Councillor Karen Watson (Vice-Chair) took the chair for this meeting and would be referred to as the ‘Chair’ for the remainder of these minutes.

Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2024 (Minute Nos. 356 – 364) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 October 2024 (Minute Nos. 356 – 364) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

Councillor Alastair Gould declared a non-pecuniary interest with respect to Item 5, Medway and Swale Health and Care Partnership, as he was a General Practitioner for the National Health Service.

Councillor Ben J Martin declared a non-pecuniary interest with respect to Item 5, Medway and Swale Health and Care Partnership, as he worked as a Green Doctor to help residents of Swale improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Councillor Tom Nundy declared a non-pecuniary interest with respect to Item 6, Housing Assistance Policy Review, as his partner had adaptations made to her property.

Presentation from NHS England.

The Chair welcomed Nikki Teesdale (Director of Health and Care Integration and Improvement, Medway and Swale Health and Care Partnership) to the meeting.

The Director of Health and Care Integration and Improvement gave an overview of the 2024-2025 Delivery Plan for the Medway and Swale Health and Care Partnership (HaCP), with a five-year perspective on the development and operation of Integrated Neighbourhood Teams (INTs). The Delivery Plan outlined the key areas of focus which included: Development of Integrated Neighbourhood Teams; Workstream Progress and System Integration; and Monitoring and Evaluation. She added that the aims of the HaCP Delivery Plan were to deliver an effective and cohesive local care ecosystem that met the diverse health and wellbeing needs of Medway and Swale residents, reduced health inequalities and optimised resource utilisation across the system.

The Director of Health and Care Integration and Improvement gave a case study as an example of the good work that the partnership had recently done at a primary school in Swale.

The Chair invited questions from Members, and points raised included:

·      Did the wider determinants understand the importance and the positive impact that the HaCP had on local communities?;

·      did the partnership offer specific support for those that were suffering from loneliness?;

·      what were the holistic care plan for people that suffered from Diabetes?;

·      what was an asthmatic friendly school?;

·      what was the role of Green Doctors in the Community?;

·      could the partnership use the un-used space, at the Isle of Sheppey Hospital, as a community hub?;

·      had the care partnership approached local schools that could host community health training events?;

·      had the partnership considered preparing a cost-effectiveness of carrying out work similar to the case study, as a way of providing evidence for the funding that was needed;

·      the Council were responsible for ensuring social housing homes were not rated below an ‘E’ energy efficiency rating when offering it to possible tenants;

·      could data sharing agreements be made between organisations to speed-up the referral process?;

·      important for all four Health Care Partnerships in Kent shared ideas, experiences and collaborate effectively with each other to improve the service;

·      the Council were currently looking at ways to fix mold and damp issues in properties in the borough; and

·      giving residents of the borough the knowledge of how they could prevent Health Issues was the first step of giving care.

The Director of Health and Care Integration and Improvement responded to points made and explained that the Integrated Care Board (ICB) would be in control of the partnership’s budget from April 2025. The partnership had already been looking at alternative funding opportunities to ensure that they could carry on with the work they had been doing.

Over the past few years the partnership had delivered 46 different programs including isolation and the impact that it could have on individuals. Once the partnership had a good understanding of what the communities needed, the community would be given an opportunity to bid for funding for the specifically related health needs of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 538.

The Head of Housing and Communities introduced the report which set out the Housing Assistance Policy and sought approval for the draft policy to go out for public consultation.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, which included:

·           Wording on paragraph 2, page 11, of the policy needed to be changed to read ‘Often housing associations might be able to assist their tenants’ rather than ‘are able to assist their tenants’;

·           how did officers ensure that owners of properties that had received grant works to their homes, did not sell the property for profit following the works?;

·           could officers look at the use of AI technology to help deal with large numbers of applications?;

·           the document referred to Cabinet Members which needed updating;

·           often Councillors knew of local trades people that struggled to fill-in the necessary documents to be registered to the contractor portal, so could officers do more to help smaller trades people in the borough?; and

·           what was the timescale for the policy to come back to committee for final implementation?

The Head of Housing and Communities responded to points raised and said that once grant works had been undertaken on a property a charge was placed on the deeds of that property to ensure any fees that were owed to the Council were paid back in full. She added that AI technology was something that officers were looking at and hoped that recent changes in the Housing team would result in the use of newer technologies to help with the large number of applications.

The Head of Housing and Communities informed Members that the Housing team had annual meetings with contractors in the borough to understand any concerns or issues that they had with carrying out any assistance works to properties. She added that the portal could be added to and if Members had local trades people that were DBS checked, they could refer those trades people to the Housing Team.

The Head of Housing and Communities said that the consultation would run for a total of eight weeks and hoped to bring the full revised policy following the consultation to the first Housing and Health Committee of the 2025/2026 civic year.

Councillor Ben J Martin proposed that the threshold for means-tested assessments should be adjusted to £11,483. This was seconded by Councillor Tom Nundy and on being put to the vote, agreed by Members.

Resolved:

(1)   That the draft Housing Assistance Policy 2025, with the revised changes as minuted, go out for public consultation.

The Head of Housing and Communities introduced the report which provided an update on the current performance of Temporary Accommodation (TA) and the current budget position.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, which included:

·      Welcomed the good work and report, but it was a shame to see so many people in need of temporary accommodation;

·      could officers conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the Council having their own Temporary Accommodation against using external providers?;

·      creating our own housing stock was a sign of moving in the right direction;

·      was the Council still on target to achieve 50 temporary accommodation homes on the housing stock?;

·      frustrating to hear that the Government had taken away grant funding because the Council’s service was ‘too good’;

·      had officers considered converting shipping containers to help with temporary accommodation?;

·      there were a lot more empty homes at new build developments as developers found it hard to find housing associations that were willing to take up the ownership of the homes;

·      often social and temporary accommodation homes were not built in the right locations; and

·      did officers have any recommendations to improve the number of housing associations that were willing to take-up social housing on new build developments?

The Head of Housing and Communities responded to points raised and confirmed that officers had planned a review of the cost-benefit analysis for the Council owning their own stock vs using external providers later in 2025. She added that her team wanted to purchase the right kind of homes within the budget that had been agreed by the Housing and Health Committee and hoped to meet the 50 homes target.

With regards to the use of shipping containers the Head of Housing and Communities said that officers had worked with oragnisations to explore the possible use of shipping containers, however, the site locations proposed were deemed unsuitable for shipping containers due to un-even ground levels or not having the required amenities.

The Head of Housing and Communities explained that it was Planning Policy which outlined the levels of social housing development in each area and recognised that sometimes these were often different from where the largest demand was. The Housing Team and the Planning Policy team were reviewing the policy as part of the Local Plan process and her team always kept good communications between developers and housing associations to ensure the take-up of social and affordable homes where possible. 

Resolved:

(1)   That the performance report and controls in place to manage the Temporary Accommodation budget be noted.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen asked if a report on the impact devolution could have on health and housing provisions could be added to the forward decisions plan.

The Head of Housing and Communities advised that she would add the Temporary Accommodation Purchase Programme – cost benefit analysis report to the forward plan. 

Resolved:

(1)          That the forward decisions plan be noted.

The meeting was adjourned from 7.45 pm until 7.50 pm.