Venue: Room B12, Civic Centre, Home Gardens, Dartford, Kent, DA1 1DR
\n\t\tContact: Email: memberservices@dartford.gov.uk \n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\tNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tApologies for Absence
\nMinutes:
\nApologies for absence were submitted on behalf\nof Councillors; M J Bryant, J A Hayes, E J Lampkin, D M\nPickersgill, P Scanlan and T C H Smith.
\nDeclarations of Interest
\nTo receive any declarations of interest\nMembers may wish to make including the term(s) of the Grant of\nDispensation(s) by the Standards Committee.
\nMinutes:
\nThere were no declarations of interest.
\nConfirmation of the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2009 PDF 46 KB
\nTo confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on\n9 December 2009.
\nMinutes:
\n\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
That the minutes of the meeting held on 9\nDecember 2009 be confirmed as an accurate record.
\nUrgent Items
\nThe\nChairman will announce his decision as to whether there are any\nurgent items and their position on the agenda.
\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman announced that there were no\nurgent items for consideration.
\nTo consider references from other Committees
\nMinutes:
\nMembers received a\ntabled document for consideration from the Dartford Association of\nParishes, who had met the previous evening 19 January 2010. The\nAssociation had expressed their collective concern over the KCC\ngritting operation for the Borough and Parishes during the recent\ncold spell in December 2009 and January 2010.
\n\n
Members agreed to\nconsider the document under Agenda Item 8 (Snow Clearance).
\nChairman's Update
\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman advised\nthe Committee that Kent Highway Services (KHS) had declined to\nattend Scrutiny that evening, or submit a specific report on the\nsnow clearance operations for the period 18-22 December 2009\n(Agenda Item 8). Councillor Prout suggested that substantive\ndiscussion of the KHS response take place under the agenda\nitem.
\nForward Plan PDF 10 KB
\nTo consider any issues arising from the\nForward Plan for the period 1 January to 30 April 2010.
\nMinutes:
\n\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
\nThat the contents of the Forward Plan for the\nperiod 1 January 2010 to 30 April 2010 be noted.
\nSnow clearing operations during recent cold spell (18-22 December 2009)
\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman confirmed\nhis earlier comment that KHS had declined to attend Scrutiny that\nevening or submit a specific report on their snow clearance\noperation for the period 18-22 December 2009.
\n\n
Councillor Prout explained that the KHS\nCommunity Delivery Manager had informed the Committee Coordinator\n(by email), that a comprehensive review of the entire KHS Winter\nService would be presented to the KCC Policy Overview Committee at\nits meeting in Spring 2010. In the\ncircumstances, an interim report to the Dartford Scrutiny Committee\nwould be inappropriate. The KHS Review and KCC Member response\nwould be relayed to individual Borough and District Councils\nthrough the Joint Transportation Board (JTB) process in due course.\nIt was noted that the next Dartford JTB was due to be held on 9\nMarch 2010.
\n\n
Members expressed\ntheir disappointment that KHS had declined to attend Scrutiny or\nprovide an update on their December and January operations. Members\nrelayed the following points of particular concern:
\n\n
\nPre-Christmas
\n\n
\nPost-Christmas
\n\n
The Chairman added\nthat he had been in correspondence with the Executive Director\nseeking clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities\nof KHS and the Council for snow clearance in the Borough and how\nmatters might be improved.
\n\n
The Executive Director\nadvised Members that KCC was responsible for highway activities,\nwhich included footways. Unfortunately it appeared that KHS\nhad serious problems within their command structure which inhibited\ndecision making on these matters. Districts had been unable to\nobtain delegated authority from KCC for the Councils to undertake\nsnow clearance utilising their street cleansing contractors/staff\nprior to Christmas and the necessary formal consent was not issued\nby KCC for works in January. However, he had been asked to\nattend the Kent and Medway Chief Executive’s meeting to give\nevidence on this matter. He had proposed that each Borough\nand District be granted individual “blanket” consent to\ntake action over snow clearance and ice clearance on footways, at\nno cost to KCC and this had been supported. He was awaiting KCC to\naction this. The other\naim was to improve liaison arrangements, so KCC benefitted from the\nBorough’s local knowledge. He confirmed that he had dealt\nwith KCC at officer level; he had not approached the KCC Cabinet\nportfolio holder with his concerns, especially as he was unaware of\nhis responsibilities.
\n\n
He added that a\nKent-wide review of the KHS snow clearance efforts was being led by\nthe Kent Resilience Forum, under the leadership of the Chief\nConstable. It was proposed that the Executive Director participate\nin the Forum meetings also. A particular concern for the Forum had\nbeen the 40% reported increase in fractures suffered by the general\npublic due to icy pavements in some areas. In Thanet this had\nresulted in an estimated additional cost to the PCT of some\n£70,000.
\n\n
The Executive Director\nwas invited to update Members on the specific issues surrounding\nthe snow clearance operations in the Borough before and after the\nChristmas period 2009.
\n\n
The Executive Director\nreminded Members that following the ending of the Highways\nPartnership in 2005, KCC were the only duly authorised body\nnominated under the provisions of the Highways Act, to maintain\nroads in Kent. Dartford and other District Councils could only\nundertake highway repairs with the agreement and written authority\nof KCC. However, obtaining such delegated authority given the\ndeficiencies of the KHS command structure had proved impossible in\nthe period prior to Christmas. Dartford, Maidstone and Thanet had\nall offered to assist KHS in the snow clearing operations but had\nbeen unable to obtain KHS agreement to their proposals. Confusion\nwithin KCC and KHS was such that, initially the KCC Cabinet Member\nresponsible for highways had informed radio Kent that snow\nclearance on minor roads was a District responsibility. However\nthis statement had subsequently been re-canted and KHS officers now\naccepted their responsibilities for the clearance of minor roads.\nFurther confusion for the public had been caused by the KHS call\ncentre continuing to refer callers back to the districts over\ntreatment of footways and then having a recorded message on 23 and\n24 December stating that “ if the matter did not relate to\ngritting a major road, then the caller should phone back\nlater”. The\nCouncil had undertaken some limited ad-hoc work to clear badly\naffected side-streets in the Borough to assist refuse collections.\nHowever, Council grit supplies were limited and work had to be\nprioritised on Dartford’s responsibilities, such as providing\nsafe access in cemeteries and sheltered housing units. The Council\nhad deployed street cleansing staff to clear some footways on main\npedestrian routes/hills, based on a verbal agreement with a KHS\nmember of staff, albeit this presented a risk of subsequent injury\nclaim, given the lack of written approval.
\n\n
In further\nexplanation, the Executive Director added that since 2005, KHS had\nsuffered from successive structural re-organisations which had\ndeprived the Service of experienced staff with knowledge of\naccepted gritting practices and emergency snow clearance\nprocedures. An added obstacle was the absence of designated action\nplans for individual Boroughs to help inform KHS efforts. Previous\nBorough plans based on local knowledge and used under the Highways\nPartnership arrangements up to 2005 could not now be located by KHS\nstaff, possibly as a result of the re-structuring process.\nFollowing his presentation to the Kent and Medway Chief\nExecutive’s meeting, it had been agreed and accepted by the\nInterim Director of KHS that KHS needed to:
\n\n
\n\n· \nRevisit the whole question of District liaison;
\n\n\n· \nReview the KCC/KHS command structure;
\n\n\n· \nIssue blanket consent agreements for the Districts to assist KHS\nand for arrangements to be introduced for costs such as\ntransporting grit;
\n\n\n· \nProvide Districts with local plans via the JTB process and accept\nfeedback on those plans.
\n\n
Members acknowledged\nthat KHS was a problematical organisation which covered 12\nDistricts making attendance at every District Scrutiny meeting\ndifficult. Some Members also saw potential danger in KHS\noverreacting to the current extreme weather crisis by\nover-committing budget resources to snow clearance in future years\nto the detriment of other services.
\n\n
The Chairman confirmed\nthat Members had read the tabled paper from the Dartford Parish\nAssociation (DPA) and expressed interest in Councillor\nKite’s, comments regarding a “different approach in the\nfuture” [to snow clearance]. It was noted that Councillor Kite\nwas committed to other Council business that evening.
\n\n
In response to the\nChairman’s comments, the Executive Director explained
\nthat he and Councillor Kite had discussed issues\nduring the severe weather, including the issue of Parishes being\noffered local resources to assist the overall effort. The statement\nreferred to districts seeking the consent letter, which would allow\naction to commence immediately where district resources\npermitted. The second\naspect was that the Executive Director had also requested that KHS\nlook at extending this to Parishes.
\n\n
Members thanked the\nExecutive Director for his actions with KHS officials and on\npresenting concerns and solutions to the Kent and Medway Chief\nExecutives and his proposal to contribute to the Kent Resilience\nForum review on the snow clearance operation.
\n\n
Following further\ndiscussion, Members agreed to keep the item of Snow Clearance open\nuntil after the next JTB meeting on 9 March and the outcome of the\nproposed KCC policy review was made known. Members again expressed\ntheir disappointment over the lack of a KHS presence that\nevening.
\n\n
\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n(i) \nThat the subject of Snow Clearance remain open and be added to the\nScrutiny Work Programme;
\n\n\n(ii) \nThat the subject be reviewed following the JTB due to be held on 9\nMarch 2010 and the proposed KCC policy review on Snow Clearance and other emergency\nprocedures was concluded;
\n\n\n(iii) \nThat the Chairman of Scrutiny write to KCC expressing Council\nconcerns over the KHS snow clearance operation in the period\nDecember 09 to January 2010 (draft letter to be cleared through\nShadow Chairman).
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Draft Housing Strategy - Cabinet, November 2009 PDF 21 KB
\nTo review the final report and appendices\npresented to Cabinet on 26 November 2009.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nDraft Housing Strategy 2009-2012
\n\n
The Head of Housing summarised his report and\nappendices for Members on the Draft Housing Strategy 2009-2012 and\nthe Strategic Housing Priorities and Targets 2009-2012, as\noriginally submitted to Cabinet on 26 November 2009.
\n\n
He advised Members\nthat the documents remained subject to a wider consultation process\nuntil the end of January, prior to final submission to the General\nAssembly of the Council (GAC) in March 2010. It was confirmed that\nthe documents would not be referred back to Cabinet before\nsubmission to the GAC.
\n\n
He explained that the\nwider consultation process would involve publishing the documents\nto the Dartford website with an electronic feedback form. Extensive\nconsultation had already been carried out with a wide range of\nstakeholders. A list of\nthose already consulted over the draft Strategy documents was\ncontained at page 14 of the Agenda: it included Registered Social\nLandlords (RSLs), Disability and Advocacy groups.
\n\n
Young Persons Housing Strategy\n2009-2012 (page 29)
\n\n
\nThe Chairman expressed\nhis concern that a principle reason for youth homelessness in\nDartford was the breakdown of family relationships, with parents no\nlonger willing to accommodate their children at home for a variety\nof reasons including; substance abuse, mental health problems,\nteenage pregnancy and overcrowding. He noted that the Council was\nonly able to provide housing for the most vulnerable young people.\nCouncillor Prout asked if possible solutions lay in re-deploying\nlarger properties or improving existing homes which were subject to\novercrowding.
\n\n
In response the Head\nof Housing advised Members that:
\n\n
\n
The Chair expressed\nhis particular concern with regard to overcrowding issues and the\nstrain on family relationships. He believed the Mediation Service\nhad proved successful in resolving some of these socially complex\ncases and asked how that success rate was measured.
\n\n
The Head of Housing\nbriefly explained to Members that there were numerous separate\ncategories detailed in the legislation and that the Housing service\nutilise a prevention matrix to tackle youth homelessness. Success\nstories included the provision of beds for young people staying in\nthe family home, and the Schools Outreach Project and enhanced\nhousing options service, looking to teaching secondary school\nchildren how to budget and the full implications of leaving home,\nincluding their entitlements and the criteria in relation to\nhomelessness. An East Kent pilot project delivering these services\nwas working well and it was hoped to secure funding for a similar\npilot scheme for Dartford in September.
\n\n
The Chairman looked\nforward to receiving details on the pilot scheme and the\nperformance of Quality Services in due course.
\n\n
Private Sector Renewal Strategy\n2009-2014 (page 33)
\n\n
The Head of Housing\nconfirmed to Members that the document had been agreed by Cabinet\nin September 2009 and remained subject to a wider consultation\nexercise.
\n\n
The Chairman noted\nthat funding obtained from the Regional Housing Board in respect of\nHousing Renewal Grants for the current 2009/2010 Financial Year\n(FY) was currently under spent and had been under spent in the\n2008/09 FY. He said that a continued under spend in this area\nshould be avoided.
\n\n
The Head of Housing\ndid not have the figures to hand; but undertook to provide them to\nthe Chairman outside of the meeting.
\n\n
Empty\nProperty Strategy 2009-2014 (page 33)
\n\n
Referring to his previous discussions on the\nsubject with the Head of Housing, the Chairman sought clarification\non the following points;
\n\n\n· \nHow many of the 700+ known long term empty residential dwellings\nremained unoccupied;
\n\n\n· \nWas the dedicated property officer a permanent appointment;
\n\n\n· \nWhere there any other external factors or inhibitors adversely\naffecting the strategy?
\n\n
Members received the following update from the\nHead of Housing;
\n\n
\n
Councillor Coleman\nencouraged Members to feedback the local knowledge they had on\nempty properties in their Wards by completing the Housing Strategy\nConsultation Questionnaire enclosed at pages 68 – 77 of the\nAgenda document.
\n\n
Affordable Housing and Balancing the\nHousing Market (page 35)
\n\n
Members noted the good\nprogress that the Council had made in recent years in providing\naffordable housing in partnership with private developers,\nbut \nexpressed fears that in the prevailing economic climate\nfurther progress in the short-term was unlikely, with work at the\nexisting projects at The Bridge and Eastern Quarry apparently at a\nstandstill.
\n\n
Members asked what\ncentral government funding could be accessed by the Council for\ncouncil affordable housing. It was noted that Ashford Council had\nbeen successful in obtaining central funding for a council house\nbuilding programme in September 2009. Members wondered if the\nprovision of employment, including apprenticeships, were factors to\ndeploy in the second round of negotiations for possible central\nfunding.
\n\n
The Head of Housing\nadvised Members that a variety of factors could play a role in\nsecuring central funding for the council building programme and\nundertook to provide on the process. He added that the time scales\nfor bidding, start on site and completion, were tight. Ashford had\nbenefited from central funding in September 2009 by having projects\non stream which qualified. Dartford, with a much smaller land\ncapacity for development, had no projects that qualified at that\ntime.
\n\n
The Housing Policy and Development Manager\nconfirmed that developers had successfully bid for Government\nKickstart funding for the stalled projects at The Bridge and\nWaterstone Park. Ingress Park had been shortlisted with the outcome\nexpected after 31 March 2010. If successful, an 18 month build\nwas forecast. She added that the current bid for Ingress Park\nformed part of the 2nd round of Kickstart. It was\nconfirmed that all the current bids addressed intermediate housing\nunit options. Officers undertook to provide Members with a\nbreakdown of affordable housing completions and Kickstart funding\napplications.
\n\n
\nSocial Housing
\n\n
\nThe Chairman noted the\nincreased demand for social housing as set out in pages 29-36 of\nthe Agenda document and sought clarification on its nature, whether\ndemand was rising and if so what were the drivers behind the\nincreased demand?
\n\n
In reply the Head of\nHousing cited a variety of factors, principally the economic and\npopulation growth within the Borough which was above the Kent\naverage. The other major contributory factor was the number of\nyoungsters leaving home for a variety of socio-economic\nreasons.
\nIn response to a\nfurther query from the Chairman, the Head of Housing confirmed that\na further contributory factor in the demand for social housing was\nthe static nature of the Council’s Housing waiting list. This\nremained constant at some 3,000 applicants, with a further 1,000\n-1,500 applicants coming on and dropping off the List throughout\nthe year. He added that 2,000 of the core applicants remained in\nthe priority A and B bands, with an average of between 30/40 bids\nper property.
\n\n
Following further\ndiscussion, Members agreed that re-letting provided the best\nsolution for Dartford (given the static nature of the Housing\nwaiting list), but that it would not provide sufficient social\nhousing to meet demand. Officers confirmed that Dartford’s\ncurrent position reflected the national picture. All options for\nthe provision of affordable housing would continue to be\nexplored.
\n\n
Members were advised\nthat lead responsibility within the Council for the provision of\naffordable housing lay jointly with the Housing and Planning\nDepartments. Officers undertook to keep Members informed of the\noutcome of the next bidding round.
\n\n
\nRegistered Social Landlords (RSLs)
\n\n
In related discussion,\nMembers expressed a concern over the need to explore schemes and\npotential avenues of accessing Government funding for the provision\nof social housing in partnership with Registered Social Landlords\n(RSLs).
\n\n
Officers confirmed for\nMembers that the Council had close connections with RSLs and were\nproactive in seeking solutions in this joint work area\ne.g. Mount Nod and\nPrincess Road where 100% affordable housing was achieved. It was\nnoted that the Audit Commission report had been very positive over\nthe Council efforts with RSLs. The Head of Housing confirmed that\nhis Department continued to actively pursue solutions employing a\njoined –up approach and maximising stakeholder\ninvolvement.
\n\n
The Planning Policy\nManager advised that in relation to the Eastern Quarry project the\ndeveloper, Land Securities, was behind schedule. However the\nCouncil was in regular consultation with the developer, who was\nendeavouring to start construction on the first phase of\ndevelopment consisting of 400 homes within the next two years.\nOfficers undertook to update Members in February.
\n\n
In further Member\ndiscussion, it was agreed that RSLs now took the lead in terms of\nsocial housing provision, with Councils acting as enablers through\nland sales and negotiations with developers on Section 106 sites to\nprovide affordable housing. A good working relationship between the\ntwo sectors was important, especially given the static nature of\nthe Council Housing waiting list.
\n\n
In specific response\nto the Chairman, Councillor Coleman confirmed on behalf of the\nAdministration, that all offers of Government funding would be\naccepted.
\n\n
\n
\nSocial Rented Housing
\n\n
\nMembers expressed\nconcern over the assessment process used by the Council to identify\nthe requirement for social rented housing in the Borough, and\nwhether the real need was being met.
\n\n
The Policy Planning\nManager advised Members that the current assessment of housing need\nwas based on the study undertaken for the Council by consultants\n(DCA). In order to\nassess the level of need, the consultants had carried out a survey\nof residents, identifying housing need on the basis of\novercrowding, hidden households, housing needs related to health\nissues and potential new household\nformation. Income\ninformation was also collected to enable an assessment to be made\nas to whether a household in need could afford market housing or\nwould require some form of affordable housing\nprovision. This allowed\nan assessment to be made on the relative requirement for\nsocial-rented housing as compared to shared ownership and other\nforms of intermediate housing.
\n\n
She added that\nassessed need was met through a) re-lets and b) new provision\nderived on the basis of the 30% affordable housing policy through\nsection 106 agreements. The consultants recommendation was that\nbetween 50-80% of the affordable housing supply should be in the\nform of intermediate forms of affordable housing (shared ownership\netc She noted that, due to the cost of housing, young people in\nemployment had difficulty in getting on to the first step of the\nprivate housing market. There were currently\nplanning permissions in place to provide some 11,000\nhomes. These had\nSection 106 agreements in place with the requirement for affordable\nhousing. However, construction of the affordable housing element of\nthese schemes depended on the housing industry picking up.
\n\n
Despite the\nexplanation and background provided by the Policy Planning Manager,\nsome Members retained concerns over the housing assessment process\nbeing able to identify real need.
\n\n
The Policy Planning\nManager acknowledged that in the current economic climate,\naffordable housing delivery was not as high as had been\nprojected. However, the\nCouncil waiting list was being kept at a stable level, with no\nsignificant increase. \nIt was anticipated that housing completions would pick up in 2-3\nyears time, with a consequent increase in affordable housing\ncompletions.
\n\n
\nThe Head off Housing\nadded that the private sector rented housing market in the UK was\nnot always of a high quality and the methodology to engage with it\nprescriptive. The end to the current economic downturn would not\nnecessarily provide a panacea to Dartford’s housing needs:\nthere would always be a gap between need and supply.
\n\n
In response to\nsubsequent Member enquiry concerning Voids, the Head of Housing\nconfirmed that there were some 800 moves per year within the\nBorough housing stock, caused by between 350 to 400 Voids during\nthe year. The published figure of 400 was an estimate not a target.\nHe added that year on year; the Voids figure had increased when\ncompared to the 2009/10 outturn.
\n\n
Members asked how\nlong, on average, a core applicant (part of the constant 2,000)\nremained on the Council List before a move was completed. The Head\nof Housing explained that applicants were assessed on need.\nTherefore a new applicant might be housed immediately, whilst a\nless needy applicant could remain on the core list for some time.\nThere was no average waiting time; however it would not be unusual\nfor a family in categories A or B requesting a transfer to wait in\nexcess of 3 years. This reflected the difference between real need\nand the wish for a “better” house when already\naccommodated.
\n\n
\nDisabled Adaptations
\n\n
Member’s asked\nfor further detail and an explanation of the Audit\nCommission’s Strategic Housing Inspection 2008, given the\nreports conclusion that disabled people in Dartford were waiting\ntoo long to receive help to adapt their homes.
\n\n
The Head of Housing\nexplained that the Audit Commission’s review had in part\nreplicated the Council’s own review of the housing stock and\nthe need to address the issue of adaptations for disabled tenants\nand owners in Dartford.
\nThe Council policy was\nto encourage the Occupational Therapists (OTs) to make the bids for\nhousing adaptation on behalf of their patients, based on their\nprofessional knowledge and individual patients need. However, this\npolicy had not proved cost effective, given that OTs tended to\nadvocate adaptations irrespective of cost and budgetary constraint.\nMatters had recently become further complicated with a major change\nin OT staff following wholesale resignations. New and temporary OT\nstaff were less able to make bids on behalf of tenants and a\nfurther Council review was proposed in this
\nsensitive area. There\nwas the added difficulty that no two adaptations were the\nsame. There were quick\nwins to be achieved for £1,000, but more complicated\nadaptations, requiring planning permission, took time and could\nknock a significant hole in the budget: there was never enough\nmoney to meet demand. OT staff was asked to prioritise bids on a\nneeds basis, taking into account their patient base as a whole.
\n\n
\nDecent Homes
\n\n
Members enquired\nwhether the Council would be taking advantage of the recently\nannounced Government boiler scrappage scheme to further improve\nproperties and bring them up to the Decent Homes\nStandard. The Head of\nHousing was happy to confirm for Members, as previously reported to\nthe Cabinet Advisory Committee on 18 January 2010, that there were\nno deficient boilers (G rated) in the Council housing stock to\nqualify for the Government scrappage scheme.
\n\n
\n“Gunn Road” model
\n\n
The Chairman sought\nfurther background on the “Gunn Road” model to develop\nnew Estate Agreements, listed as entry 21 on the Action Plan\n(Appendix C to Agenda).
\n\n
The Housing Policy and\nDevelopment Manager explained that the model was based on the\nresults of a new Estate (now Neighbourhood) Agreement recently\nconcluded on the Gunn Road Estate. Community issues had been\nembraced through an open day to launch the Agreement. The principal\naim was that all residents have a responsibility to behave in an\nacceptable manner. Non-Council residents within the community were\nalso brought into the wider process. A Resident Involvement Officer was\nemployed on a full-time basis, without enforcement powers, to reach\nout to non-tenants in the area to foster a sense of community\nspirit. It was hoped to roll out the “Gunn Road” model\nto all Council estates in Dartford. The Head of Housing added that\nan update report on this very issue will be presented to the\nQuality Services Committee in the summer 2010.
\n\n
\nDownsizing
\n\n
Members sought\nclarification on the Downsizing process which, it was noted, the\nQuality Services Committee would be re-visiting in the\nspring.
\n\n
The Head of Housing\nadvised that the Downsizing budget was small, only £30,000\nfor 2009/10 of which some £25,000 + had been spent on 25\nseparate moves. Most recipients were elderly single tenants in 2-3\nbed room properties. Tenants were offered £500 for each room\nthey gave up, and had their utility supplies reconnected free of\ncharge in the downsized property. He stressed that the scheme was\nvoluntary with the limited funding used to “oil the\nwheels” of the transition process.
\n\n
\nConsultation Questionnaire
\n\n
Through the Chair,\nCouncillor Coleman reminded fellow Members to complete the\nConsultation Questionnaire at the back of the Agenda papers by 1\nFebruary 2010.
\n\n
The Chairman thanked\nthe officers for attending and for all their hard work in pushing\nforward the various initiatives detailed in the Draft Strategy and\nassociated documents. Councillor Prout added that he hoped the\neconomic climate improved to aid the Council’s housing\nefforts.
\n