Items
No. |
Item |
1. |
Declaration of Members' Interests
In accordance with
the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any
interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at
this meeting.
Minutes:
There were no declarations of interest.
|
2. |
Minutes (31 March 2021)
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 31 March
2021 were noted.
|
3. |
Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) - Quality Assurance and Progress Update Report
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Social
Care and Health Integration (CMSC) and the Commissioning Director
for Care and Support (CD) introduced a report on the Multi-Agency
Safeguarding Hub (MASH), providing a brief narrative as to the
context behind the move of the MASH into Children’s Care and
Support in September 2020, as well as the various challenges that
had been facing the service at a time of unprecedented demand,
which had increased in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst
considerable progress had been made since the move of the service,
it was acknowledged that it would take some time to address
residual issues within the system, along with the escalating demand
pressures.
In response to questions from
Members, the CD and the Strategic Director for Children’s and
Adult’s Services (SD) stated that:
- The quality of
referral into the MASH often proved problematic. Work was needed
within the Early Help system to ensure that all colleagues and
partners could identify and articulate risks in the correct way.
This was particularly important when considering the high-pressured
MASH environment stemming from the high volume of demand, with
clear information proving vital to assist the Council to make the
right decisions for its young people. It was also emphasised that
those receiving the MASH referrals needed to be curious and to use
the Multi-Agency information to better support their
decision-making, gaining a deeper understanding of the history of
the child and their family.
- The largest referrer
into the MASH was the Police.
- The importance of the
Early Help system, sitting underneath MASH and acting as a first
point of contact, could not be understated as this provided the
opportunity for early intervention. This would not only greatly
help children and young people before any issues could escalate but
would also prevent a higher volume of demand coming through to the
MASH service.
- There was a disparity
between schools that referred into the MASH, and those that did
not. The Council was strengthening its relationship with schools,
with the MASH now having regular meetings with the schools’
Designated Safeguarding Leads (DSLs) to discuss issues and provide
advice in advance of referrals. The Council was also in the process
of arranging similar quarterly meetings with the
Police.
- It was vital that the
new MASH model had the right agencies wrapped around families and
included key components of colleagues in Community Solutions, who
were excellent at helping residents to navigate various issues.
Whilst the primary focus needed to be on the highest level of risk,
support from all Council services and partners was needed to
address all levels of need.
- A recent visit from
the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and
Skills (OFSTED) had acknowledged the journey of change and clear
programme of improvement for MASH, as well as the challenges facing
the service. A draft OFSTED letter was likely to be received by the
SD in advance of the Committee’s next 7 July 2021 meeting,
and if this was the case, it would be ...
view the full minutes text for item 3.
|
4. |
General progress update regarding A2020 Scrutiny Recommendations - KLOE 4
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Social
Housing introduced a general progress update regarding the Key Line
of Enquiry 4 (KLOE 4) recommendations to arise from the Ambition
2020 Scrutiny Review. This was followed by a presentation by the
Head of Leisure, Parks and Heritage (HL) around the parks elements
of the recommendations. The latter highlighted a variety of work
that had been undertaken within the parks themselves, projects that
had been supported by the local community, increased social media
engagement and LBBD website improvement. Six of the Borough’s
parks had received external recognition as part of the Green Flag
Scheme and the Borough had also improved significantly as part of
the Good Parks for London Accreditation scheme, moving from 24th
(2017) to 17th (2020).
In relation to several questions from Members,
the HL stated that:
- Section 106 (S106) money that came
in specifically for parks, were about particular projects that
would take place. The Council would develop a scheme of works and
would then project plan this, monitoring this through its normal
management processes. The Council would report through its Capital
and Assets Board, where S106 money and funding was monitored and
reviewed, making sure that funding was being spent in the way
intended. The Head of Housing and Asset Strategy (HH) commented
that it may be useful to have a future item on how the Council made
best use of S106 money.
- The Council had made improvements to
eight of its parks in the Borough. However, a full replacement of a
park scheme or play area cost in advance of £250,000 to put
into place. The Council had recently worked with local community
groups who sourced their own funding for Valence Park, and
match-funded this money to support the community group. With other
parks, the Council was replacing equipment as and when it was
needed, but there were a significant number of areas where the
whole park needed replacement. The Council was working through its
25 parks and open spaces to see where it could make improvements
and investment was needed.
As the housing and Reside updates submitted as
part of item 5 also related to item 6 on the agenda, the Committee
agreed to the HH’s request to address both housing reports
simultaneously and to ask any questions following the next
presentation.
|
5. |
Report requested by recommendation 13 of A2020 Scrutiny Review - Impact of change to Reside's affordability threshold
Minutes:
The HH presented a report on the impact of
change to Reside’s affordability
threshold, in line with the Housing Allocations Policy. He outlined
the different tenures that Reside were providing, which were set at
a range of rent levels to meet different types of housing need in
the Borough. It was explained that the rationale behind the changes
made to the Housing Allocations Policy were due to Reside’s future expansion and to ensure that
the Reside intermediate tenure would be more affordable, meaning
that residents could use their in-work benefits as part of their
affordability assessments. If residents could demonstrate that they
had been paying their rent in their previous home, Reside would also use this as evidence that they
could afford their property. The Managing Director for Reside (MD)
stated that by the end of 2022, Reside
would have increased its housing stock by 50% and would have over
3,000 homes at a range of tenures by the end of March 2025.
In response to questions from Members, the HH
and MD stated that:
- The Council had approached the
Greater London Authority (GLA) about the risk of those in shared
ownership becoming stuck, as there could be a point where tenants
started to staircase and buy more of the shares for their home,
only to struggle when they looked to sell, as they were dependent
on finding someone else who would buy their shares. The Council had
suggested that the GLA create a Pan-London scheme, matching people
across parts of London who wished to buy and sell, to facilitate
this process.
- The Council needed to develop a
local response through Reside to help those stuck in shared
ownership, such as through guidance and the potential for the
Council to buy back shares from tenants and resell these. As lots
of shared ownership tenures were through Reside, the Council and
Reside had more levers to help people around this and these needed
to be explored.
- Many of Reside’s shared ownership customers were
first-time buyers.
- Reside ensured that all purchasers
were able to view the property that they were buying. It also
worked with Savills as its sales agent, who had a reputable panel
of solicitors who had a wide knowledge of the shared ownership
model; however, purchasers also had the option to use a different
sales agent if they wished.
- Reside worked with the
Council’s Legal team to ensure that it could share as much
information as possible with the panel of solicitors around what
people were buying, the terms and conditions, service charges and
to provide accurate estimates. The MD reviewed every memorandum of
sale that came through, and he had regular meetings with Savills to
ensure that customers that were being put forward had evidence of
deposits and an income. Savills would approach the MD if any
customer was on the cusp of
affordability and together, they could look at each case in more
detail.
- Shared ownership was often less an
affordability issue, and more of customers not ...
view the full minutes text for item 5.
|
6. |
Work Programme
Minutes:
The Chair informed Members of the progress of
the 2021/22 Committee Work Programme, the Committee’s
previous suggestions and her conversations with Portfolio Holders.
The finalised Work Programme would be presented to the Committee
for agreement at its 7 July 2021 meeting.
|