On 16 December 2014 the Committee held a pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred canditate for the post of Housing Ombudsman, Denise Fowler. On the basis of the evidence provided at this hearing, the Committee concluded that she is a very suitable candidate for the post. In the Commitee view, however, to be independent of central government she cannot remain a civil servant and she should resign form the Civil Service before taking up the post. The Housing Ombudsman administers the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The purpose of the Scheme is for tenants and other individuals to have complaints about members investigated by a Housing Ombudsman. The Scheme states that the role of the Ombudsman is to resolve disputes involving members of the Scheme, including making awards of compensation or other remedies when appropriate, as well as to support effective landlord-tenent dispute resolution by others.

The purpose of the report is to distil experience from this parliament and to assist the new committee in the next parliament. It considers how the Committee approached its work, the way it has used research and how this might be strengthened, and its own assessment of performance against the core tasks set by the Liaison Committee. It then suggests some matters the new committee might consider examining in the next Parliament. These include both 'unfinished business', topics the Committee looked at over the Parliament to which the successors might wish to return, and new developments, which the Committee considers will emerge as major issues over the next five years.

This report follows up one issue left from the Committee's 2013 report on the Private Rented Sector (HCP 50, session 2013-14, ISBN 9780215060730): whether or not England should follow Scotland and introduce a ban on letting agents charging fees to tenants other than rents and refundable deposits. The change in Scotland had only been made in November 2012 and when the Committee reported in July 2013 views on its impact were speculative and varied widely. The Committee therefore decided to wait two years from its introduction and seek hard evidence on the impact of the change in Scotland. The Committee sought evidence from a number of organisations representing tenants, agents and landlords in Scotland and have examined relevant published reports. The Committee concludes that the evidence available is not strong enough to reach a view on the impact of the ban on fees in Scotland. In addition, the issues around fees that were raised in the original inquiry are more broadly based than simply fees to tenants, as they affect the overall role of agents in the market and the transparency of that market. The Committee therefore call on the Department for Communities and Local Government to commission a comprehensive impact assessment of the effects of the introduction of a ban on agents' fees in England.

The Government's policy of empowering people through Community Rights to save local assets from closure, build community housing, take over local authority services and bring public land back into use has in its first two years had mixed results. The Rights - to Bid, to Build, to Challenge and to Reclaim Land - have generated some successes, with a small number of community groups being able, for example, to use the Community Right to Bid to stop valued local assets such as the local pub being sold for redevelopment. But limitations have also been exposed. The Community Right to Build is too complicated; the Community Right to Challenge, which triggers a tendering exercise to run a local service, risks damaging relations between communities and local government and is a gamble for groups wanting to run a local service as they may be outbid; and the Community Right to Reclaim Land has hardly been used. The Committee wants to see the Rights improved so that local people have more say over what happens to the land, buildings and services in their area. The Government should: enhance the Community Right to Bid by increasing from six to nine months the time people have to bid to buy a local asset; make it easier to remove or restrict the "permitted development" exemption from planning control when an asset has been listed as having Community Value; and make an asset's status as an Asset of Community Value a material consideration in all but minor planning applications.

This report follows up our November 2014 report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and covers two matters: the role of Ofsted and Louise Casey's inspection report on Rotherham. It is clear that the inspection arrangements that Ofsted had in place from 2007, when it became responsible for inspecting children's services at Rotherham, failed to detect either the evidence, or the knowledge within the council, of large-scale child sexual exploitation. The structured inspection method used at that time to inspect local authorities' children's services was designed by Ofsted and did not focus on child sexual exploitation. The result was a lack of intelligence and understanding in Ofsted's handling of Rotherham. Child sexual exploitation was missed as was the superficiality of Rotherham's response to inspection findings and its dysfunction. The Committee found Louise Casey's report on her inspection of Rotherham to be penetrating and instructive. It not only confirmed the dreadful findings in the Jay Report but, what was worse, revealed that Rotherham Council was in denial about child sexual exploitation.

The rapid conversion of land to urban and suburban areas has profoundly altered how water flows during and following storm events, putting higher volumes of water and more pollutants into the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries. These changes have degraded water quality and habitat in virtually every urban stream system. The Clean Water Act regulatory framework for addressing sewage and industrial wastes is not well suited to the more difficult problem of stormwater discharges. This book calls for an entirely new permitting structure that would put authority and accountability for stormwater discharges at the municipal level. A number of additional actions, such as conserving natural areas, reducing hard surface cover (e.g., roads and parking lots), and retrofitting urban areas with features that hold and treat stormwater, are recommended.