Decisions

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Committee considered the report, noting that the application had been called-in by Councillor Robert Benham on the grounds of concerns of local residents, and without debate RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 1.

 

Councillor White voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

Councillor Benham left the chamber during consideration of the item and took no part in the voting.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The application before Members sought planning permission for the part demolition of an existing flat roofed rear extension and to construct single and two storey rear extensions.

 

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Osman Dervish if minded to refuse planning permission, as he did not believe that the proposal caused harm to the character of the Gidea Park Conservation Area as it would not impact on the street scene.

 

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant.

 

The objector commented that property was within the Gidea Park Conservation Area and the proposal by virtue of its height and scale would harm the characterful rear elevation of the property. The objector concluded by commenting that the excessive depth of the proposal would have an unneighbourly effect on adjacent properties.

 

In response the applicant commented that the report confirmed that the ground floor extension was acceptable and that all that was being added at first floor level was a dormer window. The applicant concluded by commenting that the proposal overall would cause no visual harm to the character of the property.

 

With its agreement Councillor Osman Dervish addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Dervish commented that the proposed extensions would allow the occupiers to lead a more comfortable life by providing extra bathroom facilities to the property. Councillor Dervish concluded by commenting that the application was a reasonable one that would not affect the conservation area in a negative way.

 

During the debate Members sought and received clarification of the dimensions of the proposal and how it would sit within neighbouring properties within the conservation area.

Officers advised the Committee that under s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 they had to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In this context, they were further advised that it was not sufficient to balance harm against benefits in the normal way; more weight had to be given to any harm to the heritage assets than to other material planning considerations because to the legal duty under s72. The committee concluded that the proposed extension did not cause harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area because of the location of the extension to the rear of the property and its good standard of detailing.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried by 10 votes to 1 it was RESOLVED that it be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhoods to grant planning permission subject to conditions as the Committee considered that the development would not cause harm to the conservation area.

 

The vote for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

 

Councillor Hawthorn voted against the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

The proposal before Members was for the construction of a two storey building with ground floor entrance and undercroft car parking. There would be three 1-bedroom apartments on the first floor and a fourth, 2-bedroom unit (plus study) in the roofspace. A two storey side extension was proposed to the north-western side of the development to allow staircase access to the unit in the loft.

 

Members noted that the application had been called-in to the Committee by Councillor Jeffrey Tucker. The reasons for the call-in were that he considered the application to be of good quality with adequate parking and an attractive modern building with a neat and tidy open green space, all that was needed for the many young members of the community to get onto the housing ladder.

 

With its agreement Councillor Jeffrey Tucker addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Tucker commented that the proposal was an attractive development of good quality and with adequate parking provision. Councillor Tucker concluded by commenting that no objections to the proposal had been received and residents in the area welcomed the proposal.

During the debate, Members discussed the benefits of the proposal and how it would bring much-needed housing to the area. Members concluded that these benefits outweighed the limited harm that was identified in the report and that on balance planning permission should be granted.

Members noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £5,400.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission, as Members considered the development to be of sufficient quality and appearance, it was RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to conditions as agreed by the Director of Neighbourhoods and the completion of a Section 106 agreement for an education contribution which should be completed within six months.

 

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

 

Councillor Whitney voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

 

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £76,838 and without debate RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

 

·         A financial contribution of £264,000 to be used towards educational infrastructure costs

 

·         To provide the Private Rented Sector (PRS) units for a minimum of 15 years and not to allow occupation of any of the units for use other than PRS during that time period

 

·         Not to dispose of any of the Private Rented Sector (PRS) units free from any of the restrictions, terms and obligations in the S106 Agreement within a Clawback Period of up to 15 years without undertaking a Disposal Viability Appraisal to determine whether it was viable to pay an Affordable Housing Contribution.  Where the Disposal Viability Appraisal indicated that it was viable to pay an Affordable Housing Contribution the applicant to pay such identified contribution to the Council.

 

·         Not to allow occupation of the units until a Private Rented Sector (PRS) Marketing Strategy had been submitted to, and approved by, the Council.  Such Strategy to secure that priority is given to residents who live or work in the Borough and to provide for local marketing within the Borough

 

·         Not to allow occupation of the units until a Private Rented Sector (PRS) Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved by, the Council. Such Plan shall secure the following:

 

-       Provision of a lease period between 1 and 5 years

-       Demonstrate a consistent and quality level of housing management, and

-       Limit rent increase to one increase per 12 calendar months

 

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

 

•      The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

 

•      The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

 

That the Director of Neighbourhoods be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grantsubject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

 

The application before Members was for a part change of use and conversion of ground, first and second floor retail floorspace; third floor extension; and elevational changes to accommodate an eighty-five-bedroom hotel including a restaurant. The application sought planning permission for a third floor extension to the building which together with the existing first and second floor was proposed to be used as a hotel inclusive of public restaurant. A retail use on the ground floor of the building would be maintained as part of the proposals.

 

This was a re-submission of a previous application which was refused planning permission. The applicant had sought to review the scheme in an attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal and in doing so had revised the proposed cladding and façade treatment, undertaken further transport assessments and provided additional information on proposed servicing arrangements.

 

Members also noted that the original refusal of planning permission had been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate following appeal, consequently the only relevant consideration in regard to the application was of the façade treatment.

 

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Thompson commented that the newly submitted façade treatment was more aesthetically pleasing and that the proposal would ensure the building was in active use going forward.

 

Members noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £12,120 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as its stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following obligations by 27 October 2017 and in the event that the s106 agreement was not completed by such date the item should be returned to the Committee for reconsideration:

 

• A financial contribution of £10,000 towards local pedestrian dropped kerb improvements and the provision of a loading bay in Ducking Stool Court, to be paid prior to the commencement of development.

 

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums should be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

 

• The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the legal agreement, prior to the completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the agreement was completed; and

 

• Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

 

It was therefore recommended that the Director of Neighbourhoodsbe authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 2.

 

Councillors Donald and Hawthorn voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

 

 

 

 

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £4,828 and without debate RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

 

•           A financial contribution of £24,000 to be used for educational purposes.

 

•           All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

 

•           Save for the holders of blue badges that the future occupiers of the proposal would be prevented from purchasing parking permits for their own vehicles for any existing, revised or new permit controlled parking scheme.

 

•           The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement was completed.

 

•           Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

 

•           It was resolved to grant planning permission subject to completion of the s106 agreement by 27 October 2017 or in the event that the s106 agreement was not completed by 27 October 2017 the item shall be returned to the Committee for reconsideration.

 

That the Director of Neighbourhoods be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

 

 

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £1,420 and without debate RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

 

•           A financial contribution of £42,000 to be used for educational purposes.

 

•           All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

 

•           Save for the holders of blue badges that the future occupiers of the proposal would be prevented from purchasing parking permits for their own vehicles for any existing, revised or new permit controlled parking scheme.

 

•           The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement was completed.

 

•           Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

 

•           It was resolved to grant planning permission subject to completion of the s106 agreement by 27 October 2017 or in the event that the s106 agreement was not completed by 27 October 2017 the item should be returned to the Committee for reconsideration.

 

That the Director of Neighbourhoods be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

 

Councillor White voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

 

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

Tesco Stores Ltd

Airfield Way

Hornchurch

Essex

RM12 5AF

 

 

APPLICANT

Licensing Team

Tesco Stores Ltd

5 Falcon Way

Shire Park

Welwyn Garden City

Hertfordshire

AL7 1TW

 

 

1.    Details of Application

 

Supply of Alcohol
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Saturday	08:00	23:00
Sunday	08:00	22:30
Christmas Day	12:00	15:00
	19:00	22:30

 

Variation applied for:

 

Supply of Alcohol
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	07:00	23:00

 

 

The applicant acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005 relating to the advertising of the application. The required public notice was installed in the 22 March 2017 edition of the Havering Yellow Advertiser.

 

The essence of the application was primarily to remove the embedded condition with regards to Christmas Day and Good Friday opening, which was imposed under the Licensing Act 1964 and was therefore no longer relevant.

The applicant was seeking to regularise the hours which would increase by 1 hour each day on Monday to Saturday. Although the applicant had sought to increase the Sunday hours; it would still be subject to Sunday Trading hours and could open but only for 6 consecutive hours between 10am and 6pm and must close on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.

 

2.    Details of Representations

 

There were two (2) representations against this application from interested persons one of whom had wished to remain anonymous.

 

There were no representations against the application from responsible authorities.

 

 

Details of representations

 

Valid representations may only address the following licensing objectives:

 

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm
• Public safety

 

The two written representations objected to the application on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

 

3.    Applicant’s response.

 

The applicant’s agent, Mr Barr, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that the applicant was looking to regularise the hours of the licence.

 

The premises were open from 07.00 hrs in the morning and were currently closing at 22.00hrs.

 

Alcohol sales only accounted for approximately 5-7% of the turnover of the premises.

 

Mr Barr also advised that Tesco operated both Think 25 and Challenge 25 policies and provided comprehensive staff training on underage sales, dealing with intoxicated customers and proxy sales.

 

Mr Barr commented that he believed that the representations received were of an erroneous nature and that the interested parties had slightly misread what was being applied for as there had been mention of later trading hours which was not part of the application.

 

In response to a question relating to proxy sales Mr Barr commented that Tesco worked very closely with the local police in sharing information relating to possible Anti-Social Behaviour in the area. Tesco also provided limited security provision to the premises and the company also employed a Community Champion who liaised with local residents.

 

Mr Barr also confirmed that the Store Manager Mr Bond was also happy for his telephone number to be given to any local residents with any concerns relating to the operation of the premises.

 

 

4.    Determination of Application

 

Consequent upon the hearing held on 27 April 2017, the Sub-Committee’s decision regarding the application for a variation of the premises licence for Tesco Stores Ltd was as set out below, for the reasons stated:

 

The Sub-Committee was obliged to determine the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives.

 

In making its decision, the Sub-Committee also had regard to the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Havering’s Licensing Policy.

 

In addition the Sub-Committee took account of its obligations under section 117 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

5.    Decision

 

Having considered the oral and written submissions of the applicant and having regard to the licensing objectives, the Sub-Committee decided to grant the application, on the grounds that the modest extension of hours sought – principally in the morning from 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. - would not undermine the licensing objectives.

 

Although there were written representations regarding noise and anti-social behaviour in the area, the Sub-Committee was not of the view that an extra 30 minutes on a Sunday evening and an extra hour on Monday to Saturday mornings would have any significant impact on this.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that other similar premises in the area have licences up to 23.00 or midnight on the same days and that the hours sought in the case did not exceed those considered generally appropriate in the Council’s statement of licensing policy.

 

Reasons:

The application for a variation of the premises licence was granted because the extension to the licensing hours sought for this premises would not undermine the licensing objectives.

 

 

Appeal

 

Any party to the decision may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of notification of the decision. On appeal, the Magistrates Court may make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

Richard Cursons

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee

 

 

 

 

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

Nisa,

97-99 Balgores Lane,

Romford,

Essex,

RM2 6BT

 

 

APPLICANT

Mr Sinan Avlik

Nisa,

97-99 Balgores Lane,

Romford,

Essex,

RM2 6BT

 

1.    Details of Application

 

Current premises licence hours:

 

Supply of Alcohol – Off Supply only
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Saturday	08:00	23:00
Sunday	10:00	22:30
Good Friday	08:00	22:30
Christmas Day	12:00	15:00
	19:00	22:30

 

Variation applied for:

 

Supply of Alcohol – Off Supply only
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	08:00	02:00

 

Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police the applicant had amended his application as follows:

 

Supply of Alcohol – Off Supply only
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	08:00	00:00

 

A number of conditions had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police and the Sub-Committee were asked to consider adding these conditions should they be minded to grant the amended application.

 

 

The applicant had acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005 relating to the advertising of the application. The required public notice was installed in the Romford Recorder on the 17^th March 2017.

 

 

2.    Details of Representations

 

There were fifteen representations against this application from interested persons.

 

There were two (2) representations against this application from responsible authorities.

 

Local Planning Authority

Local Licensing Authority

 

 

Details of representations

 

The representations submitted by Councillors Frederick Thompson and Melvin Wallace related to the excessive hours applied for by the applicant. Additionally, Councillor Thompson raised concerns that the later opening hours would encourage drinkers leaving local public houses at 00:00 to call in and buy spirits and other high strength drunks thus increasing their propensity to commit vandalism.  He further expressed concern that the objective of Prevention of Public Nuisance would be threatened as persons buying drink in the early hours were likely to become more boisterous and noisy as well as leaving a trail of drink and snacks related litter.

 

Councillor Wallace attended the hearing and reiterated his representation that even with the revised hours he still maintained his representation. He also informed the Sub-Committee that there was a children’s home in close proximity to the premises.

 

The other representations cover similar issues covering Prevention of Public Nuisance, Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Protection of Children from Harm.

 

Two of the residents who submitted representations Mrs Trupti Patel and Mr Denis Holbrook attended the hearing and made representations in person.

 

Mrs Patel explained that in her opinion a 02:00 closure was too late in a predominantly residential area. Even the revised time of 12:00 was too late.  She also referred to trouble caused by young people in the evening and school children at weekends and school holidays.

 

Mr Holbrook also expressed his concern at the original request to open the premises until 02:00. He felt that even a 12:00 closure was in appropriate as it would set a precedent for other premises in the area. This was a predominantly residential area and a closure time of 23:00 was appropriate. He supported Mrs Patel’s concern regarding nuisance at the weekend.

 

The written representation from the Local Planning Authority objected to the proposed variation on the specific licensing objective ‘The prevention of Public Nuisance.’ The representation referred to Licencing Policy nos. 1, 6, 8 and 14.

 

Specific reference to the proposed closing time of 02:00. The concern was that this increase in opening hours would introduce new issues due to an increase in noise and disturbance to the residents located in close proximity to the application site from increased comings and goings and noise. This would become more prevalent in the early hours, when there would be a reasonable expectation that there was lower ambient noise level and a lower amount of activity in the area. It was therefore expected that more conditions or relevant preventative measures should be put in place to address the additional noise and disturbance: but the licence application did not do this. The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the licensing objectives as laid out in licensing policy 8.

 

The Planning Authority therefore asked the Sub-Committee to refuse the application to vary the premises licence in accordance with licensing policy 14.

 

The Licensing Authority had also submitted a representation under the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. The representation referenced Licensing Policies 1, 5 and 7.

 

In the written representation the Licensing Authority informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant had become the licence holder in February 2017 and to revive the business had refurbished the shop and installed a new layout which increased the display of alcohol. Officers had pointed this out to the Designated Premises Supervisor and this had precipitated the application to vary the hours and layout.

 

The applicant had stated in the application that he did not consider that any further measures were required to uphold the licensing objectives. In applying to open until 02:00 the applicant should have recognised the potential for public nuisance and addressed this in the application. There was nothing in the application to ‘merit’ the variation.

 

In the immediate vicinity of the premise were a number of other similar premises all of which were within the hours of policy 7 and closed at 23:00. Extending the premises’ hours of operation into the early hours of the morning had an implication which reached beyond the boundary of the premises.

 

The applicant had not described why they felt they should not be subject to Havering’s policy and the Licensing Authority asked that the hours be restricted to 23:00 in line with policy 7.

 

3.    Applicant’s response

 

The applicant failed to attended the hearing and the Sub-Committee had to rely on the information provided in the application.

 

 

 

4.    Decision

 

The Sub-Committee took account of its obligations under section 117 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

Two written representations have been received from Responsible Authorities, namely the Council’s planning and licensing departments, objecting to the application on the ground of the prevention of public nuisance.

 

Fifteen written representations have been received from other persons, objecting to the application on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Statutory Guidance issued under s.182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

In particular, the Sub-Committee took into account paragraphs 1.3, 1.5, 1.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.25, 2.32, 9.3, 10.11, 10.12, 13.42, 13.43 of the Guidance and Policies 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

The Sub-Committee heard oral representations from Councillor Wallace, Mrs Patel (neighbouring shopkeeper) and Mr Holbrook, a local resident who lives next door to a children’s home very close to the premises.

 

Having considered and heard all of evidence the Sub-Committee is of the view the application should be refused, on the grounds that any extension of hours would undermine the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

The Sub-Committee took into account evidence that the location of the premises is a primarily residential area, and that the parade of shops acts as a gathering place, particularly for young people. There was evidence from Mrs Patel and Mr Holbrook, reflected in many of the written representations, that any extension of hours would lead to increased noise, vandalism and other anti-social behaviour.

 

The Sub-Committee also noted that the application did not address concerns raised by the responsible authorities in the application. No addition steps were identified in the application (in particular in section 16) to promote the licensing objectives. The application simply stated that the steps would be the same as those in the existing licence.

 

The Sub-Committee therefore decided that no extension to the licensing hours should be granted and the application should be refused.

 

 

 

Reasons:

 

The application for a variation of the premises licence is refused because an extension to the licensing hours for this premises would undermine the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of harm to children.

 

Appeal

 

Any party to the decision may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

 

1.         Dismiss the appeal; 

2.         Substitute another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; 

3.         Remit the case to the Licensing Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; 

4.         Make an order for costs as at its discretion.

 

James Goodwin

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee

 

 

 

 

To approve the School and Post 16 Travel Assistance Policy 2017/18

Councillor Clarence Barrett presented the report of Pippa Brent-Isherwood, Assistant Director of Policy Performance and Community, to Cabinet, setting out the Quarter 3 Performance against each of the Council’s Corporate Strategic Goals: Clean, Safe and Proud.

 

Cllr Barrett indicated that a total of 58 Corporate Performance Indicators (CPI’s) had been included in the report.  35 of these are either statutory or reported to MOPAC and 23 are local performance indicators.  55 have been given a RAG (red, amber, green) status and a summary of these appears at paragraph 6 of the report. 73% have a green status and 27% have red or amber which represents a slight improvement on Quarter 2.

 

It was noted that the levels of performance must be interpreted in the context of increasing demand on services across the Council and this is illustrated in the Demand Pressure Dashboard at appendix 2 of the report.

 

The way that performance indicators are dealt with is set to change with a more outcomes focused approach being developed.  In line with the new Vision for Havering Council, the new CPI’s will be closely aligned to transformation plans and strategies.  In addition, from 2017/18, Corporate Performance Reports are to be reported only to the Overview and Scrutiny Board (on a quarterly basis) and Cabinet.  The reports will be made available simultaneously to the Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Sub Committees.  Target tolerances and the RAG status will be removed from the reports.

 

Councillor Barrett detailed the highlights of the report against each of the Council’s priorities, in particular;

 

CLEAN

·       the number of days to remove fly tips which has improved now being within the target tolerance

·       The number of volunteers participating in community clean ups; and

·       The percentage of Planning Appeals allowed which is better than this time next year.

 

Consideration was also given to areas needing improvement;

·       The percentage of major applications processed within 13 weeks is below target; and

·       The provisional levy waste tonnage in the latest data available, demonstrates that this will be above target and will therefore have a financial implication for the Council.  Notwithstanding this a number of campaigns are ongoing to help reduce this figure.

 

SAFE

Highlights:

·       The rate of delayed transfers of care attributable to Adult Social Care is below target (where smaller is better);

·       100% of carers are receiving their support through self-direction via direct payment.  This represents 1,775 service users with an increase of 23% on the same time last year

·       The percentage of adults in contact with secondary mental health services who are living independently is significantly above target.

 

Areas needing improvement:

·       The percentage of LAC placed in LBH foster care is below target and this year so far only 4 new in house foster carers have been recruited.  This is being addressed by a recruitment campaign

·       The number of Total Notifiable Offences recorded for this financial year has increased.

·       The rate of permanent admissions to residential and nursing care homes is above target.

 

PROUD

 

Highlights:

·       Out of 8,784, only 70 properties were identified at a non-decent standard.  This is above target and performing better than last year;

·       The amount of Early Years providers judged “Good” or “Outstanding” has increased and is better than both last quarter and this time last year;

·       The percentage of adults in contact with secondary mental health services in paid employment is better than target;

·       The number of volunteers helping to run the library service continues to grow and is above target this quarter.

 

In need of improvement:

 

·       Housing repairs completed on time are below target;

·       Start-up businesses accessing advice through the Business Start-up Programme is below target

·       The current average sickness absence rate across the Council is 9.8FTE days per employee.  This represents the lowest sickness rate in two years but it is still worse than target. A 24/7 Absence Line pilot scheme was launched in October 2016 for Employment and Catering Services and this has been successful in reducing sickness absence.

 

There then followed a period of discussion.  Councillor David Durant noted the increased costs of waste disposal and asked the Council to look at other means disposal in order to bring costs down. The Leader stated that the Council is currently locked into a contract with ELWA and that plans will be made to ensure this is as cost effective as possible.  This issue will be passed on to the local MP in an effort to shape government policy.

 

For the reasons set out in the report Cabinet:

 

1.     Reviewed the performance set out in Appendix 1 of the report and the corrective action that has been and continues to be taken.

2.     Noted the content of the Demand Pressures Dashboard presented in the report at Appendix 2

3.     Approved an amended approach to performance reporting from 2017/18, which will see target tolerances (and therefore RAG ratings) removed from the reports.

 

There were no other options considered as an alternative to Cabinet considering the Quarter 3 Performance Report as this is considered to be the only way that the London Borough of Havering can ensure that Cabinet Members are kept totally up to date with the Council’s Performance for each of the Strategic Goals.