Agenda item

At the time of publication of this agenda, the committee has received a call-in of decision JAW/002/23-24 Emergency Accommodation Contract Award. A report is attached as Item 7.

Before the committee was a report by the Monitoring Officer, which had been circulated to all members and a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as item 7. 

The report before members set out the background to a decision ‘called in’ by three members of Worthing Borough Council. A joint service decision was made and published on 13th June 2023 by the Worthing Cabinet Member for Citizen Services, Cllr Emma Taylor-Beal and the Adur Leader, Cllr Neil Parkin (in the absence of the Cabinet Member for Adur Homes & Customer Services). The decision concerned the approval of a service contract to acquire nomination rights to emergency accommodation and the delegation of authority to the Director for Housing and Communities to enter into a service contract for the purpose of acquiring temporary accommodation.

On 15th June 2023 the Councils’ Monitoring Officer received a request for a call-in of the decision from three Members of Worthing Borough Council, Councillors Daniel Humphreys, Kevin Jenkins and Elizabeth Sparkes. The request was considered by the Monitoring Officer, who accepted the request as it was deemed to be in compliance with the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules. The matter was referred to this meeting of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration and determination.

The chairman of the committee reminded Members that discussions relating to planning decisions were excluded matters. The committee was there to discuss the Cabinet Member decision to enter into a service level agreement subject to determination of the planning application.

Representations by those members who called the item in

Councillor Sparkes was invited to speak in support of the request for call-in which is summarised as follows:

• Planning permission for the Windsor House Hotel had already been refused in January 2023
• Details of the agreement that Worthing Borough Council had entered into were not included in the decision
• The decision was published prior to a public consultation event
• At the public consultation, Adur & Worthing logos were used on promotional boards but available literature only made reference to Worthing Borough Council
• There had been a lack of consideration in regards to the needs of the Residents

Representation by the decision makers 

The Worthing Cabinet Member for Housing and Citizen Services and the Leader of Adur District Council were invited to make their representation which is summarised as follows:

• The public consultation was held by SDR not Worthing Borough Council
• SDR had purchased the building and were free to offer it to outside bodies such as London Boroughs or the Home Office
• By being involved, Worthing Borough Council and Adur District Council retained some control of the situation
• The consultation event did not include anybody who was currently being placed out of area.
• The decision was viewed as a Worthing matter by the Adur Leader
• There was the potential for the site to help Adur residents
• No Worthing councillors contacted either decision maker between the report being published and the decision being taken

Representation by Officers

The Director for Housing and Communities and the Interim Head of Housing, provided further information to give context of the decision which are summarised as follows

• The decision was separate to the planning process
• Future reports did need to be clearer about the location of sites 
• 62% of people coming to the council at this time for accommodation were being housed out of area
• A designated group of officers were routinely exploring every option to solve housing issues
• At the SDR consultation event, Worthing Borough Council were present as a housing service

Questions for those members that called the item in

There were no questions

Questions for the decision maker

Members asked about what percentage of Adur homeless a scheme like this would help; what measure would be taken to tackle anti social behaviour and ensure community safety; the concentration of HMOs in certain areas; the current state of any planning permission applications regarding the Windsor House Hotel; the timescale in which the service could be delivered; the effect of homeless being placed out of area and what learning had been taken on board during the decision making process.

Members were informed that contracted accommodation was allocated based on need, should schemes like this go ahead ahead than about 40% of Adur homeless would be placed there; safety and anti social behaviour issues were tackled through close partnership with SDR, proactive contact with residents with new staff being recruited specifically for this; that legislation existed to deal with anti social behaviour but that evidence was required and an evidence threshold did exist; a team was in place to work with police on this matter; that the expectation was concerns would be heard and addressed; that the council was mapping the concentration of HMOs; that housing in certain areas were better suited for HMOs and that the council did not have a lot of control over which companies bought which buildings; that no new planning application had been received for the Windsor House Hotel; that if planning permission were granted, the service should be up and running within 6-8 months; that homeless being placed miles out of area from their support network, place of employment and services with no real choice could be traumatic; that a lot had been learned from this process and more tough decisions were to come, that involvement in consultations could be better as could the clarity of written reports.

Summing up of those members who called the item in 

Councillor Sparkes summed up as follows 

• The Call-In was not about social or financial implications
• The decision was taken before any public consultation
• The decision was taken a few weeks after a planning application had been refused
• The principles of decision making had not been considered

Summing up of the decision maker

• The previous planning application had no bearing on the decision
• There was no precedent for a Cabinet Member to have public consultation to enter into a service level agreement
• Consultations are required for planning applications
• It was accepted that future reports should be more explicit in relation to location detail 

Debate 

Members discussed how the two issues of planning and the decision to enter into a service level agreement had been conflated; that the agreement to enter into a Heads of Terms pending planning permission was not legally binding; that nothing existed in the constitution requiring a public consultation prior to making this decision; assumptions being made about those requiring emergency accommodation, the rise in homelessness; the role the Councils would have if the decision were referred to them; the possibility of SDR offering the building for use by another authority like a London Borough or the Home Office. 

Cllr Cowen proposed that the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee take no further action, on the basis that Officers and Members take on board everything that had been said during the meeting. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Margaret Howard. 

Resolved: The committee agreedthat no further action be taken on the call-in.