those of the lowest, which are £17,805 is a difference of £1,805. Insofar as the Road Sweeper is concerned the leasing charges are £13,634 compared with £13,133 i.e., a difference of £501. Page 157

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\3\6\AI00003636\PurchaseOfARefuseCollectionVelicleAndARoadSweeper0.doc In both instances it is believed that the advantages outlined outweigh the additional expenditure.

5. CONSULTATION

Demonstrations of numerous Refuse Collection Vehicles and Road Sweepers have been arranged and operatives given the opportunity to use them in a ‘live’ work situation.

In both instances the views of the workforce reinforce the recommendation in this report.

Contact Officer: Martin Smith Telephone No: (01388) 816166 ext Email Address: [email protected]

Page 158

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\3\6\AI00003636\PurchaseOfARefuseCollectionVelicleAndARoadSweeper0.doc Item 15 ITEM NO.

REPORT TO CABINET

16 OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

Portfolio: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Subject: COUNCIL TAX, BUDGET AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLANNING CONSULTATION

1.0 SUMMARY

This report sets out proposals for engaging Council Taxpayers in the 2004/05 Council Tax and Budget setting process and in developing the Medium Term Financial Plan.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the Council commissions NWA Social and Market Research to undertake a Council Tax and Budget consultation process in respect of the 2004/05 Budget cycle as detailed in the report, for a fee of approximately £8,000.

2.2 That a payment of £20 be made to those Council Taxpayers who fully participate in the Focus Group sessions.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 Last year, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) issued Guidelines (“Council Tax Consultation: Guidelines for Local Authorities”) encouraging all local authorities to consult Council Taxpayers before reaching decisions on the level of their budgets and subsequent Council Tax charges. The feedback as a result of the consultation is intended to inform the decision-making process, not replace it.

3.2 The Council was one of only a handful of authorities in the region to engage Taxpayers in setting the 2003/04 Council Tax and Budget. NWA Social and Market Research (NWA), the Councils preferred supplier of market research services, were commissioned to facilitate the consultation process, which involved three stages:

o Quantitative survey of Citizens’ Panel Members looking at service priorities; o 1st tranche of Focus Groups - informing and explaining the budget setting process and gaining an understanding of participants’ initial views and priorities; o 2nd tranche of Focus Groups – allowed the Council to respond to queries from the groups prior to them commenting on draft Council proposals. Both qualitative and quantitative responses were sought from these groups.

3.3 The consultation process proved to be an extremely valuable exercise for the Council to undertake and the feedback received directly influenced not only the 2003/04 Council Tax and Budget but also informed the recent priority setting process. The Page1 159 local taxpayers involved overwhelmingly supported the Council’s proactive approach. However, there are three perceived weaknesses in the approach taken last year:

o Use of the Citizens’ Panel (supplemented by a small number of Sure Start volunteers) for recruitment limited the availability of ‘hard to reach’ groups such as younger people and Black and Minority ethnic respondents o The timing of the focus groups, held during the formal consultation process following Cabinets initial deliberations in January, resulted in some participants feeling that the Council had already made firm decisions regarding its Council Tax and Budget o Because of the geographical nature of the groups/venues the discussions and questions for the Council to answer tended to be on more local/parochial issues

3.4 In July Cabinet formally adopted the four corporate objectives set out in the Local Strategic Partnership’s (LSP’s) draft Community Strategy together with thirteen supporting policy outcomes.

3.5 In September Cabinet approved the priority-based grouping of policy outcomes (see below) as the basis for the Corporate Planning framework incorporating a Corporate Plan and supporting Medium Term Financial and Workforce Plans. The preparation of these documents is included in the High Level Action Plan, resulting from the recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment Corporate Self-Assessment.

Priority Policy Outcome Ensuring a cleaner, greener environment Group 1 Promoting employment opportunities Promoting safer neighbourhoods Securing (a range of) quality affordable housing Engaging local communities Group 2 Maximising learning opportunities Improving towns, villages and the countryside Promoting independent living Safeguarding public health Tackling disadvantage/promoting social inclusion Creating leisure opportunities Group 3 Promoting cultural activities Reducing waste and managing natural resources

3.6 Cabinet has also agreed to direct Council resources in the short-term (2004/05) to improve core services that contribute directly to Group 1 policy outcomes and crosscutting services that underpin their achievement. Future consultation exercises therefore need to concentrate on Taxpayer aspirations for improvements in priority areas over the medium term.

Page2 160

4.0 2004/05 CONSULTATION METHODOLOGY

4.1 Preliminary meetings have been held with NWA, who have recommend that the main thrust of the consultation should again be qualitative, using focus groups (in workshop format). However, the focus groups will concentrate on the Group 1 policy outcomes and the priority service areas linked to these, which will be used to identify not only priority areas for 2004/05 but also aspirations for those services over the medium term.

4.2 It is proposed that the focus groups meet on three occasions, with the first groups being held in mid November, the second in mid December and the final groups being held in January following the Cabinet meeting when decisions relating to Budget setting will be discussed.

4.3 This timetable will ensure that adequate time for reflection and feedback is given to each of the consultation requirements, set out as follows: -

o information and education to the groups on the Council’s 1st tranche Budget setting process, likely resource availability, Group 1 policy outcomes/associated priority services. Group discussions on Council Tax levels over the medium term.

o information and education to the groups on the Revenue 2nd tranche Support Grant settlement and impact on 2004/05 Council Tax levels. Group collective and individual aspirations and priorities for services aligned to the Group 1 policy outcomes.

o information and education to the groups on the draft 3rd tranche budget considered by Cabinet on 8 January. Groups’ comments and feedback on draft proposals (in line with formal consultation process).

4.4 Focus groups will again be held on a locality basis with participants being split into three areas – South, (Newton Aycliffe, Shildon areas); East, (Sedgefield, Trimdon, Fishburn areas); and North (Spennymoor, Ferryhill, Chilton areas). In order to minimise the difficulties experienced last year, where more local/parochial issues often dominated discussions, the first meeting will be a large plenary session involving all three groups and will probably be held on a Saturday morning.

4.5 A weakness in last year’s process was that the composition of the groups tended to be from the older population. To address this, invitations to express an interest in being involved will be sent to the 110 members of the Citizens' Panel who expressed an interest in attending last year, and this will be supplemented with a wider mailing to a random selection of households (500) from the Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File (PAF) which gives all private postal addresses in the Borough. In addition invitations will be issued through an article in the October edition of ‘Inform’ and targeted invitations made to selected under-represented groups e.g. young people and members of the Black and Minority ethnic community. Focus Groups will consist of approximately 15 people per group.

4.6 The first two meetings are scheduled to take place in advance of Cabinet considering the draft budget proposals on 8 January. This would provide the opportunity for Service Departments to be involved in the consultation if considered appropriate. Page3 161 NWA advise that if Service Departments are involved their role be limited to answering queries and questions during the 2nd tranche of meetings and that care will need to be taken to ensure that the number of people involved is restricted so that the groups are not overwhelmed by Council officers.

4.7 A small incentive of £20, to cover any out-of-pocket expenses that may be incurred by those members who complete the process will be offered to members of the Focus Groups.

4.8 A full written report will be prepared by NWA for consideration during the formal budget consultation process, commencing in January 2004 and detailed feedback on the outcome of the process will be given to all participants.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total cost of undertaking the consultation process, which is not expected to exceed £10,000, can be accommodated from within the existing budgets.

Contact Officer: BRIAN ALLEN Telephone No.: 01388-816166 ext. 4003 E-Mail: [email protected]

Background Papers:

Council Tax and Budget Consultation Process – Report to Cabinet 28 November 2002 Budget Framework 2003/04 – Report to Cabinet 20 February 2003 (Consultation Feedback) NWA Council Tax Consultation Proposals – 27 September 2003

Page4 162 Item 16 ITEM NO.

REPORT TO CABINET

16TH OCTOBER 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

Portfolio: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Subject: PROCUREMENT OF A HUMAN RESOURCES COMPUTER SYSTEM

SUMMARY

The Best Value Service Review of the Council’s Human Resource Services has recently been completed and a Human Resources Strategy and Service Improvement Plan have been developed.

A major factor associated with improving the Human Resource Services presently being provided, is the fact that the computer systems currently being used for the payroll and personnel functions is now 12 years old. Both Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committees accepted the recommendation that priority should be given to the upgrade of the existing system.

The purpose of this report is therefore to consider the procurement of a system which will eliminate the inadequacies of the current system in terms of its ability to facilitate the E-Government delivery of services such as online recruitment and a ‘self service’ facility for employees (and Members).

RECOMMENDATION

That the Resourcelink product supplied by Northgate Information Solution UK Limited, together with the necessary operating hardware and all other costs, be purchased within a total budget profile of £165,000.

That £30,000 be made available from the current year’s ICT capital programme, with the remaining £135,000 being a first call on the 2004/05 capital programme.

DETAIL

The current Human Resource (Payroll and Personnel) system was installed in 1991 and is now one of the oldest computer systems still in use by the Council.

In ‘Payroll’ terms, the system has generally performed well and continues to meet statutory requirements. However, in ‘Personnel’ terms, the system has lacked many important features, which other systems have had as standard for some time. Examples include:-

Sickness monitoring Equal Opportunities monitoring Integrated training and development records

Procurement of a Human Resources Computer System Page1 163

Occupational Health Health and Safety and Accident reporting Workforce planning and organisational structure modelling

As a result Personnel Services, in conjunction with IT Services, has developed in- house PC based systems to assist with these functions. Whilst these systems have been useful, they tend to be disjointed and are labour intensive in terms of data input and maintenance.

The Best Value Review of Human Resources highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in terms of its ability to facilitate E-Government service delivery such as online recruitment and ‘self service’ facilities to enable employees (and Members) to access and change information (in a controlled environment).

More recently, during the preparation for Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) it has become evident that the Council needs to improve the way it aligns Human Resources to strategic planning and priority setting. As part of a corporate planning framework, a key tool for achieving this is a workforce plan. Producing an annual workforce plan requires a high degree of statistical manpower data and at present producing this information is difficult and time consuming.

Procurement Process

A very exhaustive procurement process has been undertaken which included:-

• an initial appraisal of products from market leaders;

• an evaluation of 60 expressions of interest following the inclusion of a joint specification within the OJEC notice for the procurement of the recently approved Financial Management System;

• an invitation to tender to seven short-listed companies from which three fully completed tenders were received;

• a detailed evaluation of two of those products, including a full demonstration of their capabilities.

At this stage no single system could adequately meet the criteria set by the officer evaluation team.

Towards the end of the procurement process, Northgate Information Solution UK Ltd. (who had merged with our current supplier, Prolog) put forward an upgraded version of the current product. Following a detailed evaluation against our criteria, it was unanimously agreed that the Northgate product, ‘Resourcelink’, was the only system which could meet our requirements. In addition it presented opportunities for future developments, particularly in relation to E-government.

Procurement of a Human Resources Computer System Page2 164 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the system are as follows:- £ £

Software Costs Initial charge 45,700 Maintenance 12,650 Implementation 41,175 Data Conversion 13,850 113,375

Hardware Costs Hardware including memory upgrades and 3 years maintenance 15,000 SQL Server Licence Fees 5,000 Test Server and Licence Fees 4,000 Pressure Seal 2,000 26,000

Other Costs Project Management Cost 20,000 Contingency 5,625 25,625 165,000

An option to allow Northgate to host the system at their premises was considered but the disadvantages outweighed any financial benefits that would be achieved.

Although the system will not ‘go live’ until the 2004/5 financial year, some costs such as some of the initial software charges and hardware costs, will normally be expected to be paid at the beginning of the project implementation, i.e. during the 2003/4 financial year.

Northgate has agreed to delay the receipt of the software charges until the start of the 2004/5 financial year, which would allow these costs to be charged against that year’s capital programme. It will, however, be necessary to fund the hardware costs during 2003/04 and, due to slippage in this year’s capital programme, a sum of £30,000 is available to meet those costs. The balance of funding will be the first call on the 2004/05 capital programme.

STAFFING IMPLICATIONS

Following detailed discussions with ICT and departmental staff involved in the implementation of the FMIS, it was concluded that to minimise the pressure on staffing resources, the most appropriate time to implement a new HR system would be to achieve a ‘go live’ in June/July 2004.

A detailed implementation plan is currently being prepared to ensure that potential overlaps with the FMIS implementation will be minimised.

Sections primarily involved in the implementation of this system namely the Finance Payroll, Contract Services Payroll, Personnel and IT Sections have considered the staffing resource implications and are confident that they can resource an implementation plan based on a ‘go live’ date of June/July 2004.

CONSULTATION There are no consultation implications.

Contact Officer: Harold Moses Telephone No.: 01388 816166 ext. 4385 E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Background Papers:

Procurement of a Human Resources Computer System Page3 165 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 166 Item 17

ITEM No.

REPORT TO CABINET

16th October 2003

Report of Chief Executive Officer

Portfolio: Resource Management

CONFERENCES

SUMMARY

To consider the Council’s representation at the following Conferences: - a) Local Government Association Annual Tourism Conference to be held in Manchester on 18th and 19th November 2003. b) Local Government Association Economic Development Conference to be held at Manchester between 17th and 19th November 2003. c) Local Government Association “The future of Planning” Conference to be held in London on Wednesday 12th November 2003 d) Local Government Association Planning for Housing Conference to be held in London on Thursday 20th November 2003

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Council be represented at the Local Government Association Tourism Conference by the appropriate Lead Member together with one other Member and an Officer.

2 That the Council be represented at the Local Government Association Economic Development Conference by the appropriate Lead Member together with one Member and an Officer

3 That the Council be represented at the Local Government Association Future of Planning Conference by the appropriate Lead Member together with one other Member and an Officer

4 That the Council be represented at the Local Government Association Planning for Housing Conference by the appropriate Lead Member together with one other Member and an Officer

DETAIL

1. Members will have noted that the Tourism and Economic Development Conferences will run concurrently. The LGA envisage that delegates will have the opportunity of attending elements of both conference programmes. Additionally some of the conference sessions will be shared and will focus on the role tourism can play in the economy and its contribution to the financial, social and environmental regeneration of an area. Page 167

2. Of course both conferences will, independently, run a wide range of sessions that are dedicated solely to tourism or economic regeneration issues.

3. The Future of Planning Conference will focus on the proposed Government reforms to the land use planning system and the future of the development plan system.

4. In relation to the Planning for Housing Conference this will explore recent key developments in housing/planning policy and major government reviews of housing supply.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

1. The cost of the Local Government Association Tourism Conference is £300 per delegate (excluding travel and subsistence).

2. The cost of the Local Government Association Economic Development Conference is £360 per delegate (excluding travel and subsistence).

3. The cost of the Local Government Association The Future of Planning Conference is £195 per delegate (excluding VAT travel and subsistence).

4. The cost of the Local Government Association Planning for Housing Development Conference is £195 per delegate (excluding VAT travel and subsistence).

CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

Contact Officer: Liz North Telephone No. (01388) 816166 – 4237 Email address [email protected]

Background Papers

Notice from the Local Government Association regarding conferences.

Page 168 Item 18a

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

AREA 1 FORUM

Community Centre, Monday, Tudhoe. 1st September 2003 Time: 6.30 p.m.

Present: Councillor J.M. Khan (Chairman) – Sedgefield Borough Council; and

Councillor A.M Armstrong - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor B. Graham - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor A. Gray - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor B.M. Ord - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor A. Smith - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor C. Sproat - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor K. Thompson - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor E. Foster - Durham County Council M. Fordham - Sedgefield Primary Care Trust G. Wills - Sedgefield Primary Care Trust PC B. Hall - Spennymoor Police Acting Inspector D. Wray - Spennymoor Police F.A. Fleetham - Spennymoor Town Council E. Maddison - Spennymoor Town Council S. Armstrong - Local Resident D. Gordon - Local Resident M. Khan-Willis - Local Resident J. Readman - Local Resident M.I. Robinson - Local Resident D. Saddler - Local Resident M. Smith - Local Resident A. Todd - Local Resident

In Attendance: Miss S. Billingham, Mrs. G. Garrigan, Mrs. C. Hartnell, O. Priestley-Leach and R. Prisk

Apologies: Sedgefield Borough Council Councillors M.T.B. Jones, G.W. Scott and W. Waters

Spennymoor Town Council E. Summerson

Neighbourhood Watch Mrs. E. Croft

AF(1)9/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 9th June 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (For copy see file of Minutes).

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\6\AI00003642\Minutes0.doc 1 Page 169

AF(1)10/03 POLICE REPORT Acting Inspector D. Wray and P.C. B. Hall were present at the meeting to give details of the crime statistics for the Spennymoor area. Copies of the statistics were circulated at the meeting. (For copy see file of Minutes).

It was reported that there had been a significant reduction in dwelling house burglaries and vehicle crime. This was probably the result of the person responsible for a number of the burglaries and vehicle crime being remanded in custody. Specific reference was made to the establishment of an Anti-Social Behaviour Unit and the introduction of four Community Safety Officers to the Division. (Copy of a recent presentation is attached). The Anti-Social Behaviour Unit was currently working in the Shafto Ward and was available to the whole of the division. The Community Safety Officers had the powers to stop, search and detain a perpetrator until the Police arrived and would work shifts between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m.

Concern was expressed regarding the damage caused to flower tubs in the town centre and the graffiti outside Clarence Court, Stratton Street and Victoria Gardens. Questions were raised regarding the coverage of the CCTV, as it was believed there were periods when the cameras were not operational. It was requested that an officer from the Council’s Community Care Force Centre be invited to attend a future meeting of the Forum to give details of the operation and coverage of the CCTV cameras within Spennymoor Town Centre.

Concern was raised over the use of skateboards in the town centre where damage and disruption had also been caused. The police agreed to report residents concerns to PC D. Southern, who was the beat officer for the Town Centre.

AF(1)11/03 SEDGEFIELD PRIMARY CARE TRUST Mrs. Fordham and Mrs. G. Wills were present to give an update on local health matters.

Improving GP services was identified as being a key area and two new part time GP’s had been appointed in Newton Aycliffe and one in the Sedgefield area.

It was explained that the new Health Centre in Spennymoor was going to plan and on 26th November 2003 the preferred bidder would be decided at the PCT Board Meeting. Once a decision had been made the timescale for the completion of the building would be published.

It was noted that two new Directors had been appointed. Alison Learmonth had been appointed as the Director of Public Health, and Charles McCaughey as the Director of Primary Care.

It was explained that Durham Dales, Darlington and Sedgefield PCTs had agreed to jointly spend £450,000 on Orthaepedic operations to

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\6\AI00003642\Minutes0.doc 2 Page 170 reduce the waiting list, £60,000 on E.N.T and £70,000 on Occupational Therapy for Children.

Mrs. Wills outlined some forthcoming events, including a listening event held on 24th September 2003 in Ferryhill Leisure Centre. It would involve the Senior Managers going into the community and listening to clients and take on board any suggestions or problems that arose. The annual report would also be launched on 11th September 2003 at Spennymoor Leisure Centre.

With regard to the new Health Centre for Spennymoor a request was made for x-ray facillities to be provided as patients had to travel to Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield or Durham.

In response to the concern raised over the watiing times, it was explained that Darlington and Bishop Auckland Accident and Emergency did have a good record and that times were monitored. Statistics on waiting times were requested for future meetings.

AF(1)12/03 “KERB IT” RECYCLING SCHEME Oliver Priestley-Leach, Waste Management Officer for Sedgefield Borough Council attended the meeting to give a presentation on the recycling scheme.

It was explained he was a member of the Local Agenda 21 Team. Local Agenda 21 had been launched at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and had been re-named “Local Action 21” following the World Summit on the Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002.

It was explained that each household in County Durham produced around one tonne of waste per year and approximately 60% of that waste could easily be reused or recycled. Sedgefield Borough Council, in partnership with Durham County, Durham City and Chester-le-Street District Council, had secured government funding to introduce “Kerb It”. This was a kerbside recycling scheme for all borough households. He also explained that the scheme had created ten extra jobs in Sedgefield Borough Council.

Every household would receive a 55 litre green kerbside recycling box which would be used for putting their glass bottles and jars, steel and aluminium food and drinks cans, aerosols, newspapers, magazines, telephone directories, catalogues, fliers and envelopes (preferably without a window). Collections would be made fortnightly and would replace the house-to-house paper service. The box would be collected from the edge of the property on a designated collection day. Any extra material would be collected if placed in a box or bag next to the kerb-it bin.

Concerns were raised over the cleaning and crushing of material and although it was suggested that they be cleaned and crushed, it was up to the individual householder.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\6\AI00003642\Minutes0.doc 3 Page 171 The boxes were not supplied with lids but they could be purchased for £1.50. It was explained that if every box had a lid, the collections would take longer, therefore increasing the cost and it did not matter if the material got wet. It was suggested that on a windy day a heavy object be put on top of any material that may blow away. It was hoped that the introduction of the kerbside scheme would increase the amount of material that could be recycled to 7,500 tonnes.

It was reported that over the first month of operation of the scheme approximately 100 tonnes of waste had been recycled.

Questions were raised on whether there was any information available on how to lift the box correctly. It was explained that no information had been produced, however, if any householders were having difficulties, assisted collections were available. It was also reported that home composting was encouraged and a scheme was ongoing in Newton Aycliffe to collect garden waste. It was hoped that the scheme would be rolled out to the rest of the borough.

AF(1)13/03 COMMUNITY STRATEGY Mr. R. Prisk and Mrs. C. Hartnell from Sedgefield Borough Council were present at the meeting to give a presentation on a draft Community Strategy that had been launched that day for consultation.

The vision of the strategy was to make the borough a better place to live and to improve the economic, social and environmental well being of the area. The strategy was important to ensure the delivery of more effective and co-ordinated services and to identify the needs of the service users. It would also identify and prioritise the activities that would be needed to implement the strategy. The strategy had been developed through the Borough’s Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and agreed by the LSP Board in April 2003. The strategy was a ten year vision with clear priorities aimed at addressing the real issues facing the borough and would provide a framework for prioritising actions, deploying resources and monitoring activities.

Specific reference was made to the four key priorities of the strategy which were the promotion of:

♦ A healthy borough ♦ A prosperous borough ♦ An attractive borough and a ♦ Borough with strong communities

It was reported that the next step would involve consultation between local groups, organisations, agencies and the Area Forums. The strategy would be considered at the LSP Annual Conference on 21st November 2003.

An Action Plan Area Framework and a series of plans would be developed and the final strategy would be submitted to the LSP Board in January 2004 for approval. Members were asked to submit any

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\6\AI00003642\Minutes0.doc 4 Page 172 comments they had on the strategy to the Council’s Regeneration Section.

AF(1)14/03 NAMING OF DEVELOPMENT Site of Former North Road Junior School, North Road, Spennymoor Consideration was made to the report of the Building Control Manager regarding a request received from Newton Moor Construction Limited, to name the above development, comprising fourteen dwellings. (For copy see file for minutes.)

Members of the Forum put forward a number of alternative names to those suggested by Spennymoor Town Council and the Ward Councillors and it was agreed that “North School View” would be the most appropriate name for the new development.

AF(1)15/03 QUESTIONS Questions were raised regarding the security lighting on York Hill Estate. It was agreed the ward councillors would look into the problem.

Questions were also raised regarding the introduction of security gates in Middlestone Moor. The Chairman stated he was unsure of current arrangements, but it was noted that he would investigate procedures for dealing with projects within the Forum environment and report back to the next meeting.

AF(1)16/03 DATE OF NEXT MEETING Monday, 27th October 2003, at Byers Green Village Hall, at 6.30 p.m.

______ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Sarah Billingham, Spennymoor (01388) 816166, Ext. 4240

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\6\AI00003642\Minutes0.doc 5 Page 173 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 174 Item 18b

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

AREA 2 FORUM

West Cornforth Tuesday, Community Centre 9th September 2003 Time : 6.30 p.m.

Present: Councillor Mrs. C. Potts (Chairman) - Sedgefield Borough Council and

Councillor B.F. Avery, J.P. - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor Mrs. K. Conroy - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor T.F. Forrest - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor J.E. Higgin - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor A. Hodgson - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor Ms. M. Predki - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor D.A. Newell - Sedgefield Borough Council J. College - Chilton West Residents Association M. Russell - CAVOS D. Bolton - Community Network Councillor A. Denholm - Cornforth Parish Council Councillor L. Ord - Cornforth Parish Council Councillor B. Wilson - Cornforth Parish Council R. Sunman - Cornforth Partnership S. Gater - Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College Councillor J. Chaplin - Ferryhill Town Council Councillor A. Denton - Ferryhill Town Council S. Slaughter - Sedgefield Primary Care Trust A. Wallace - Sedgefield Primary Care Trust

In Attendance: Miss S. Billingham, A. Charlton, Mrs. G. Garrigan, R. Prisk and Ms. T. Rix

Apologies: Councillors G. Morgan and R.A. Patchett – Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor G. Porter – Durham County Council Councillors J. Lee and V. Collinson – Chilton Parish Council

AF(2)9/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 24th June 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (For copy see file of Minutes).

AF(2)10/03 POLICE REPORT PC C. Metcalfe was present at the meeting to give details of crime figures for the Chilton, Ferryhill, West Cornforth and Bishop Middleham areas.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\4\6\AI00003647\Minutes0.doc 1 Page 175

Members noted that the crime statistics were as follows:

June July August Type of Crime 2003 2003 2003 Total Crime 138 146 134

Dwelling Burglary 10 12 12

Vehicle Crime 26 17 5

Criminal Damage 51 53 32

Anti-Social Behaviour/Public Disorder 176 224 201

Domestic Violence 30 41 27

It was noted that the crime statistics for dwelling house burglaries had remained quite stagnant over the previous months. It was pointed out to Members that five arrests had been made regarding some of those burglaries.

Specific reference was made to the establishment of an Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, which was available to the whole of the division. It was reported that although the figures had increased for anti-social behaviour and public disorder, there had been little damage caused to the local schools over the six week school holiday period.

Members were informed that the problem of speeding along Prospect Terrace had been reported to the Police Traffic Management to be re- assessed.

Specific reference was made to funding that had been obtained to purchase pedal cycle lights for cyclists under the age of 16yrs. The lights would be issued at the Community Safety and Crime Prevention events to be held on Wednesday, 17th September 2003, in the Ladder Community House at Ferryhill, between the hours of 5.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m., and on Saturday, 20th September 2003, at Ferryhill Police Station, between the hours of 9.00 a.m. and 12 noon.

AF(2)11/03 SEDGEFIELD PRIMARY CARE TRUST Annie Wallace and Sylvia Slaughter were present to give an update on local health matters.

Members were informed that Sedgefield PCT had produced its annual report and summary financial statements for 2002/03. Copies of the report and ‘Your Health Matters-issue 3’ were available at the meeting.

It was reported that although a one star rating had been achieved, the PCT was in the top band for health improvements. A Group had been

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\4\6\AI00003647\Minutes0.doc 2 Page 176 established to consider what actions the PCT should take to improve services in 2003/04.

It was noted that an open board meeting would be held in the Bar area of Spennymoor Leisure Centre on 11th September 2003 and an Annual Listening Event would also be held on 24th September 2003 in Ferryhill Leisure Centre.

Specific reference was made to ‘Ferry Health,’ a project that gave young people access to health care professionals at Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College.

Questions were raised as to whether there were any plans for GP’s to offer evening appointments. Members were informed that a Group had been established to consider access to health services, including out- of-hour services. It was pointed out that the PCT could work alongside GP’s but could not instruct them on what to do.

With regard to the proposed new Health Centre at Chilton it was reported that the land had not yet been obtained, however negotiations were taking place and it was hoped the issue would soon be resolved.

AF(2)12/03 COMMUNITY STRATEGY R. Prisk and A. Charlton, from Sedgefield Borough Council, were present at the meeting to give a presentation on a draft Community Strategy that had just been launched.

The vision of the Strategy was to make the Borough a better place to live and to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area. The Strategy was important to ensure the delivery of more effective and co-ordinated services and to identify the needs of the service users. It would also identify and prioritise the activities that would be needed to implement the Strategy. The Strategy had been developed through the Borough’s Local Strategic Partnership and agreed by the LSP Board in April 2003. The Strategy was a ten-year vision with clear priorities aimed at addressing the real issue facing the Borough and would provide a framework for prioritising actions, deploying resources and monitoring activities.

Specific reference was made to the four key priorities of the Strategy which were the promotion of:

♦ A healthy borough ♦ A prosperous borough ♦ An attractive borough and a ♦ Borough with strong communities

It was reported that the next step would involve consultation between local groups, organisations, agencies and the Area Forums. The Strategy would be considered at the LSP Annual Conference on 21st November 2003. An action plan area framework and a series of plans

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\4\6\AI00003647\Minutes0.doc 3 Page 177 would be developed and the final strategy would be submitted to the LSP Board in January 2004 for approval.

Members were asked to submit any comments they had on the strategy to the Council’s Regeneration Section.

AF(2)13/03 NAMING OF DEVELOPMENT Site of Former Chilton Primary School, Chilton – Windlestone Homes Consideration was made to the report of the Building Control Manager regarding a request received from Windlestone Homes to name the above development, comprising 21 dwellings (For copy see file of Minutes).

Members of the Forum agreed to forward both ‘Church View’ and ‘Church Close’ as names for the new development.

AF(2)14/03 FUNDING FOR AREA FORUMS It was again requested by the Forum that Sedgefield Borough Council should reconsider the possibility of allocating funds to the Area Forums for environmental improvements.

AF(2)15/03 DATE OF NEXT MEETING Tuesday, 4th November 2003, at 6.30 p.m., at Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College.

______ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Miss S. Billingham on Spennymoor (01388) 816166, Extension 4240.

------Confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman of the meeting held on 4th November 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\4\6\AI00003647\Minutes0.doc 4 Page 178 Item 18c

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

AREA 3 FORUM

Tremeduna Grange, Wednesday Trimdon 17th September 2003 Time 7.00 p.m.

Present: Councillor J. Burton (Chairman) - Sedgefield Borough Council and

Councillor D.R. Brown - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor J. Robinson J.P. - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor J. Wayman J.P. - Sedgefield Borough Council Sergeant S. Trotter - Durham Constabulary A. Workman - Durham County Council, Social Services C. Hubbard - Mayday Group, Fishburn Z. Newton - Mayday Group, Fishburn J. Parkinson - Mordon Parish Meeting Councillor L. Goddard - Sedgefield Town Council Councillor M. Robinson - Sedgefield Town Council R. Pattison - Sedgefield Primary Care Trust P. Irving - Sedgefield Primary Care Trust D. Davison - Social Services Councillor L. Burton - Trimdon Parish Council Councillor R. Passfield - Trimdon Parish Council Councillor B. Thompson - Trimdon Parish Council P. Brookes - Trimdon 2000 S. Connollt - Trimdon 2000 T. Slater - Trimdon 2000 A. Timothy - Trimdon 2000 R. Welsh - Trimdon 2000 J. Bowles - Local resident M. Clare - Local resident D.J. Lightfoot - Local resident P. Lightfoot - Local resident A. Oliver - Local resident D. Hamilton - WEA

In Attendance: Miss. S. Billingham, A. Charlton, A. Inglis, Miss. E. North and D. Scarr

Apologies Councillors Mrs. L. Hovvels, K. Noble and T. Ward (Sedgefield Borough Council) Councillor R. Taylor (Sedgefield Town Council)

AF(3)8/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 9th July 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (For copy see file of Minutes).

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\4\6\AI00003648\Minutes0.doc Page 1791

AF(3)9/03 POLICE REPORT Sergeant Simon Trotter from Durham Constabulary was present at the meeting to give details of the crime figures in the area.

Members noted that the crime statistics were as follows:-

Type of Crime 01JULY – 31 AUG 2002 Youths causing annoyance 33 Burglary –non dwelling 16 Attempt-2 Burglary – dwelling 6 Attempt-0 Crime drugs 3 Theft from motor vehicles 11 Attempt-0 Taking without consent 7 Attempt-0 Taking driving away 1 Vehicle interference 1 Assaults 13 Criminal damage 26

01 JULY –31 AUG Type of crime 2003 Youths causing annoyance 44 Burglary –non dwelling 10 Attempt-0 Burglary – dwelling 5 Attempt-0 Crime drugs 1 Theft from motor vehicles 6 Attempt-1 Taking without consent 9 Attempt-0 Taking driving away 1 Vehicle interference 1 Assaults 15 Criminal damage 28

01 AUG – 01 SEPT Type of crime 2003 Youths causing annoyance 23 Burglary –non dwelling 7 Attempt-0 Burglary – dwelling 1 Attempt-0 Crime drugs 1 Theft from motor vehicles 1 Attempt-0 Taking without consent 3 Attempt-0 Taking driving away 0 Vehicle interference 0 Assaults 8 Criminal damage 16

It was noted that overall crime figures were decreasing. However, it was pointed out that non-dwelling burglaries were up in the previous

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\4\6\AI00003648\Minutes0.doc Page 1802 month. It was reported that information on crime prevention would be available at the end of meeting if Members required it.

Specific reference was made to the establishment of an Anti-Social Behaviour Unit. It was noted that the figures had increased for criminal damage and youths causing annoyance, probably as a result of the school holidays.

Members were informed that a new Domestic Violence Officer, PC Thompson, had recently been introduced to the team.

It was reported that arrests had been made regarding drug crimes. A number of substances had been retrieved as a result of targetting specific properties in the area.

It was noted that a Traffic Data Unit had been set up in the Trimdon Grange and Stockton areas and 63% of the drivers who committed speeding offences were actually from Durham County. Concern was raised regarding the speeding of vehicles on Fishburn Front Street. Members questioned whether a crossing could be introduced to slow vehicles down. The concern was noted and Sergeant Trotter agreed to investigate the proposal.

AF(3)10/03 SEDGEFIELD PRIMARY CARE TRUST Paul Irving from Sedgefield Primary Care Trust was present to give an update on local health matters.

Members were informed that Sedgefield PCT had recently produced its annual report, copies of the report and “Your Health Matters” issue 3, were available at the meeting.

Specific reference was made to the Development of Integrated Teams Programme, which was voluntary agreed to work in partnership between the PCT, Social Services and the Borough Council.

Members noted that the programme would provide access to services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a common location based around local communities. It would provide nursing and social care, accommodation, therapy support, warden services, maintenance support, rehabilitation and intermediate care, and links to voluntary agencies.

The introduction of a Pathway Team would target the Sedgefield, West Cornforth and Trimdon area. It would be sited at Tremeduna Grange, in Trimdon Village, as the property was large enough to take the core team. There would be one Team Leader looking after Health staff, Social Services staff and Council workers. It was hoped that the programme would be in place for May 2004.

It was noted that if further presentations were required at other meetings, members should contact Mr. Irving at Sedgefield PCT.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\4\6\AI00003648\Minutes0.doc Page 1813 AF(3)11/03 COMMUNITY STRATEGY A. Charlton the new Local Strategic Partnership Co-ordinator for Sedgefield Borough, Regeneration Section, was present at the meeting to give a presentation on a draft Community Strategy that had just been launched.

The Strategy was a ten-year vision with clear priorities aimed at addressing the real issues facing the Borough, and would provide a framework for prioritising actions, deploying resources and monitoring activities.

Specific reference was made to the four key priorities of the Strategy which were the promotion of:

• A healthy borough • A prosperous borough • An attractive borough and a • Borough with strong communities

It was reported that the next step would involve consultations between local groups, organisations, agencies and Area Forums. The Community Strategy would be considered at the LSP Annual Conference on 21st November 2003.

An Action Plan, Area Frameworks and a series of plans would be developed and the final Strategy would be submitted to the LSP Board in January 2004 for approval. Members were asked to submit any comments they had on the Strategy to the Council’s Regeneration Section.

AF(3)12/03 NAMING OF DEVELOPMENT – SITE OF FORMER COUNTY COUNCIL DEPOT, RECTORY ROW, SEDGEFIELD – HARLEQUIN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Consideration was made to a report of the Building Control Manager regarding a request received from Harlequin Developments Limited to name the above development, comprising four dwellings. (For copy see file of Minutes).

It was noted that Members of the Forum agreed to forward ‘Burton Mews’ as a name for the new development.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\4\6\AI00003648\Minutes0.doc Page 1824 AF(3)13/03 DATE OF NEXT MEETING To be arranged.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Sarah Billingham on Spennymoor 816166, Ext 4240

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\4\6\AI00003648\Minutes0.doc Page 1835 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 184 Item 18d

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

AREA 4 FORUM

Hackworth Suite, Shildon Sunnydale Leisure Centre, Tuesday, Shildon. 23rd September 2003 Time : 6.00 p.m.

Present: Councillor D.M. Hancock (Sedgefield Borough Council) (Chairman) and

Inspector P. Curtis - Durham Constabulary P.C.A. Lawton - Durham Constabulary M. Straugheir - Durham Constabulary Councillor K. Henderson - Durham County Council Councillor J. Quigley - Durham County Council J. Stephenson - Durham County Council Councillor H. Robinson - Eldon Parish Council J. Johnson - New Shildon Residents Association Councillor J.M. Howe - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor J.G. Huntington - Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor Mrs.I. Jackson Smith - Sedgefield Borough Council K. Vasey - Sedgefield PCT Councillor J. Bird - Shildon Town Council Councillor L. Goldie - Shildon Town Council Councillor J. Thompson - Shildon Town Council M. Quigley - SPICE N. Clarkson - Local Resident B.C. Hind - Local Resident L. Merryweather - Local Resident V. Merryweather - Local Resident J. Smith - Local Resident J.R. Ward - Local Resident

In I. Brown, A. Charlton, Mrs. G. Garrigan and D. Scarr Attendance: (Sedgefield Borough Council)

Apologies: Councillors J.M. Smith and Mrs. L. Smith (Sedgefield Borough Council)

AF(4).11/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (For copy see file of Minutes).

AF(4).12/03 POLICE REPORT P.C. A. Lawton was present at the meeting to give details of the crime statistics.

Members noted that the crime statistics for August were as follows:

Page 185

August Type of Crime 2003 Youths causing annoyance 28

Thefts 15

Burglaries (Other) Non 1 dwellinghouse

Burglaries (Commercial) 2

Attempted Burglaries (Shed) 1

Dwellinghouse burglary 10

Assaults 4

Criminal Damage 23

Thefts from Motor Vehicles 17

Motor Vehicle Thefts 4

Arson 3

Members noted that P.C. Lawton had checked the police records relating to dwellinghouse burglaries and had ascertained that the majority of the burglaries were the result of a window being left open and the thief reaching inside the property. The Forum was warned not to leave any valuables in the vicinity of open windows.

With regard to Domestic Violence, it was noted that there had been 20 incidents of Domestic Violence in Shildon in August, compared with 23 for Ferryhill. Members noted that a new Domestic Violence Co-ordinator had just been appointed and arrangements would be made for her to attend a future meeting of the Forum.

With regard to the form that P.C. Lawton and Mrs. B. Gardner had compiled to provide information to private landlords regarding prospective tenants, it was noted that officers at police headquarters were happy with the format of the form. It was, however, pointed out that under the Data Protection Act, the police were unable to provide private landlords directly with information. They would need to work in partnership with the Council in order to supply the information. The suggestion was made that the Council should appoint a dedicated officer within its Tenancy Enforcement Unit who would have responsibility for liaising with private landlords and the police.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\4\6\AI00003649\Minutes0.doc 2 Page 186 AF(4).13/03 B6282 AUCKLAND TERRACE/BUSTY BANK, SHILDON Concern was expressed that a number of motorists still persisted in driving at inappropriate and sometimes unlawful speeds on the above road.

It was reported that Durham County Council had in recent years implemented a range of traffic calming measures on the above road. The measures included a 40 m.p.h. buffer zone on the bank itself, ‘ripple print’ rumble strips together with a number of improvements and enhancements to signs and carriageway markings. The portable ‘speed visor’ sign had also been used with some effect on the location and the site remained on the rota for future use.

Durham Constabulary also policed the site and had held a number of speeding campaigns on the bank. It was noted that arrangements would be made to place a traffic data unit on the bank in the near future to check vehicle speeds.

It was noted that the topography of the site i.e. on a relatively steep hill and the fact that it was a ‘B’ road used by buses, made it unsuitable for conventional traffic calming. Speed humps, cushions and chicanes could all be dangerous on the bank in winter conditions.

It was also pointed out that the accident statistics for the road had been checked and during the past five years, there had only been four accidents, none of which related to excess speed.

Members requested that the police should prosecute those drivers caught speeding rather than issuing warnings.

AF(4).14/03 SEDGEFIELD PRIMARY CARE TRUST Copies of the latest newsletter “Your Health Matters” issued by Sedgefield Primary Care Trust were circulated at the meeting for the Forum’s information.

The newsletter included articles a on national project being run by the PCT to reduce falls in older people, the action being taken to improve the Trust’s star rating and the launch of the new Sure Start Scheme for Shildon and Newton Aycliffe West.

AF(4).15/03 OLDER PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING – WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PRIVATE LANDLORDS D. Scarr and I. Brown from the Council’s Housing Department attended the meeting to give presentation regarding the above.

It was reported that the private rented sector of the Housing market had grown significantly over the past ten years. Within the Borough, 6% of the housing stock (1,600 properties) were owned by approximately 450 private landlords. In Shildon, 100 private landlords owned 160 properties. A large number of the privately rented properties were terraced properties, built before 1919.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\4\6\AI00003649\Minutes0.doc 3 Page 187 It was noted that the Borough Council had a statutory duty to ensure that properties were secure and over the past six months 58 notices had been served on private landlords in respect of properties that were open for unauthorised access across the Borough and 6 in Shildon.

With regard to the condition of the properties in the private rented sector, it was noted that there was legislation to deal with the issue of fitness or unfitness, however there was no legislation relating to decency standards.

It was reported that private landlords were not legally responsible for the actions of tenants. It was up to the victim of any nuisance to take action against the perpetrator – Smith –v- Scott 1973. That case law also established that a landlord did not owe a duty of care to neighbours when selecting tenants.

Residents encountering problems relating to noise nuisance from neighbours were advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health Department as officers may be able to take action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. With regard to problems of harassment and anti-social behaviour, the police and the Council’s Community Safety Department should be contacted.

Specific reference was made to the Government’s proposed Housing bill that would address the following issues:

■ Licensing of houses in multiple occupation. ■ Selective licensing of landlords in low demand areas ■ Housing Health and Safety rating system

With regard to selective licensing, it was explained that local authorities would need to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to implement a registration scheme for a low demand area. The scheme was currently being piloted in five areas within the country, Hartlepool being one of the areas.

It was also reported that the Government was proposing to introduce legislation to simplify the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.

It was noted that the Borough Council had established a Private Landlords Forum, however, there was no statutory requirement for a private landlord to be a member of the Forum. Only 22 private landlords within the Borough were currently members of the Forum.

With regard to the proposal put forward by P.C. Lawton, it was noted that a meeting would be arranged between the Council’s Community Safety Officer and the Police to discuss how the Community Safety Section could take the issue forward.

The Forum was informed of the measures that the Council was taking to address the fall in demand for the pre 1919 terraced housing. They included: Group Repair Schemes, Clearance Schemes involving

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\4\6\AI00003649\Minutes0.doc 4 Page 188 Compulsory Purchase and the establishment of a Home Improvement Agency.

Specific reference was also made to the work being done to address the issues of housing market failure in the former coalfields area within the Districts of Durham, Easington and Wear Valley. It was explained that within each settlement, there was usually an area typically comprising pre 1919 terrace or social housing displaying severe symptoms of market failure. Application was being made to English Partnership for grant aid to address the problems.

Concern was expressed regarding the problem with rats in Sunnydale Shildon. It was agreed that the matter would be referred to the Council’s Environmental Health Department.

Concern was also expressed regarding tenants being allowed to transfer to other Council properties within the Borough when the condition of their property/garden was not considered satisfactory. It was pointed out that the Council’s Housing Officers did inspect properties before tenants were allowed to transfer, however, the Council had very few grounds on which to refuse transfer.

It was pointed out that it was a very onerous procedure to evict a secure tenant. The Council needed to have very detailed and accurate evidence to convince a judge that the tenant had been given a number of opportunities to either pay the outstanding rent and/or rectify the condition of the property.

It was proposed that the Borough Housing Officer should be invited to a future meeting of the Forum to explain the Council’s housing allocation and management procedures.

AF(4).16/03 COMMUNITY STRATEGY A. Charlton – Sedgefield Borough LSP Co-ordinator was present at the meeting to give a presentation on the draft Community Strategy that had been launched for consultation.

The vision of the Strategy was to make the Borough a better place to live and to improve the economic social and environmental wellbeing of the area. The Strategy was important to ensure the delivery of more effective and co-ordinated services and to identify the needs of service users. It would also identify and prioritise those activities that would be needed to implement the Strategy.

The Strategy had been developed through the Borough’s Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and agreed by the LSP Board in April 2003. The Strategy was a 10 year vision, with clear priorities aimed at addressing the real issues facing the Borough and would provide a framework for prioritising actions, deploying resources and monitoring activities.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\4\6\AI00003649\Minutes0.doc 5 Page 189 Specific reference was made to the four key priorities of the Strategy which were the promotion of:

■ A healthy Borough ■ A prosperous Borough ■ An attractive Borough and ■ A Borough with strong communities

The Strategy would be considered at the LSP Annual Conference on 21st November 2003. An Action Plan Framework and a series of Annual Plans would be developed and the final Strategy would be submitted to the LSP Board in January 2004 for approval.

The Forum was asked to submit any comments they had on the Strategy to the Council’s Regeneration Section.

It was noted that Shildon Community Forum would meet on Thursday 6th November 2003 between 10.00 and 12 noon at Jubilee Fields Community Centre to consider the Strategy. All residents of Shildon were invited to attend the Forum meeting and have their say.

AF(4).17/03 STREET CLEANSING Concern was expressed regarding the number and size of weeds growing along the two main thoroughfares of Shildon. The Chairman reported that the matter had already been referred to the Council’s Environmental Services Department.

Concern was also expressed regarding the height of some trees in Shildon. It was reported that the Shildon Housing Office had arranged for a number of trees to be pruned at the end of October 2003.

AF(4).18/03 REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES Specific reference was made to the proposed establishment of directly elected Regional Assemblies, and the request was made that the general public be given information on the costs of the various options for the establishment of unitary authorities for County Durham, prior to a referendum being held.

It was explained that the Boundary Committee for England was currently undertaking an independent review of local government structures and would recommend the most effective unitary structure for the region. Until its recommendations were known, costs could not be estimated.

AF(4).19/03 DATE OF NEXT MEETING Tuesday 18th November 2003 at 6.30 p.m. at Shildon Sunnydale Leisure Centre. ______ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Gillian Garrigan , Spennymoor 816166, Ext. 4237

------Confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman of the meeting held on 18th November 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\4\6\AI00003649\Minutes0.doc 6 Page 190

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\4\6\AI00003649\Minutes0.doc 7 Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 192 Item 18e

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

AREA 5 FORUM

Town Council Offices, School Aycliffe Lane, Tuesday Newton Aycliffe. 30th September 2003 Time : 6.30 p.m.

Present: Councillor J.K. Piggott (Chairman) – Sedgefield Borough Council and

Councillor Mrs. B.A. Clare – Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor V. Crosby – Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor M.A. Dalton – Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor A.M. Gray – Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor G.C. Gray. – Sedgefield Borough Council Councillor B Hall – Sedgefield Borough Council Mrs. D. Bowman – Dales Residents Association Sergeant E. Turner – Durham Constabulary Inspector K. Tuck – Durham Constabulary Councillor Mrs. M. Gray, – Great Aycliffe Town Council Councillor Mrs. M. Dalton – Great Aycliffe Town Council Councillor Mrs. S. Matilik – Great Aycliffe Town Council Mr. N. Porter – Sedgefield Primary Care Trust Mrs. A. Clarke – Sedgefield Primary Care Trust

In Attendance A. Charlton, Miss L. Moore, Miss E. A. North and R.J. Prisk (Sedgefield Borough Council)

Apologies Councillors W.M. Blenkinsopp, Mrs. J. Croft, Mrs. A.M. Fleming, R.S. Fleming, K. Henderson, M. Iveson, J.P. Moran and Mrs. E.M. Paylor

Great Aycliffe Town Council Councillor Mrs. S.J. Iveson

AF(5)15/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 29th July 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

AF(5)16/03 POLICE REPORT Sergeant E. Turner and Inspector K. Tuck were present at the meeting to update Members on crime statistics within Sedgefield Borough. The statistics used were for month ending August 2003.

It was explained that total crime had increased in comparison to the same month in 2002. Figures had shown that there had been an increase in crime in July but there had been a slight decrease in August.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\5\6\AI00003650\Minutes0.doc 1 Page 193 Vehicle crime remained the same as the previous year.

It was noted that the figures for criminal damage had decreased by 20% compared to the same month in 2002. Specific reference was made to 41 cars which had had tyres slashed and a group of Peugeot cars which had petrol tanks damaged. This case was still ongoing. It was brought to the Forum’s attention that two garages in the Simpasture Ward had been damaged and another empty garage filled with tyres. Measures had been implemented to try and prevent this.

There had been a 12% increase in relation to anti-social behaviour. An Anti-Social Team had been set up to help reduce the problem. Since the implementation of this Team, anti-social behaviour had reduced by 20%. Sergeant Turner suggested the statistics could be showing an increase as a result of more crimes being reported rather than an actual increase in crime.

It was perceived that the level of alcohol consumption had an effect on anti-social behaviour. It was explained that a system was to be implemented to help combat low level anti-social behaviour. This would include contacting the parents of youths carrying out anti-social behaviour.

It was noted that there had been an increase in domestic violence. There had been a campaign in relation to this matter, making people more confident to report incidents. The increase in figures could be as a result of this.

Discussion was also held regarding motorcycles and quad bikes being driven ”off road” on such places as School playing fields and public footpaths. It was noted that it was an offence.

AF(5)17/03 SEDGEFIELD PCT – PROGRESS UPDATE N. Porter and Mrs. A. Clark were present at the meeting to provide an update on various initiatives.

Reference was made to alcohol, not only having an effect on anti-social behaviour, but also health matters. It was noted that the issue needed to be addressed by Health Authorities and schools to ensure children were given the best guidance.

Members of the Forum were informed that Sedgefield PCT had produced its annual report and summary financial statement for 2002/03. Copies of “Your Health Matters” were also available at the meeting.

It was reported that although the PCT had achieved a one star rating, GP access had improved and was now meeting a target of almost 100%.

Reference was made to a “Your Health Roadshow” which was to take place on the 17th October at Aycliffe Leisure Centre. This would

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\5\6\AI00003650\Minutes0.doc 2 Page 194 provide free health advice as well as information relating to energy efficiency, Police and Fire Service, plus a variety of other issues.

AF(5)18/03 COMMUNITY STRATEGY R. Prisk and A. Charlton, from Sedgefield Borough Council, were present at the meeting to give a presentation on a draft Community Strategy that had just been launched.

The vision of the Strategy was to improve environmental, social and economic wellbeing and to make the Borough a better place to live. It would play an important part of delivering a more effective and co-ordinated service and would identify the needs of service users.

The Strategy was a ten year vision with clear priorities, aimed at addressing the real issues facing the Borough and would provide a framework for prioritising actions, deploying resources and monitoring activities. Reference was made to the four priorities of the Strategy. These were to promote:

♦ a healthy Borough ♦ a prosperous Borough ♦ an attractive Borough ♦ a Borough with strong communities

It was noted that the Strategy was to be considered at the LSP Annual Conference on the 21st November 2003 and the final Strategy would be submitted to the LSP Board in early 2004 for approval.

Members questioned how achievable the Strategy was. It was commented that it could be seen as aspirational and the success of the Strategy should be considered through regular monitoring and reporting. The Strategy had gone through an extensive consultation process in its preparation.

AF(5)19/03 DATE OF NEXT MEETING Noted that the next meeting was to be held on 2nd December 2003 at 6.30 p.m.

______ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Lynsey Moore , Spennymoor 816166, Ext. 4237

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\5\6\AI00003650\Minutes0.doc 3 Page 195

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\0\5\6\AI00003650\Minutes0.doc 4 Page 196 Item 19a

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 2

Council Chamber, Council Offices, Tuesday Spennymoor. 16th September 2003 Time: 10.00 a.m.

Present: Councillor J.G. Huntington (Chairman)

Councillors D.R. Brown, Mrs. J. Croft, M.A. Dalton, J.E. Higgin, J.M. Khan, J.P. Moran, G.W. Scott and T. Ward

Tenant Representative M. Thomson

In Attendance: Councillors Mrs. A.M. Armstrong, Mrs. B.A. Clare, R.S. Fleming, Mrs. B. Graham, A. Gray, D.M. Hancock, M. Iveson, Mrs. I. Jackson Smith, B. Meek, G. Morgan, Mrs. E.M. Paylor, J.K. Piggott, J. Robinson J.P. and J. Wayman, J.P.

Apologies: Councillors J. Burton, Mrs. A.M. Fleming, T.F. Forrest and J.M. Smith

Tenant Representative C. Ridley

OSC(2)7/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meetings held on 9th July and 27th August 2003 were confirmed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

OSC(2)8/03 ANNUAL REPORT OF SEDGEFIELD PCT Mr. N. Porter, Chief Executive, Sedgefield PCT, attended the meeting to give a presentation regarding the above.

Copies of the Sedgefield Primary Care Trust Annual Report and Summary Financial Statements 2002/03, together with Issue 3 of ‘Your Health Matters’ were circulated at the meeting for Members’ information. (For copies see file of Minutes).

It was explained that Sedgefield Primary Care Trust was responsible for the health of the population of the Sedgefield Borough area. It had the power to develop, buy and provide services for its resident population. During the year 2002/03 the Trust had a budget of £92M to fund health and free nursing care, of which £56M had been used for hospital services.

The Trust aimed to make Sedgefield a healthier place to live, work and bring up a family, and to achieve that aim, it had developed four main ‘pillars’ to support the development of the organisation.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 1971 They were:

(1) To get closer to the public. To ensure that the residents of the Sedgefield Borough area have a sense of ownership of their local health services and have the opportunity to be involved in their development.

(2) To improve local health services. To invest in primary care by developing community services and by improving the way the Trust buys services from organisations that provide them.

(3) Bring services together across Sedgefield. To integrate health and social care services and some Borough Council services to deal with the sometimes complex needs of older people.

(4) To improve the health of people in local communities. To develop and expand health promotion services.

With regard to Pillar 1 - Getting closer to the public, it was pointed out that the Trust was aware that service quality could only be improved if it welcomed local views about its services and listened carefully to what people have to say about them.

The Trust produced a quarterly newsletter to let the public know what it was doing, held an annual listening event where the PCT Board listened to issues raised by local people as well as open board meetings.

Other key elements of the Trust’s communication strategy included the production of a user friendly patient prospectus, which had been recently highlighted by the Department of Health as an example of good practice, and the development of a Patient Advice and Liaison Service, (PALS) and the Expert Patient Programme. The latter involved training lay volunteers to provide courses to help people cope with chronic problems.

With regard to Pillar 2 - Improving health services, it was emphasised that the Trust was committed to developing locally based services to meet the needs of local people. Reference was made to some of the Trust’s key achievements over the past year that included the opening of Sedgefield Community Hospital in June 2002, the significant improvements in child and adolescent mental health services and the establishment of coronary heart disease clinics in GP practices.

With regard to primary care developments, it was reported that out of the 11 GP practices in the Sedgefield PCT area, five practices had achieved the Quality Practice Award by March 2003.

The Committee was also informed that over the past twelve months the Trust had re-designed its systems for dealing with complaints and had

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 1982 produced a leaflet to encourage people to complain and give the Trust feedback about its services.

With regard to Pillar 3 - Bringing services together, reference was made to the Trust’s aim of creating integrated services so that users and their carers could easily access and receive relevant services. Integrated service teams were being developed, comprising of Community Based Health, Social Services and Housing staff in the five sub-areas of the Borough.

Members were also given details of the ‘Ferryhealth’ project that gave young people access to health care professionals at Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College, and the services developed under the Sure Start Programmes.

Specific reference was made to the Trust’s proposals to develop a network of health resource centres as part of the Tees Valley and South Durham LIFT Strategic Service Development Plan. The centres would provide surgical facilities to support improvements in minor surgery, facilities for diagnostic techniques, NHS dentistry and community dentistry as well as flexible resources for community nursing and allied health professionals.

With regard to Pillar 4 - Improving the health of people in local communities, it was noted that although the health of people living in the Sedgefield area had shown a gradual improvement, there was still some major health inequalities in the area. Out of the 22 electoral wards in the Sedgefield PCT area, five wards were amongst the most deprived 10% in England, and when the health element was considered separately, the figure rose to 15 wards.

The Committee was given details of activities that were being undertaken to improve health and increase life expectancy, including smoking cessation support services, healthy eating projects and mental health promotions.

The PCT was well aware of the fact that it could not tackle health inequalities and deprivation on its own, it had to work in partnership with other organisations to make a real and lasting difference to the health of local people.

It was pointed out that Sedgefield PCT had been rated as one star, which was not as high as it would have liked, as one of the key targets in respect of patients having access to a GP in 48 hours had not been met on the day in March when the Trust had been judged. A Group had been established to consider what actions the PCT could take to improve services for 2003/04.

Concern was expressed regarding the GP services offered to the Whitehouse Sheltered Accommodation Unit, particularly the fact that there was not a female G.P. to visit the female residents. It was pointed out that the PCT did not have a gender policy regarding the

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 1993 appointment of doctors to practices. It was also reported that there was a shortage of GP’s nationally, and the PCT was currently looking at ways to attract GP’s to the area and had recently appointed an Italian Doctor.

With regard to Bishop Auckland Hospital, the comment was made that the internal waiting rooms lacked natural light and air conditioning. Mr. Porter reported that as Sedgefield PCT commissioned services from Bishop Auckland Hospital, he would raise the matter with Officers of the Hospital Trust.

Concern was also expressed regarding the difficulties faced in trying to see a particular doctor, as appointments could often only be made three days in advance. It was reported that the PCT was addressing the problem through the development of the National Primary Care Collaborative Quality Improvement Project. The project was about supporting GP practices to improve access and coronary heart disease management, as well as looking at capacity and demand issues between primary and secondary care providers. Four practices had become part of the project and it was anticipated that by the end of the year the number would have been extended to eight.

Concern was also expressed regarding the audiology service and the time patients had to wait between various examinations to eventually obtain a hearing aid. Mr. Porter agreed to make enquiries to ascertain if any improvements could be made.

With regard to the promotion of healthy eating, it was pointed out that not all schools within the borough were offering healthy options for their school lunches. The Chief Executive agreed to bring the matter to the attention of the school nurses.

AGREED: That the information be received.

OSC(2)9/03 OUTCOME OF STOCK OPTIONS APPRAISAL STUDY – DELIVERING THE PREFERRED OPTION Ian Brown from Housing Department attended the meeting to give an update on the delivery of the proposed option.

Members were reminded that Council, at its meeting on 12th September 2003, had agreed that Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) was the preferred option for the future delivery of the ownership and management of the Council’s housing.

It was explained that in order to deliver that option, the Council must submit its option appraisal study for formal signing off to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by 9th October 2003, and an expression of interest for the 2004 LSVT Round by mid-October 2003, with the full application being submitted by mid-December 2003. Access to the Transfer Round was ‘selective’, based upon a range of factors, however no authority had yet been refused access to the round.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 2004 It was reported that the Transfer Guidance, issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, set out 21 key data requirements that needed to be included in the application form. The information required included:

• Decent Homes Delivery Plan. • Value for Money Assessment of LSVT. • Details of how tenants would be involved in the development of the LSVT proposal. • Demand information. • Details on how the LSVT would contribute to wider regeneration. • Corporate impact assessment, including a change management plan. • Details on how the Council would deliver its strategic and statutory housing functions. • Details on how the new landlord would be chosen and how tenants would be involved. • Liaison details with the Housing Corporation on the transfer. • Details on how the transfer would strengthen tenant participation arrangements. • Investment plan for Asset Management standard. • Details of the programme of Best Value Reviews that would be undertaken post transfer. • Details of a rent restructuring plan and the transfer price. • Details of monitoring arrangements for the delivery of promises to tenants. • Details of proposed use of the useable receipt.

The Council would be notified in March 2004 on whether it had gained access to the 2004 LSVT Round. If it had gained access, transfer must take place by March 2006. The average timescale for a transfer was twelve to eighteen months from being given access to the round. Formal consultation on the transfer could not begin until confirmation on access to the LSVT Round had been received.

The role of the Borough Councillors in delivering the preferred option would be to monitor the development and delivery of the project and ensure that the Council influenced and informed the development of the new landlord and its business plans.

Borough Councillors would also be chosen to represent the Council on the Shadow Board and subsequently the full Board of the new landlord and would monitor the delivery of promises made to tenants.

It was pointed out that the Council would need to formally appoint an Independent Tenants Adviser and financial consultants and develop a

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 2015 business plan for the next thirty years that would include investment details. A contract between the Council and the new landlord would need to be developed, as well as a new Tenancy Agreement and formal offer to the tenants.

With regard to the choice of type of landlord, it was noted that the Council could choose from the following:

• A local housing company that was identifiable as part of Sedgefield Borough. • Not for profit Company. • Charitable organisation. • Industrial Provident Society.

The landlord could also be part of an existing group structure or part of a larger group where the stock would be absorbed or a “stand alone” independent Sedgefield Borough based local housing company.

It was noted that prior to the tenants being balloted, extensive consultation must be undertaken if a successful outcome was to be achieved. The consultation would involve the issue of newsletters, public meetings, the setting up of a mobile exhibition unit showing the types of work to be undertaken, and front line staff briefings.

It was pointed out that tenants would receive a copy of the offer document prior to the ballot taking place. The offer document would contain promises on tenants’ rights, rents, repairs and improvements, representation and regeneration. The promises must be deliverable and progress must be monitored. The actual ballot would be independently run and a simple majority of tenants voting was required for the transfer to proceed. Contingency plans would be drawn up should the ballot of tenants not be in favour of LSVT.

AGREED: That clarification be sought from Cabinet on what the future role of Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2 would be in delivering the LSVT option.

OSC(2)10/03 CLOSURE OF ELDERLY CARE HOMES Members were reminded that Scrutiny Committee 1 had established in October 2002, a Sub-Committee to undertake an indepth review of the proposed closure of Durham County Council Care Homes, using Hackworth House, Shildon, as a case study and the impact of the proposals on the care of the community.

It was reported that since then, Durham County Council had taken the decision to close a number of homes and to develop six new extra care housing schemes, one in every District Council area. An Extra Care Housing Scheme had already opened in Crook, for Wear Valley District Council area, and work had begun on the development of an Extra

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 2026 Care Housing Scheme on the site of the former Moor Grange Home in Middlestone Moor.

It was suggested that in view of the Durham County Council’s decision, the Committee may wish to change the scope and remit of the Policy Review Group to consider the accommodation, care and support needs of older people within the Borough.

AGREED: 1. That a Policy Review Group be established to review the accommodation, care and support needs of older people.

2. That Councillors J.M. Khan, M.A. Dalton and G.W. Scott, and Mary Thomson, become members of the Group.

3. That those members of Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2 who were not present at the meeting, be given the opportunity to join the Group.

______

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Gillian Garrigan on Spennymoor (01388) 816166, Ext. 4237.

------Confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman of the meeting held on 28th October 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\6\AI00003652\Minutes0.doc Page 2037 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 204 Item 19b

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 3

Conference Room 1, Council Offices, Tuesday, Spennymoor. 30th September 2003 Time: 10.00 a.m.

Present: Councillor A.M. Gray (Chairman) and

Councillors Mrs. B.A. Clare, B. Hall, B.M. Ord, R.A. Patchett, J.K. Piggott, Mrs. L. Smith, Mrs. C. Sproat and J. Wayman, J.P.

In Attendance: Councillors Mrs. K. Conroy, Mrs. J. Croft, G.C. Gray, D.M. Hancock, J.E. Higgin, A. Hodgson, J.G. Huntington, Mrs. I. Jackson Smith, J.M. Khan, B. Meek, G. Morgan, Mrs. E. Paylor and Ms. M. Predki

Apologies: Councillors Mrs. L. Hovvels, M.T.B. Jones, Mrs. C. Potts and A. Smith

SC(3)3/03 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 15th July 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

SC(3)4/03 FLY TIPPING POLICY The Committee was reminded that consideration had been given to issues in relation to fly tipping at the meeting of Scrutiny Committee 3 on 22nd April 2003. At that meeting it had been agreed that a progress report be given after a six month period.

The main issues identified had been in relation to the dumping of tyres and large-scale commercial fly tipping. In particular, who was responsible for control.

It had been considered that large-scale commercial fly tipping should be dealt with by the Environment Agency.

A trial scheme had been set up in Derwentside and Wansbeck in an attempt to reduce fly tipping and the trial had been a success.

The Environment Agency was suggesting the appointment of an officer who would work for the Environment Agency and would be based within the County. He would be responsible for dealing with enforcement.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 1 Page 205 The Local Authorities would contribute towards the cost of this Enforcement Officer and would be responsible for collecting and disposing of the rubbish, taking photographs, etc., and informing the Environment Agency.

During discussion of this item, reference was made to the role of the Enforcement Officer and whether one Officer for the whole of County Durham would be sufficient to deal with the issues. It was queried whether it would be more effective if this Authority was responsible for dealing with its own fly tipping and given financial support.

The Committee also considered what the options were for dumping tyres legally and the processes and costs involved.

There was a need for the Council to work together with the Environment Agency and other Local Authorities in an attempt to deal with the issues.

The Committee was of the opinion that there were concerns in relation to the provision of a county-wide Enforcement Officer, the effectiveness and why resources could not be given to the Borough to deal with the issues internally.

It was noted that firm proposals would have been drawn up by January and it was suggested that further consideration be given to the proposal at that time.

RECOMMENDED: That further consideration be given to the proposals for a County-wide Enforcement Officer when firm proposals had been drawn up.

SC(3)5/03 PEST CONTROL – BEST VALUE REPORT Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Housing and Environmental Health in relation to the Pest Control Service. (For copy see file of Minutes).

It was noted that the Best Value Review had shown that the current in-house service provided by Sedgefield Borough was valued and appreciated by Members and the general public alike.

However, in the changing climate of how public services operated, i.e. concessionary services that are being operated as a commercial enterprise, certain aspects could be changed for the benefit of the Authority and domestic and commercial clients. Any suggested changes for service improvement should be undertaken to incorporate the existing establishment.

It was explained that the Pest Control Service within Sedgefield Borough was provided by a small multi-functional team, whose other duties included Dog Warden services, dealing with enquiries about

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 2 Page 206 abandoned vehicles, etc. In addition, as a result of the large number of requests for treatment, in respect of bees and wasps, etc., in the summer, a part time operative was employed for a three month period.

The main focus of the service had been aimed at dealing with domestic premises. This service was currently provided free of charge to the public. Requests from commercial sector are charged at £25.00 per hour, plus materials, plus VAT.

Additionally, Sedgefield Borough also undertake a three month sewer treatment on behalf of Northumbrian Water, for which the Council receives £11,000 per annum. For 2003/04, however, the Water Authority were proposing to carry out the work using their own employees.

The report summarised the types and numbers of enquiries which had been dealt with over the past few years.

Under Best Value Review, the service had to be subject to the 4C’s, i.e. challenge, consult, compare and compete in order to establish a need for the service and how its performance compared to other service providers, both in the public and private sectors.

It was explained that currently there was no legal requirement for Local Authorities to provide a comprehensive Pest Control Service to the public or for the commercial enterprises. However, a number of pieces of legislation existed which placed a duty on Local Authorities in respect of certain aspects of Pest Control.

Pest Control was perceived as a high priority by the public and was verified in the Environmental Health “Best Value Review” when the survey showed that pest control was perceived as being the second most important service provided by the Environmental Health Section.

Customer satisfaction survey forms which were issued to clients every quarter, found that the overwhelming number of respondents believed that the service was good or excellent.

When the Environmental Health Best Value Review was undertaken, stakeholders were consulted and a survey undertaken by Norma Wilburn Associates. The vast majority of respondents believed that the Pest Control Service should be provided in-house. A vast majority opted to retain the free service but 20% advocated that those who would benefit from the service should pay for it.

For those who responded positively, most were in favour of public health pests remaining free of charge, but charges should be made for the treatment of other pests. Almost 66% of people were in favour of providing concessions to special groups, with 56% stating that no charge should be made to these groups.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 3 Page 207 It had proved difficult to compare the service with other Local Authorities, as there was a lack of commitment or ability for other providers to accurately record or share information for comparison purposes.

Consequently, Sedgefield Borough initiated a North East Pest Control Benchmarking Club. 11 Authorities provided information relating to the service. The report outlined the number of employees in the service, the number of requests received, the number of visits generated, the charge for domestic premises, the charge for commercial premises and the unit cost of rodent treatment and the unit cost of other pest treatment. The report also identified response times.

The results showed that only three authorities, of the eleven, including Sedgefield, provided a Pest Control Service, free of charge, for all domestic clients. Only four Authorities had completion times and only Sedgefield Borough were able to provide the percentage of enquiries completed within target.

Difficulty had also been found in comparing cost/charges, as this Authority with those in the private sector to establish how competitive the service was in relation to the public and private sectors. Those which had provided information were detailed in the report.

Although the current focus of the service was aimed at the domestic market, and was currently free of charge to those clients, there was no doubt that with additional resources, Sedgefield Borough could actively compete alongside private sector companies to increase revenue from the commercial sector.

There were three options identified in relation to the development of the service:-

♦ All Pest Control treatments being rechargeable. ♦ Pest Control treatments rechargeable with certain treatments free. ♦ Increase revenue from the commercial sector.

The advantages and disadvantages of each of those options were outlined.

In relation to recharging for all treatments, the demand for the service could be reduced as the public would opt to treat the problem themselves or choose to ignore it, and this could promote or hinder the growth of pest populations.

In relation to treatments rechargeable, with certain treatments being free, a service where pests of a public health significance, such as rats, mice, cockroaches, etc., could still be treated free of charge but the treatment of other non-public health significant pests, such as wasps, beetles, etc. could be charged for. There would be less concern with this option over increasing pest populations but obviously the amount of income would be reduced.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 4 Page 208 In respect of increasing revenue from the commercial sector, it was considered that the Local Authority could expand the service and actively compete with the private sector of the pest control business. The current resources, however, would not allow for an increase in commercial work and there would be an increase in administration costs. Increased revenue could, however, be offset against the cost of providing a free, or partially free, domestic service.

With regard to a charging policy, it would be very difficult to project income from domestic clients, particularly where a concessionary system was operational.

A scale of charges could also be introduced to make the service more flexible and lucrative. Instead of providing a standard charge for a treatment, an additional charge could be made for an increased service.

Additionally, the Authority could introduce a bond or insurance policy which members of the public could buy into for a “one-off” annual payment. Included in this scheme could be Pest Control and other services such as drain clearance, bulk refuse collection, etc.

It would be very difficult to project exactly how much extra income could be raised depending on which options were taken up.

The report then identified proposals in relation to the service.

During discussion of this item, the main issues raised in relation to the proposals, were that if charges were introduced, this could be a threat to the public health, particularly in relation to an increase in infestation of rats, mice, etc. It was considered that anything that was a threat to the public health should be free.

It was also pointed out that members of the public expected such a service to be included within their Council Tax payment.

Rather than focus on domestic service, it was considered that commercial income, etc. could possibly be increased. This possibility could be explored before looking at the domestic service.

It was also pointed out that infestations, etc., could be deemed to be attributed mainly by commercial premises, takeaways, etc. There were, however, other factors involved such as condition and age of sewers, etc.

The Committee also suggested that the proposals would be perceived by members of the public as a reduction in service.

Discussion was also held regarding wasps nests and whether they should be included in the free treatment.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 5 Page 209 In conclusion, the Committee recommended:-

1. There should be no charge for the domestic service where there were public health issues and that these public health issues should also include wasps and bees. Other minor pests could be charged for although given the small number of cases involving minor pests charging for these could be seen to be not worthwhile.

2. Officers should also investigate the extension of the commercial side to subsidise the service.

3. In relation to allotments, it was considered that they should still be classed as domestic properties and therefore not subject to charging.

SC(3)6/03 TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE It was explained that Wendy Benson, Town Centre Manager, was present at the meeting to briefly outline her role and progress made in relation to the Town Centre management initiative.

The Town Centre Manager outlined how the initiative had come about, funding it was receiving, and achievements.

A study had been commissioned by Sedgefield Borough Council and Spennymoor Town Centre Forum and Aycliffe Town Centre Forum, and had been carried out by EDAW in relation to how the competitiveness of town centres could be increased, bringing people into the Borough, etc. The study had involved some case studies and benchmarking. A report had been produced which came up with six conclusions. These included:

♦ The local economy relied heavily on manufacturing employment ♦ Long term contraction of manufacturing sector made both Aycliffe and Spennymoor vulnerable. ♦ Growth in out of town shopping. ♦ Changing retail fortunes, having a negative impact on townscapes. ♦ New housing development. ♦ High standard of accessibility.

The study came up with three options, these were:

♦ Let the market decide. ♦ Enhance the assets, which was the option chosen as the best option for Spennymoor, and ♦ Radically focus the town centre and actively accommodate demand for new development which was the option favoured for Newton Aycliffe in the light of The Avenue redevelopment.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 6 Page 210 The study had looked at the economic and social regeneration of the Town Centres and had come up with a programme, one of which included Town Centre Management to guide programmes and activities. In relation to funding, the Town Centre Management funding had been received from the Single Regeneration Budget, the public sector and also the private sector. The project had received a total of £380,000 funding over five years.

In relation to the actions being taken by Town Centre Management, these included:-

An Annual Centres survey, the statistics from which were being used as benchmarking, process, etc.

The retail skills analysis to find out skill shortages. A report would be going to training providers to enable them to offer training programmes, etc.

The Town Centre Manager was also a member of the Association of Town Centre Management, which enabled her to keep up to date on ten pilot schemes which were being held throughout the country.

A retail business directory was also being produced and used as a tool for investment.

A vacant retail property database had also been set up and work was being undertaken with Economic Development to produce.

A Sedgefield Borough Business Forum Inter-Trading event had also been held.

In relation to Spennymoor Town Centre, a bid for Single Programme funding for Major Centres Urban Programme had been successful and had resulted in £1.8M funding.

In relation to Newton Aycliffe, the former Avenue site was under redevelopment, and a £25M scheme was being undertaken.

The performance of the Town Centre Management was monitored and reviewed through surveys, occupancy rates, etc. There had been a decrease in vacant premises.

The Town Centre Management was being included in the Regional Economic Strategy , County Durham Economic Strategy and Sedgefield Borough Community Strategy and the EDAW Study as part of the wider plan.

During discussion of this item, various issues were raised including whether improvements to Spennymoor and Newton Aycliffe would detract from other centres such as Ferryhill and Shildon.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 7 Page 211 It was explained that in relation to Ferryhill, particularly there were very little vacant retail premises and those centres were still being promoted.

In relation to the existing town centre in Newton Aycliffe, there was a need to provide and keep retailers informed of progress, etc.

Discussions were also being held with the Learning Shop, Youth Forum, etc.

In relation to taking Town Centre improvements forward, there needed to be an involvement/commitment from businesses.

The Chairman then thanked Wendy Benson for attending the meeting and her informative presentation.

______

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Liz North on Spennymoor (01388) 816166, Ext. 4237.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\6\AI00003653\Minutes0.doc 8 Page 212 Item 20 Sedgefield Borough Local Strategic Partnership PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING

Wednesday 23rd July 2003 Whitworth Hall Hotel

NOTE OF THE MEETING PRESENT

Board Members Sedgefield Borough Council N. Vaulks. Durham County Council Cllr N. Forster (Vice Chair) Area Forums M. Stott, Cllr J. Chaplin Community Network Mr R. Sunman (Vice Chair), Mrs J. Hartley, Mrs Lyn Leach, Ms K. Lynn, Rev. Sheelah Stevens, Mrs E. Carr, Ms C. Bell, Ms C. McVay, Ms M. Thompson. Private Sector Representatives Mr S. Howarth Durham Constabulary Chief Superintendent M Banks (Sedgefield Division) Sedgefield Primary Care Trust Cllr Alan Gray Sedgefield District Local Cllr M. Iveson, Cllr J. Marr Councils’ Committee Government Office for the North P Hanley, M Wootton East (Observer) Advisors Sedgefield Borough Council R. Prisk, E. Dann, Policy Group Co-ordinators G. Hall, V. Ashfield In Attendance A. Boddy, P. Darby

1. INTRODUCTIONS & WELCOME

The Vice Chair Cllr N. Foster chaired the Board meeting. Cllr Foster drew members attention to the revised agenda for the meeting and welcomed the new members to the Executive Board.

1.1 Apologise

Apologies were received from Cllr R. Fleming (Sedgefield Borough Council), Cllr J. K. Piggott (Newton Aycliffe Forum), Cllr J. Robinson (Rural East Forum), N. Porter (PCT), P. Fisk (Business Forum), H. Hindmarch (Community Network), P. Kemp (DCC).

2. KEY BUSINESS

2.1 Consideration of ‘Note of Board Meeting’ held on 16th April 2003

The Note of the Meeting held on the 16th April 2003, were confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Page 213 2.2 Matters Arising

Sedgefield Borough Community Strategy A report on the proposed Community Strategy Consultation Process was circulated at the Board meeting. Richard Prisk reported that the consultation on the Community Strategy would commence in September and conclude at the end of November 2003 with a LSP Conference. The consultation exercise will involve a range of different approaches to ensure key organisations and agencies, community groups and local residents have an opportunity to comment on the Strategy. It was highlighted that the consultation will involve key stakeholder consultations and local area consultations through the Borough’s Area Forums.

County Durham Strategic Partnership The LSP and Community Network have been consulted on the County Durham Vision and submitted comments. The Strategy will be reviewed in October and published in December 2003.

Memo of Administration At the last Board meeting, members were asked to submit to the Secretariat any suggestions for amendments to the Memo of Administration which could then be considered by a Board sub-group. There had been no issues raised by members and therefore it had not been necessary to convene the sub-group.

Composition and Size of the Board It was reported that the Board had asked the LSP Management Group to give further consideration to the composition and size of the Board. The Management Group had debated the issue at the last meeting and agreed to look at examples of good practise published by the Government, liaise with GONE and clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of the Board. The Management Group had agreed to set up a small group to look at this issue.

Agreed – That the Management Group should give further consideration to the composition and size of the Board and identify a number of options for the Board to consider at a future meeting.

County Durham Major Centres Programme – Spennymoor An indicative allocation of Single Programme Resource had been identified to regenerate Spennymoor Town Centre. A consultation event in the town had been held and the Town Centre Forum had been involved. A summary leaflet had been circulated requesting comments on the proposals by the end of July.

2.3 Board Appointments It was reported that Cllr Stephens as Chair of the Board had not been re-elected to the Borough Council at the May local elections.

The Board were reminded that the Chair and two Vice Chairs are elected annually. The Chair and Vice Chairs must include one representative nominated by the Community Network (Mr R. Sunman), one from either Sedgefield Borough Council or Durham County Council and one by the whole Board (Cllr N Foster). Cllr Fleming was the new Sedgefield Borough Council representative as therefore nominated as the representative of Sedgefield Borough Council and Durham County Council. It was then proposed that Cllr Fleming should be appointed as Chair of the Board.

Page 214 Agreed - Cllr R. Fleming was elected as Chair of the LSP Board.

3.0 PRESENTATION SESSION

3.1 County Durham Draft School Organisation Plan

Victoria Ashfield (Co-ordinator Lifelong Learning Policy Group) gave a presentation on the County Durham School Organisation Plan and the implications for Schools in Sedgefield Borough. The presentation to the Board forms part of the consultation on the provision and pattern for primary and secondary schools across the County over the next 5-20 years. Details of the presentation are attached to the minutes.

The Boards views on the presentation were sought and a number of issues were raised in relation to the presentation: • The press had named a number of primary and secondary schools which had been earmarked for closure. The information had been wrongly presented in the press and schools had not been earmarked for closure. • It is important that new housing developments proposals are taken into account in looking at the provision of schools. • There is a need to increase nursery provision and work could be undertaken with early years partners.

Agreed – That the Partnership’s Lifelong Learning Policy Group should consider the School Organisation Plan further and hold an event to ensure a wide debate on the opportunities and implications of any proposed changes to secondary and primary school provision in the Borough.

3.2 Arrangements for the provision of Services to Vulnerable Adults through joint Working Arrangements.

The Board received a presentation from Glyn Hall (Co-ordinator Housing and Communities Policy Group) on proposals to establish a Partnership between the Borough Council, Sedgefield Primary Care Trust and Durham Social Services. The Partnership will seek to improve services to elderly and other vulnerable adults by changing the way service providers work together. Details of the presentation are attached to the minutes.

Agreed – That the proposed arrangements be noted and reports on progress on the implementation and improvements achieved as a result of the new service arrangements be made to a future Board Meeting.

3.3 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA)

Alan Boddy gave a presentation to the Board on the Borough Council’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). The CPA is part of the Government’s drive to improve the delivery of local government services and seeks to measure the Council’s overall level of performance and the quality of service provision. All District Councils in the County will be subject to a CPA during November 2003. Durham County Council were subject to a similar assessment in late 2002. Details of the presentation are attached to the minutes.

Page 215 The Board discussed the issues raised through the CPA presentation and undertook an exercise to identify what the Council was felt to do well and areas to be considered for improvement. Details of the Boards discussion are attached to the minutes.

4.0 DISCUSSION SESSION

4.1 Identification of Any to be Discussed at Future Meetings

No issues were raised.

The Chair thanked Board members for their attendance and contributions.

The Meeting closed at 5.30pm

Next Meeting: 3.00pm, Wednesday 15th October 2003 at Hardwick Hall Hotel.

Agreed by the Sedgefield Borough Local Strategic Partnership Board on 15th October as a true record of the meeting held on 23rd July 2003.

Signed

Page 216