Agenda item

The Scrutiny Manager outlined the process for considering a Call-in. She informed the Committee that a Call-in had been received in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and that it was now the role of the Scrutiny Committee to agree if the Call-in request should be upheld and the options available to the Committee. Committee Members were reminded that a Call-in could only be made on the following three grounds:

o    The decision is outside for the Council’s budgetary framework (i.e. no funds have been allocated in the budget to this matter);

o    The decision is outside of the Council’s policy framework (i.e. we don’t have a policy covering this matter or the decision is counter to an agreed policy/procedure); or

o    The decision making process is flawed (i.e. insufficient consultation, lack of evidence etc.)

Members were reminded that they could:

-        Decide there were no grounds to support the Call-in and that the decision should stand; or

-        Give specific reasons as to why the decision should be called in and refer it back to the Portfolio Holder to allow them to reconsider the decision in light of Scrutiny’s comments; or      

-        Refer the decision to Full Council, again with specific reasons as to why the decision should be reconsidered.

Members were also reminded that SSDC’s Constitution makes provision for ‘call-in’ after the decision is implemented – this provides an opportunity for Scrutiny to consider the implications of any decision. The scrutiny Committee can then make recommendations to the Executive or Full Council on changes to policy or practice in the light of their findings – this approach avoids the need to ‘suspend’ decisions whilst the matter is considered and is most appropriate where members may feel that an adopted policy is no longer appropriate – rather than where they feel that a decision does not comply with a particular policy.

Councillor Sue Osborne, as one of the two signatories of the Call-in was given the opportunity to present her grounds for the Call-in to the Committee. The following points were raised:

-        The Portfolio Holder Decision referred to the disposal of property in Rimpton and that the decision had been taken under provision made in October 2012.

-        Under these provisions 3 disposal decisions had been taken in 2013, 2 in 2014 and 10 in 2015 (the majority of which were in rural settlements) – these figures show that the number of such requests for disposal are increasing significantly.

-        The majority of such disposals would seem to occur in the rural areas of the district, although it is understood that funds from the disposal will be spent locally, this is restricted by the sites that come forward.  What is done to ensure funds are invested in the rural area?

-        The ‘donut’ principle used so effectively in the SSDC Rural Lettings Policy does not seem to be applied in the case of disposals.  Could properties be amended to help meet demand?

-        Each request for a disposal is essentially a matter of balance and judgement.

-        This call-in had been instigated to allow an open and transparent discussion of the issues associated with the adopted policy and processes.

Councillor Ric Pallister, as the responsible Portfolio Holder, and the Corporate Housing Strategy Manager (SSDC) were then given an opportunity to respond. The following points were raised:

-        SSDC are only a consultee on each decision to dispose of a property. Yarlington Homes are required to seek the views of the relevant Local Housing Authority but the ultimate decision will be taken by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).

-        The recent decision of SSDC not to support the request to dispose of a property in Curry Rivel is the first time Local Authority support has been withheld and it will be interesting to see what impact this may have on the decision of the HCA.

-        The number of requests to dispose of properties is more than likely to increase as Yarlington Homes responds to further financial pressure from government

-        With regard to the money from a disposal of a property being spent locally, SSDC has no powers to ensure it is spent in SSDC, The decision called-in was made in accordance with the existing policy. In particular, there are no direct budgetary implications and the relevant Ward member was consulted

-        It was reiterated that a decision to dispose did not set a precedent – each request is considered on its merit, even within the same settlement.

-        Yarlington may wish to dispose of properties in rural locations where they only own a couple for management purposes.

Mr Richie Horton, Managing Director – Property (Yarlington Homes) added the following points:

-        There was some speculation that within 6 months, due the acceleration in government requirements that it will not even be necessary to secure HCA approval.

-        All of our properties have to achieve a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of 69, those properties with a low SAP rating are problematic.

-        The disposal programme will accelerate, we have to ensure that the properties we have, meet local demand and help meet the bottom line, Yarlington Homes is a business.

In considering the information presented to them, members of the Scrutiny Committee made the following comments:

-        The Call-in had provided a useful opportunity to discuss various issues around this topic,

-        Whilst this decision had been taken in accordance with adopted policy, there would seem to be some merit in revisiting the policy as agreed in October 2012 and ensuring that all members are clear about the process involved.

-        The Call–in was in no way intended as a criticism of the officers or Portfolio Holder involved, more an attempt to clarify the policies and processes involved.

Following a unanimous vote, the Scrutiny Committee agreed to recommend:

That the Portfolio Holder decision as proposed stands and that further work is carried out to clarify the SSDC process for consideration of such disposal requests in the future. Such a review will be conducted once the outcome of the HCA decision regarding the request to dispose of a property in Curry Rivel is known.