'Secretive' decision on homeless hub called in

A special meeting of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee has been called for next Tuesday (29) after discontent about the Cabinet decision to go ahead with the project.

That decision was made on March 9th but has since been questioned by at least three councillors who are members of the overview and scrutiny board.

They claim the decision was unduly secretive and Cabinet had not openly considered all the options.

The Board is only able to offer advice to the Cabinet over the decision which does not mean its members have to follow any advice, if offered, but the move will be seen as a further concern about the way the council’s political leaders are operating.

Those calling the decision into question claim the decision to go ahead with the project was not made in accordance with the principles set out in the council constitution.

They claim the council had offered no information that it had consulted and received support from partners who were likely to be involved in the project before taking the decision to go ahead.

The critics also say that the advice from officers that the project was not good value for money or proportionate was not taken into account.

“The statements made throughout the process that this was not intended to be a service for people who are homeless but not on the streets suggests that the individuals who access this service will be very small and therefore the investment would not be proportionate. The councils stated aim in the homelessness reduction strategy is to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping to as close to zero as possible and so the centre is likely to become redundant if the aim is achieved,” said a committee report to next week’s meeting.

The meeting will also be told that whilst the paper presented to cabinet explained what options were considered, it did not give reasons for the decision to opt for the one it did.

“The paper stated that there was no preferred option and that four were being presented for consideration. However, when the lead member introduced the paper to the (Overview and Scrutiny) Board they stated that the ‘preferred option was option 4’. Further, at cabinet there was no discussion around the various options and a decision was taken to progress option 4 without good reasons for the other options being disregarded.”

There is also a complaint that more of the discussion could have been held in public: “Whilst the purchase price of the homeless health hub could be considered commercially sensitive, the options regarding the way forward did not need to be in confidential session, nor did the discussion around the options. The reason that the decision had to come before cabinet was that the original proposal was found to have grossly underestimated the works required, to not have considered the need to receive a market value for the property under Charity Commission rules and this demonstrated a failing in the process that the public have a right to understand.”

At a previous overview and scrutiny meeting Lead Councillor for Homelessness Cllr Hazel Allen said the St Stephen’s hall option was one of several being worked on and could involve setting up a not-for-profit community interest company with other partners.

She said it was believed the partnership approach could be the best option for the centre when it came to unlocking grant aid and financial support.

Cllr Vikki Slade was among those who objected to the way the item was being handled at the time claiming that the public ought to be told what the options were for operating the hub, which will be known as a Homeless Inclusion Health Centre, or ‘Health Hub’.

“The public need to know why we are making this decision. We all know why it is but we’re not allowed to discuss it,” said Cllr Slade.