Items
No. |
Item |
1. |
Minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2014 PDF 40 KB
Decision:
Resolved: to agree the minute of the meeting
held on 1 October 2014 as an accurate record.
Minutes:
Resolved: to agree the minute of the meeting
held on 1 October 2014 as an accurate record.
|
2. |
Declarations of interest PDF 26 KB
Minutes:
Councillor Wise declared a non-prejudicial
interest as a member of the board of Lewisham Homes.
Councillor Bell declared a non-prejudicial
interest as a member of the board of Lewisham Homes.
|
3. |
Brockley PFI mid year review PDF 59 KB
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved: to note the report and to request
additional information about – the number of leaseholders
with outstanding debts.
Minutes:
3.1 Steve
Bonvini (Operations Director, Regenter B3) introduced the report.
The following key points were noted:
- The Brockley Private
Finance Initiative (PFI) project started in 2007; it entailed the
refurbishment of 1,839 properties in Brockley, of which 1,315 were
currently tenanted and 524, which were leaseholder
dwellings.
- There had been a
reduction in complaints so far this year compared to previous
years.
- The PFI was on course
to achieve its key performance indicators for the end of the
year.
- All leaseholders had
been credited with the agreed 2% settlement from the high
court.
- Income collection was
on target for the year.
- The PFI continued to
offer support to residents affected by welfare reforms. This
included face to face support and advice, as well as involvement in
Council led events and information sessions.
- Management action was
being taken to ensure that that all calls were answered
promptly.
3.2 In
response to questions from the Committee, the following information
was noted:
- Further information
would be provided about the number of leaseholders who still owed
money.
- There were 6 active
tenant and resident associations.
- There had been three
evictions in the current financial year.
- Consultation was
being carried out with residents on the implementation of
controlled parking schemes.
- In controlled parking
zones, each household was eligible to receive one free parking
permit.
- The PFI had a process
for managing asbestos, which had been included in the appendix to
the Committee report.
- All of the asbestos
that had been identified to date had been removed.
- It was permissible to
leave asbestos in place, but at present, this was not the case in
any of the properties managed by the PFI.
- Information about
asbestos was provided to all households as part of the sign up
process.
- Where asbestos was
identified, and left in place, it would be labelled with a hazard
warning.
- Under tenancy
agreements, residents were required to inform the PFI if they
intended to carry out any extensive re-decorative
works.
- Protocols were in
place to protect trades people from exposure to
asbestos.
- At present, there was
no evidence that there was any risk to residents of exposure to
asbestos.
- Resident satisfaction
was monitored in a number of different ways. Monthly surveys were
carried out by phone, which supported the annual residents survey
commissioned by the Council.
Resolved: to note the report
and to request additional information about – the number of
leaseholders with outstanding debts.
|
4. |
Lewisham Homes mid year review PDF 97 KB
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved: to note the report and to request
additional information about - the number of residents in Lewisham
Homes properties still affected by the bedroom tax; further
information about projected rent levels; re-letting times for
voids; and a detailed response about managing asbestos.
Minutes:
4.1 Andrew
Potter (Chief Executive, Lewisham Homes) introduced the report. The
following key points were noted:
- Lewisham Homes (LH)
continued to focus on three priority areas, repairs, resident
satisfaction, the new build programme.
- Work was taking place
to reduce void periods
- Work to improve
resident satisfaction was concentrated on tackling anti-social
behaviour.
- It had also been
identified that, whilst satisfaction with the decent homes
programme was good once work had been completed, satisfaction with
decent homes work, whilst it was in progress, was low.
- Some of the upcoming
challenges for the organisation would be: the transfer of grounds
maintenance contract in-house; the delivery of the new customer
service centre and the next phase of the new homes
programme.
Andrew Potter (Chief Executive,
Lewisham Homes) responded to questions from the Committee, the
following key points were noted:
- 69% of staff felt
that LH was a good place to work, 8% disagreed.
- When figures for
people who were forced to leave LH and apprentices who didn’t
secure permanent employment were removed, the figure for staff
turnover was less than 10%.
- Levels of sickness
were particularly high in caretaking and average across the rest of
the organisation.
- LH supported the
Lewisham Plus Credit Union with a part time desk in Deptford, as
well as promoting the credit union to new tenants. The credit
collection team also made residents aware of credit union
services.
- The Call Credit
contract had only been in place for two months, so no comparison
could yet be made with previous years. However, early indications
were that recovery of fraudulently let homes was slight up on the
previous year.
- Information had been
provided in the report about the management of
asbestos.
- Lewisham Homes had
procedures in place to deal with asbestos but he was unable to
provide detailed information at the meeting.
- Further information
would be provided about the organisation’s approach to
informing residents about the presence of asbestos.
- Lewisham had a
multi-agency hoarding protocol and officers worked with partners to
ensure support was in place for vulnerable residents.
- Lewisham had been
commended for its work with the London Fire Brigade to deal with
problematic hoarding.
- There was no evidence
that hoarding was more prevalent in social housing than in other
tenures.
- The management
agreement for Lewisham Homes was due for renewal in 2017. This
still represented a risk to the future of the
organisation.
- The build programme
was a risk for the organisation because it was something new for
the organisation.
- Further information
would be provided about the five year rental income
projections.
- Further information
would be provided about the re-let times for void properties,
including long-term voids.
4.2
Genevieve Macklin (Head of Strategic Housing) provided the
following information about the Lewisham Homes management
agreement:
- It was recognised
good practice to begin negotiation on the agreement a year and half
before it was due to end.
- Officers would be
working on the new agreement in mid-2015.
- The aim would be to
ensure that there was adaptability going forward.
- Officers
...
view the full minutes text for item 4.
|
5. |
Communal heating review PDF 101 KB
Decision:
Resolved: to note the contributions to the
review.
Minutes:
5.1 Peter
North (Programme Manager, Sustainable Energy, Greater London Authority) introduced a presentation;
the following key points were noted:
- A third of
London’s CO2 emissions were generated by
heating.
- More energy was used
to heat buildings in the UK than was used for transport or
electricity generation. So in order to deliver reductions in
CO2, in buildings it would be necessary to increase the
energy efficiency of buildings and how the energy is
supplied.
- London had a target
of 60% reduction in 1990 levels of CO2 by 2025 alongside
a target to supply 25% of its energy from local decentralised
sources.
- The carbon content of
electricity generation would be an important part of future work in
this area.
- A public role was
required in order to enable district energy.
- There were three main
categories of decentralised energy projects: single sites utilising
small/medium CHP systems; multi-site mixed use schemes: area wide
transmission networks with extensive heat pipe systems.
- In 2011 the GLA
carried out a decentralised energy capacity study. It was found
that London had more capacity potential than the 25% target for
decentralised energy set by the Mayor.
- The London Plan
contains a range of specific policies to promote the development of
decentralised in new developments.
- Insulation was the
first and most important part of ensuring the efficient use of
energy.
- Generating energy
from renewables had proved difficult in the urban
environment.
- Densely developed
areas were the most suitable for decentralised energy
schemes.
- Area planning was an
important part of enabling the future connection of new
developments to existing networks.
- London boroughs could
be involved in the delivery of decentralised energy projects in a
number of different ways. They might choose to deliver their own
schemes, or they might only act as a planning authority,
facilitating delivery by others.
- Development of energy
master plans was a long process taking around six months from start
to finish, but work had taken place in 10 boroughs to achieve a
coordinated policy.
- The GLA’s EU
funded technical, commercial and financial advisory services had
helped develop a £300m pipeline of projects. The advisory
support was running down and the GLA are proposing a successor
arrangement that will operate until 2020.
- Two major projects
were- Gospel Oak Hospital, and Islington Heat and Power scheme, the
later connecting 850 dwellings providing 10% lower energy
bills.
- Phase two of the Islington scheme
sought to use waste heat from the underground and other
sources.
- There were four
energy from waste plants in and around the city, that could provide heat for tens of thousands
of homes.
- SELCHP was finally
providing heating to estates in Southwark after 15 years of
operation as a power-only energy from waste facility..
- The future of heat
networks would be to utilise heat lost from other processes - each
would require technical availability and economic case.
- In order to meet the
government’s carbon targets, decentralised energy and
communal heating would need to be part of the solution.
5.2 Peter
...
view the full minutes text for item 5.
|
6. |
Church Grove self build PDF 54 KB
Decision:
Resolved: to note the report- and to receive
further reports about options for Church Grove site for
pre-decision scrutiny.
Minutes:
6.1 Jeff
Endean (Housing Strategy and Programmes Manager) introduced the
report. The following key points were noted:
- The development of
the self-build project at Church Grove continued to
progress.
- Officers had been
working with residents to bring forward an assisted self-build
scheme for the site.
- There were different
options for the self-build, but the Council had committed to a
community led approach.
- Further site
investigation work was taking place to determine the constraints of
the site. It was known that the site was contaminated.
- Officers were working
to determine the full constraints of the site – and the best
way in which to enable a consortium to come forward to progress
self-building.
6.2 In
response to questions from the Committee, the following points were
noted:
- The OJEU limit for
contracts was £4.3m. It was anticipated that, with an
estimated unit cost of £150k, the
contract for the development of the site would have to follow the
European procurement rules.
- It was not
anticipated that extensive flood alleviation works would need to
take place, but it was likely that there would be a margin around
the edge of the site which it would not be possible to build
on.
- There had not been a
great deal of cost associated with the project thus far. The work
that was taking place was to assess further options for the
development of the land.
- No decision had yet
been taken about the development of the site. Any future reports
about the scheme would be brought before committee.
- The Council would
work to maximise the potential affordable housing on the site. All
options being considered would allow the Council to nominate
affordable homes to people on the housing waiting list.
- Work that had already
been carried out identified that there were two or three hundred
people on the housing waiting list who were willing to be involved
in a self-build scheme.
6.3 The
Committee also discussed the issues raised and noted: the
possibility of developing the site through the sale or release of
the land. Some Members of the Committee were highly opposed to any
model of development in which the Council sold land for a reduced
cost or gave it away.
6.4 In
response to the Committee’s concerns, Genevieve Macklin (Head
of Strategic Housing) made the following key point:
- Officers were
bringing forward the self-building option for Church Grove at the
request of Housing Select Committee and Mayor and Cabinet. Further
work was being carried out to determine the most effective means of
developing the site, but no decisions had yet been
taken.
Resolved: to note the report- and to receive
further reports about options for Church Grove site for
pre-decision scrutiny.
|
7. |
Kenton Court and Somerville Extra Care schemes PDF 283 KB
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views
to Mayor and Cabinet as follows- The Committee recommends that
Mayor and Cabinet give particular consideration to the
recommendations made in the Healthwatch consultation report.
Minutes:
7.1 Jeff
Endean (Housing Strategy and Programmes Manager) and Heather Hughes
(Joint Commissioner) introduced the report. The following key
points were noted:
- The Committee had
considered two previous reports about the Kenton Court and
Somerville Extra Care schemes.
- 200 Extra Care places
were being created in the borough.
- The existing Extra
Care schemes at Kenton Court and Somerville were not up to standard
and appropriate care could not be provided to vulnerable
residents.
- Formal consultation
had been carried out with residents at both schemes.
- At the beginning of
the consultation there were 31 residents living across both
schemes.
- A number had moved to
alternative facilities, 18 remained on site. Eight had chosen not
to engage in the consultation and were waiting for a decision to be
taken. Four were simply waiting for a decision and four residents
in Somerville were unhappy about the proposed closure.
- It was recognised
that the length of the consultation might have been unsettling for
some residents, but it was felt that it was important to ensure the
consultation was thorough.
- An independent
advocate had been appointed to work with residents. A report into
their findings had been produced.
- As numbers of people
living in the two schemes had reduced, the less viable they
became.
- Social workers did
not refer people to live in Kenton Court and Somerville, because it
was recognised that they were not fit for purpose.
7.2 In
response to questions from the Committee, Genevieve Macklin (Head
of Strategic Housing) Jeff Endean (Housing Strategy and Programmes
Manager) and Heather Hughes (Adult Social Care Manager) made the
following key points:
- A great deal of
effort had gone into engaging with residents and their relatives
sensitively. Despite this some of the residents, or their
relatives, had chosen not to engage in the consultation
process.
- As the numbers of
residents reduced the schemes became less viable, and the costs of
keeping them open increased.
- There was a risk to
the Council of allowing people to remain in these two schemes
because the buildings were not fit for purpose.
- It was hoped that
once a decision had been taken, residents and their relatives would
be open to working with the Council.
- At the Conrad Court
Extra Care scheme, there were a minimum of four staff members at
any one time for the 54 residents.
- The level of staffing
was not fixed – it was dependent on the assessed care needs
of each resident.
- The Kenton Court and
Somerville Extra Care schemes had been overstaffed because there
were few residents living in those properties. The cost of this
provision was unsustainable.
- Conrad Court had a
‘stay put’ fire policy in place, which had been agreed
with the London Fire Brigade.
- In the event of a
fire, evacuation would not necessarily be required because the
building had fire containment systems in place.
- There was concern
about the security at Kenton Court. Overnight staffing would be
maintained on site.
- It was recognised
that the consultation was complex and sensitive –
...
view the full minutes text for item 7.
|
8. |
Select Committee work programme PDF 104 KB
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved: to agree the items for the meeting
on 17 December – and to include an additional item on the New
Homes Better Places programme: phase three.
Minutes:
8.1 Timothy
Andrew (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The Committee then
discussed the work programme and made the following key
points:
- The item on private
sector licensing should include information about the approach
being taken by Islington Council; it should also include
information about the ability of the Council to prohibit rogue
landlords from operating.
- The item on communal
heating should include representations from Bill Watts; a resident
representative from Heathside and Lethbridge and a representative
of a housing association which had a functioning communal heating
system.
Resolved: to agree the items for the meeting
on 17 December – and to include an additional item on the New
Homes Better Places programme: phase three.
|
9. |
Referrals to Mayor and Cabinet
Decision:
Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views
under item seven to Mayor and Cabinet.
Minutes:
Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views
under item seven to Mayor and Cabinet.
|