The report on pages 65 – 74 was presented by Carol Hinvest.

The Chair invited Councillor Holloway to ask her questions.

Councillor Holloway asked her residents had been given the option to keep the gates (at Rookery Court) and not be charged to which Carol Hinvest confirmed that they had not.

Councillor Holloway said that the Portfolio Holder for Housing had announced at Full Council that no decision had been made on charging elderly residents for the gates (Rookery Court) but she had later received correspondence that the charge had been agreed and would be implemented in the new financial year. She sought clarification on this. Roger Harris explained that the full consultation on all the sites had not yet been completed. Once consultation was completed, this would be discussed with the Portfolio Holder and a decision would be made based on the consultation feedback and the balance of spend within the HRA but there would be a service charge for the Rookery. The charges would potentially be confirmed in the New Year and would not come into effect until 1 April 2021.

Councillor Holloway noted that the report highlighted no security issues (for Rookery Court) and questioned whether this had been looked at during the first lockdown. She said that there was a school opposite (to Rookery Court) and that there were additional security issues. Carol Hinvest explained that the service had looked at reported incidents over the whole of last year and part of the first lockdown.

Councillor Holloway sought clarification on the number of gates to be removed. She also noted that no consultation had taken place with residents of Alexandra Court and that the gates would be removed which would bring the total gates cost down to around £90,400. She felt that this was small amount to ask for in the HRA budget of £50 million to keep the gates in place to protect Thurrock’s elderly residents.

Carol Hinvest explained that Alexandra Court would be decommissioned as a sheltered housing scheme and therefore the Council had not consulted residents as it would have been disingenuous to consult with them on a gate to a complex that would be decommissioned. She clarified that the number of gates to be removed, not including Alexandra Court, were five. Roger Harris explained that choices and priorities had to be made in the HRA in a number of areas and that residents in Rookery Court had been consulted who were prepared to pay the service charges for the gates to remain. The issue of the gates would be discussed with the Portfolio Holder. Councillor Holloway did not feel her residents were given a choice in the service charges for the gates (at Rookery Court) and that they were not given any options but to pay or have the gates removed.

The Chair questioned what the potential loss would be if money in the HRA was spent on the gates; if the gates were providing genuine security to residents; and if the service was satisfied that the consultation had received enough good quality responses to enable them to reach their decisions.

Officers explained that the £50 million budget was for all the assets within the HRA and recent spends on projects included a new communal and external decorating programme which was important to all residents and an assisted decorating programme for sheltered housing residents and for residents in general needs who could not do their own internal decorating. The service was also spending more money on door entry systems as this was a priority of residents. The service would not remove gates if there was a chance that it would seriously increase risks of crime to their residents. Officers felt enough responses to the consultation had been received as letters had been sent out, residents had been called and were generally called on a regular basis.

Councillor Worrall questioned whether the cost of the gates could have been made under another budget (she had noted in the earlier report that the budget for Sheltered Accommodation Improvements was zero). She also noted paragraph 5.2 and felt that the gates should be paid for within the HRA which residents would agree with. She was concerned that HRA money could be allocated for garages, which only a small percentage of people also used, but could not allocated to the gates in sheltered housing complexes to protect Thurrock’s elderly residents. She also raised concerns on the removal of gates from some sheltered complexes which would enable people to park inside the complexes and cause issues of security to elderly residents. The Chair said that the budget for garages differed to the gates for sheltered accommodation as garages were charged for people privately renting these.

Carol Hinvest answered that the programme of works that Councillor Worrall raised was a specific programme of works which was under Ramps and Doors Entry projects where push buttons would be installed and ramps installed for elderly residents to enable them to continue their independent living. This would also ensure that all sheltered housing blocks in Thurrock would be brought up to standards and compliant with the Equality Act. Roger Harris added that residents on housing benefit or universal credit would not pay for the service charge introduced for Rookery Court. He went on to say that the Committee’s comments would be fed back to the Portfolio Holder.

The Committee suggested that the service look into other options for maintaining the gates such as sponsorship from businesses which Councillor Redsell suggested and sought clarification on whether the gates would be electronic. The Committee commented that the maintenance of the gates should have been within the budget for repairs if these had been broken for a while. The Committee sought reassurance that removing the gates would not increase risk to the elderly residents and that they had been appropriately notified of the service charge to remaining gates.

Officers answered that the gates would be electronic as push gates were too heavy to be pushed by increasingly frail residents and would require a change in the complex layout for these type of gates. Residents had been consulted and notified on the service charges for the remaining gates with the exception of Alexandra Court which is being decommissioned and Benyon who would be consulted soon.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 9.24pm to enable all the items on the Agenda to be completed.

RESOLVED:

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee noted the proposals to:

1.1         Consult with residents regarding the ongoing requirement of automated gates on applicable sites and, if the consensus is that the gates remain, the subsequent implementation of a service charge.

1.2         Remove gates which are situated at several high rise sites where new parking restrictions no longer require gates to control parking.

1.3         Remove gates at specified Sheltered Housing complexes which do not provide additional security or parking deterrent benefits due to style and location if residents do not support keeping them.

1.4         The final decision to be made by the Corporate Director, Adults, Housing and Health in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Housing.