Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mathur and Wren. Councillor Munro attended the meeting as a named substitute for Councillor Wren.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and / or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests, and any Party Whip.

Councillor Rita Rogers declared an other disclosable interest in Minute Item No. 5 – Health Inequalities in Redditch – Public Health Presentation – in her capacity as an employee of Worcestershire County Council. Councillor Rogers declared that she worked in different department to the County Council officers who delivered the presentation for Minute Item No. 5. She remained present throughout the debate in respect of this item.

The minutes of the meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee from 12 May 2025 will be considered at this meeting.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 12^th May 2025 be approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chair.

To invite members of the public who have registered in advance of the meeting to speak to the Committee.

There were no public speakers who have registered to speak at this meeting.

Presentation slides for this item will be published on the day of the meeting.

A presentation on Health Inequality and Priority Neighbourhoods in Redditch was provided by representatives from Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Public Health department, Citizens Advice Bromsgrove and Redditch and Redditch District Collaborative. In the presentation the following points were raised:

·       WCC Public Health focused on small geographical area approach to health inequalities within Worcestershire. This was based on Lower layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) which were geographical units of between 1,500 to 3,000 people, representing neighbourhood-sized units.

·       The WCC Public Health Team focused their resources on priority neighbourhoods that were identified as having the highest level of unmet health need. Intensive community development work would take place in those neighbourhoods.

·       Health outcomes for an area were a combination of level of need and the level of service provision.

·       To identify LSOAs / neighbourhoods where there was highest unmet need three non-elective emergency admissions measures were used, which were all emergency admissions, emergency cardiovascular admissions, and emergency respiratory admissions. These measures were deemed to provide the best proxy for where there was highest unmet need.

·       Statistical process control analysis was used to select priority neighbourhoods within Worcestershire and these were neighbourhoods / LSOAs with three standard deviations above the mean for the county in terms of non-elective emergency hospital admissions.

·       Based on the analysis, 14 priority neighbourhoods were identified within Worcestershire. All districts within Worcestershire apart from Bromsgrove had at least one priority neighbourhood, and Redditch had the most priority neighbourhoods of all Worcestershire districts at eight.

·       This approach was presented to and met with the approval of England’s Chief Medical Officer. Since then, the priority neighbourhoods approach was piloted in the Westlands Housing Estate, Droitwich.

·       The work piloted in Westlands, Droitwich focused on identifying where the health priority was and deciding what would be done about it. In that pilot, Public Health team collated in depth data and worked with resident groups, elected members, voluntary sector partners and health professionals (e.g. primary care) to build a picture of the issue and reasons behind elevated levels of hospital admissions.

·       Significant budget was devolved by Public Health to a local committee in the case of Westlands which was composed of the Westlands Housing Estate Residents Association, the local headteacher, residents who worked in the community centre, and local professionals, the local Housing Trust and voluntary sector, consequently allowing the building of local trust in this project.

·       The budget and public health grants was used by the local committee in Westlands to fund various programmes, including saving the local wellbeing hub, which had now become self-sustaining, a local parenting group, a nature trail project including benches for people with limited mobility, and a bicycle repair project.

·       A review of the pilot work undertaken in Westlands saw a reduction in emergency admissions in the area of 7 per cent, in the same time as emergency admissions went up across Worcestershire as a whole by 5 per cent.

·       Children’s social care referrals decreased by 14 per cent in the Westlands area and by 24 per cent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 2 June).

The Shareholders Committee Annual Report 2024-25 was presented to the Committee. It was noted that arrangements for the operation of the Shareholders Committee changed in May 2024 with the Shareholders Committee being required to produce an annual update to Council on the performance of Rubicon Leisure Limited. This was the first time that an annual report was produced on behalf on behalf of the Shareholders Committee.

Members were reminded that the role of the Shareholders Committee was distinct from that of the Rubicon Board. The Rubicon Board, comprising Executive and Non-Executive Directors, was responsible for running the business and the proper delivery of services. There were officers at the Council responsible for managing the client side of the business, and who monitored the service contract. The Shareholders Committee had no role over operational matters but was responsible for holding the Board to account for a number of reserved matters, detailed in the articles of the company.

The Leader of the Council was invited to comment on the Annual Report in her capacity as the Chair of Shareholders Committee in 2023-24. In doing so she highlighted areas of success in the last year including increased food and beverage income and the Palace Theatre. She also highlighted ongoing work including with regard to the Concession Policy.

The Leader suggested that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee might wish to consider inviting the Managing Director of Rubicon Leisure to a meeting of Overview and Scrutiny.

The Vice-Chair expressed disappointment with the change to the status of Shareholders Committee since 2024-25, in that Shareholders Committee had now become a sub-committee of the Executive Committee with non-Executive Councillors not involved as voting members in its meetings. The Vice-Chair recalled that prior to 2024-25, the Shareholders Committee was bipartisan and had cross Council representation.

The Vice-Chair commented that as the chairman of the Shareholders Committee in 2023-24 he found the meetings to be professional and constructive with cross-party input. The Vice-Chair expressed significant concern that the restriction of Shareholders Committee to a sub-committee of Executive represented a retrograde step which restricted input from the cross section of elected members, in particular backbenchers.

The Chair commented that the meetings of Shareholders Committee to which he was invited in his capacity as Group Leader clashed with other meeting commitments and consequently he was unable to attend the Shareholders Committee meetings in 2024-25.

The recommendation as set out in the report, that the Shareholders’ Committee Annual Report be noted, was endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 2 June).

The Assistant Director of Environmental and Housing Property Services presented a report on the subject of the Housing Regulator Tenant Satisfaction Measures.

The Committee was informed that the Housing Regulator had introduced 22 tenant satisfaction measures in 2023. These measures were designed to help regulate the performance of housing providers, including Redditch Borough Council. The Council had monitored the authority’s performance in accordance with these measures in 2023/24 and 2024/25 and the data for both years had been included in the report. It was noted that when compared to the results from 2023/24 there had generally been an increase in tenant satisfaction levels although the Council still performed below the median level across other Social Housing Providers.

In considering the Tenant Perception Survey results for the two years, it was noted that there were year on year improvements in most areas but in some areas satisfaction remained at a low and stagnating level, for example in relation to satisfaction with the Council’s complaint handling. It was noted that major improvements could be seen in repairs and maintenance which might be attributed to the Repairs and Maintenance team having recruited a number of new team members and having invested in modernising technical equipment during this period.

For non-emergency and emergency repairs, the Council’s latest performance data for the current year, as reported at the meeting, was 80 to 85 per cent of repairs completed within the landlord’s (social housing provider) timescales. This was an improvement over the Council’s performance for 2024/25 year where the figures were 65.7 and 77.9 per cent respectively for non-emergency and emergency repairs.

Officers were in the process of developing an improvement plan and this was at an interim stage by the date of the meeting. A response from the Housing Regulator to the latest inspection of the Council was due to be announced publicly in July 2025 and a report would subsequently be produced on the outcomes of this process to be available in September 2025.

Members subsequently discussed the report in detail and in doing so commented on the following areas:

·       Tenant characteristics data – Officers stated that the Housing Service did not hold a full set of tenant profile information. The Council’s Housing Service currently had profile information on 20-25 per cent of the customer base. Work was ongoing within the Service to capture this information within the housing management system utilising a ‘make every contact count’ philosophy covering telephone calls to services across housing as well as through tenancy sign-ups and the tenancy audits being undertaken.

·       Complaints response process – It was clarified that as per the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code of Practice, the Council was required to record and acknowledge receipt of every complaint within five days of receiving a complaint. Following the receipt of a complaint, the Senior Complaints Officer at the Council would contact the complainant to fully understand the nature of the complaint and following this the Council would write to the complainant acknowledging the complaint, setting out the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 2 June).

The Strategic Housing and Business Support Manager presented the Housing Ombudsman Self-Assessment Complaint Handling Code for Members’ consideration. It was clarified that this report was incorrectly titled on the agenda as ‘Housing Regulator Complaint Handling Code’ with the correct title being the ‘Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code’.

Members were informed that there was a requirement for the Council, as a social housing provider, to adopt the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. There was a further requirement for the Council to undertake a self-assessment in line with the code. Following the latest self-assessment, Officers had identified that there was a need to provide greater clarity with regard to Stage 2 complaints, particularly with regard to the types of complaints which would not be accepted as complaints at this stage. The report provided an opportunity to update the Code and Members were being invited to consider this change.

Officers reported that in 2024-25 the Council received 124 complaints which was a rate of 22.37 complaints per 1,000 social housing properties. This compared to the median rate across social housing properties of 42.5. Officers needed to fully understand and audit the reasons behind the Council’s relatively low complaints rate, whether it was because of improvements to the service, because tenants were unsure how they could make a complain, or due to a combination of these factors.

It was noted that in the first quarter of 2024-25 the Council’s performance in regard to complaint response times had deteriorated. The performance in this area had been improving since then and to drive improvement in the complaints handling performance a dedicated complaints investigator had been introduced within Housing Property Services.

Question was raised by a Member about what the Council did to foster a sense of trust with those tenants whose complaints were upheld by the Ombudsman. In particular, reference was made to a long-standing complaint with events dating back to 2015, where maladministration was found in the Council’s handling of the case. The Officer responded with reference to upheld complaints that the Council worked to immediately acknowledge all cases where mistakes were made, and discuss learning outcomes with staff and contractors to address issues. In referring to the particular case dating back to 2015, the Officer commented that this was an extremely complex case where the Council had found itself out of time to appeal and therefore had to accept the Ombudsman’s determinations. As a result of this case a number of significant improvements to the Council’s complaint handling were made including a new Housing Allocations System, digitialisation of historic paper files for improved record keeping, and enhanced training opportunities through the Housing Quality Network for key members of staff 

The Vice-Chair addressed the Committee and commended Officers and the Housing Portfolio Holder for the continuing progress made in this service area. He noted that in 2018 the Housing Service was in turmoil and there were no statistics recorded at that time but since then significant efforts had been made to get to the point  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The latest version of the Executive Committee Work Programme (Forward Plan) will be published in a supplementary pack on Monday 2 June 2025.

The Executive Committee’s Work Programme was presented for Members’ consideration.

RESOLVED that

the Executive Committee’s Work Programme be noted.

The Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme was presented for Members’ consideration.

RESOLVED that

the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme be noted.

a)          Budget Scrutiny Working Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

b)          Performance Scrutiny Working Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

c)           Fly Tipping and Bulky Waste Task Group – Chair, Councillor Dormer

d)          Post-16 Education Task Group – Chair, Councillor Warhurst

As there were no meetings of the task groups and working groups since the last meeting of the Committee, no updates were provided at this meeting.

a)          West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Council Representative, Councillor Boyd;

b)          West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Transport Delivery Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Council Representative, Councillor Fardoe; and

c)           Worcestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) – Council Representative, Councillor Fry.

Update on the meetings of External Scrutiny Bodies were provided by the representatives as follows:

a)    West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Council Representative, Councillor Boyd

Councillor Boyd provided an update on behalf of last year’s Representative on this body, Councillor Kane, who attended the last meeting in May. It was reported that items discussed at that meeting included the West Midlands Place Pilots Programme, the Impact of the Commonwealth Games Legacy Enhancement Fund, the Job Rotation Model, and the Regional Energy Strategy.

In relation to the Job Rotation Model, it was reported that this was a pilot initiative funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that was delivered in 2024-25. It was noted that the Job Rotation Pilot aimed to offer 12-week work placements to 80 unemployed Universal Credit claimants in Coventry. Running from April 2024 to March 2025, with a short extension to June. Despite initial challenges such as setup delays and job-role mismatches, the pilot delivered strong outcomes: with all placements offered employment to and participants reported improved job prospects, confidence, and reduced reliance on Universal Credit.

In relation to the Regional Energy Strategy / Net Zero Five Year Plan, Councillor Boyd reported that this was a review of West Midlands Regional Energy Strategy adopted in February 2025 which set out a vision for the West Midlands to transition to a smarter energy system by 2041.

b)    West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Transport Delivery Overview and Scrutiny – Council Representative, Councillor Fardoe

Councillor Fardoe reported that the last meeting of the WMCA Transport Delivery Overview and Scrutiny took place earlier today (9 June) for which Councillor Fardoe submitted apologies.

c)     Worcestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) – Council Representative, Councillor Fry

Councillor Fry reported that the next meeting of this outside body was due to take place on 9 July 2025.

RESOLVED that

the External Scrutiny Bodies updates be noted.

Should it be necessary, in the opinion of the Chief Executive, during the course of the meeting to consider excluding the public from the meeting on the grounds that exempt information is likely to be divulged, it may be necessary to move the following resolution:

“That, under S.100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following matter(s) on the grounds that it/they involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs (to be specified) of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the said Act”.

These paragraphs are as follows:

Subject to the “public interest” test, information relating to:

·         Para 1 – any individual;

·         Para 2 – the identity of any individual;

·         Para 3 – financial or business affairs;

·         Para 4 – labour relations matters;

·         Para 5 – legal professional privilege;

·         Para 6 –  a notice, order or direction;

·         Para 7 – the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime;

                     and may need to be considered as ‘exempt’.

The exclusion of the public and press was not required as Minute Item No. 14 – Disposal of Housing Revenue Account Assets – 53 Parsons Road, Southcrest, Redditch. 53 Crabbs Cross Lane, Redditch – Pre-Scrutiny – had been deferred and was not considered at this meeting.

The report will follow in a supplementary pack for this meeting after it has been published for the meeting of Executive Committee (due for publication on Monday 2 June).

This item was deferred.