Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Wednesday 21 January 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday, 21st January 2026 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good evening everyone.
We'll start the meeting.
Thank you so much for coming out on a very wet and windy evening.
And I note that this is the last housing committee meeting of this electoral term.
So it's going to be, I think, an interesting agenda.
There are lots of items to reflect on progress over the last four years.
That would be nice.
So, yeah, so welcome to the meeting.
So I'm Councillor Sarah Davis.
I'm the chair of the housing overview and scrutiny meeting.
So members of the committee, I will now call your names in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.
So Councillor Ayres.
I'm here.
Councillor Corner.
Present.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Hello.
I shared apologies with me.
I'm here.
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening everyone. I would also like to welcome Councillor Dickard, the cabinet
member for housing, Mr. Thomas Gluckner who's the vice chair of the borough
residents forum and we've also got Councillor Tiller here who's a deputy
cabinet member and the officers will introduce themselves as they speak.

1 Minutes - 27th November 2025

So item one, the minutes. Are there any objections to confirming the minutes of the 27th of November as a correct record?
Agreed, thank you.

2 Declarations of Interests

And item two, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of either pecuniary, other registrable or non -registrable interests?
Yes, Councillor McLachlan.
I'm a council tenant.
Thank you.

3 Borough Residents' Forum - Report of meeting held on 19 January 2026 (Paper No.25-17)

Okay, so item number three is the Borough Residence Forum, which has just been held.
So we've got the report for that.
And we just want to give attention to the views of the Borough Residence Forum when
considering related items on tonight's agenda.
and I just wondered whether Mr. Gluckner, do you have any particular comments to add?
I mean nothing too deep. We did talk about the budget and obviously the new paper that's going to be voted on cabinet.
Sort of a lively session of the BRF which is good on many topics. A lot of leeway given.
I will say this on the budget and this is just some of the flavour to give you the idea of what we're talking about as members on the BRF.
And we mentioned this and Councillor Dickerson sort of acknowledged that there are discussions
about it with the budget.
Noticing that we're watching the money and we know that there's still money around,
but in terms of major works, which will be a big discussion coming up, we'd like a longer
term payment plan to come in existence.
Westminster has a 13 -year plan based on a 30 ,000 -pound budget, so you can tier it.
But those are some of the things we want to talk about.
So that four years is generous, but I think we need to go longer.
So that's just an idea of what we're discussing.
Yeah, thank you for raising that.
And yeah, absolutely.
I recognise the conversation.
So can I ask the committee to make the report for information?
Oh, Councillor Covinta.
The report in its virtually the last sentence talks about the wider housing improvement
plan.
I'm kind of concerned that the Borough Residence Forum haven't had the sight of that plan,
given that that plan was actually ready and circulated for the Cabinet, I guess, because
it seems a bit pointless to create a housing improvement plan where the Borough Residence
Forum has not, which is an advisory board, which hasn't had the capacity to advise in
it, and the plan will be approved in two, three days' time, and it will be done there.
and later on in the agenda we talk about empowering and putting residents at the heart of decision -making.
And this doesn't look like a heart of decision -making to me.
And I would be interested to hear Mr Glockner's view about how he feels about coming after the event rather than coming before the event.
Thank you, Councillor Kavincia, for that point that you're making.
and I think certainly let's talk about this later if it's okay when it comes up.
And you know I will ask you to come in if you'd like to to come in but just to
note that later on the agenda we do have the final report of the task of finish
group where actually the governance for the borough residence forum we're
suggesting that looks at that's one of our solid recommendations so that offers
the opportunity to actually make sure that we really are listening to residents put them at the heart of everything we do which is our
aim
Absolutely, thank you very much mrs. Graham
Lovely that's wonderful. Thank you very much
Okay, so the next agenda

4 Fox House Fire - Independent Report (Paper No.26-5)

Agenda item four, it's on the Fox House fire.
So this is about the council response to that awful event.
So it's, yeah, it's just to draw up this, it's on that.
So I'm very pleased to see that we've got Barry Quirk here.
We've invited him to talk for five minutes just to present the report.
And then we'll open it up for questions.
Thank you.
Well, thank you very much.
If I could just say that as a starter that the fundamentals of this is the response and
recovery of the residents themselves.
And it's four months now.
People can't recover in four months from losing lot one's home and all your possessions and
your treasured possessions as well. It's a great emotional cost and great financial cost to people.
And so my thought is with them and to make sure, and I know that the council is focused on ensuring
that their recovery is complete. Everyone is an individual and so actually responding to individuals
is important. The second thing I'd say is that local government is really rather fixated on
service delivery, service design, and project delivery.
And it's right that it's fixated on it.
But actually, it's not as important
as the safety of the public.
Safety comes first, not just for those children
who are vulnerable and those adults who are vulnerable as
well.
It's actually community safety, and particularly
the safety of people who are living in homes rented to them
or leased to them by the council.
It's fundamental that you address
the issues of safety. Third, the history of local government, and I'm not going to go
through the whole history of local government, but the history of local government in relation
to emergencies is that this used to be dealt with by the Environment Department because
of course people dealt with flooding and for freezing and it was all about mobilising big
vans with sandbags and salt. This really, this is a very important issue.
changed about 20 years ago when local authorities, particularly in London,
made it a responsibility in some places of housing departments.
Because generally they're responding every week to small incidents and large incidents as well,
to make sure that the tenants are safe.
But actually in the most recent past,
the Civil Contingencies Act applies to the whole council as a corporate body rather than to its functions.
And so it's really important that the local authority can respond corporately.
What I did in this, and you can see from the, I think it's about, yes, it's paragraph 20,
I set out what I looked at in terms of the first, the golden hours of response,
and for the other emergency responders, they're responding in minutes,
whether that's the fire brigade or the police.
Local authorities are not set up to respond in minutes,
but actually they can respond within an hour and two hours.
In fact, they did here.
And the police and fire were really appreciative of the work that was done
by emergency people on the ground.
The issue there, though, was that when a big event happens,
It's known in the community in a nanosecond.
There's viral video memes about it.
Emergency protocols were established in 2004 before the iPhone was developed.
They've been updated, of course, but things like social media actually dominate not just the communication about it, but actually covers the response to it.
And so what one needs when you have an emergency of this scale is situational awareness, senior
management and the ability to deploy people and resources and to make those decisions
within two to three hours.
And it's clear that it was shaky start, but people were working, you know, hell to leather
to try and get things done.
And there were people here this evening who I know worked throughout the whole of the evening,
travelling people across to make sure that they were housed.
The following morning, of course, the functional silos which are important for the delivery and project delivery in councils,
sort of work together in a corporate sense.
And I think that there's a lot to be proud of here in what happened the following day as well as throughout the night.
And I think that the fact that you've done an incident review and asked me to look at
it independently, and it is independent, I've not been asked to change a jot or word or
add anything in, the fact that you've asked that I think points to the candour and openness
and the fact that you're looking to learn lessons from what happened, not just to pore
over some errors that might have been made and some other things.
So I think you need to look forward, not just look at this incident, but look forward, think
where are the hazards, the threats, where are they, and what are the vulnerabilities
of bits of the organisation and of the vulnerabilities for the community and the residents in terms
of, for example, the very example, of course, is roof voids.
And I know that your offices are on top of that at the moment, but
it's absolutely critical that you keep a very vigilant and alert eye on those issues,
rather than alarm people about the prospects of them.
I'll finish there.
Thank you very much for that presentation and for your words,
yeah, about the learnings and the candour.
And you know that there is quite a lot to be proud of so that's really appreciated
And I'm sure this committee will be carrying on to receive yeah updates as it goes, so let's open to questions
So I've got Kate stuck and then at the corner
Thank you very much chair. Thank you
For the report you know as you said I think
Really the candour with which you've approached us on and to be fair the administration in terms of the speed at which we've looked
at this and I think the breadth of your report both kind of in terms of what we
can learn but what went well and I really welcome that and thank you and I
think it's a it's a good read and an easy read if I can say that as well so
say thank you very much but I guess just kind of bringing it back to a resident's
perspective I think if they saw on our housing OSE or on the cabinet agenda
that we've got an independent report into the Fox House fire they'd be
thinking that report might touch on why the fire started or actually I know
residents are as much concerned with why it's spread and I know the Chair's
indicated that you know your report really is about the council's response
and that is the meat of what's in the report but I wonder if you could we
could just linger for a second I know paragraph 39 you do touch on it but
perhaps you could just talk a little bit more about how far we have got in terms
of what caused the fire and perhaps equally as important as I said about
why it spread and the council's response in that area.
Thank you.
Well, I mean, my experience in this, of course,
is both at Lewisham and in RBKC, where, I mean, Lewisham,
we waited 32 years for an investigation by the fire
brigade for a forensic investigation
to the death of 14 young black teenagers in New Cross.
32 years until we had a proper analysis of the seat of the fire and the ignition.
I'm not suggesting it's going to take that long here, but I did ask the fire brigade
at this point about the seat of the fire.
I said, look, there's lots of speculation.
It's important that you quell speculation and you are able to say as quickly as possible
what the cause of the fire was.
They, I mean, the issue for them was that their forensic team investigates the seat
of the fire and ignition and therefore makes a decision on that cause.
And of course, there's never a single cause.
There may be causes of the cause as well.
That's another issue that they have to look into.
They are a special team in the central London Fire Brigade and they've been reporting that to them.
They said of course the problem is we had to, I mean they were still, I think they left the site after 11 o 'clock, didn't they?
So they were literally pouring water on it for four hours and their view was it may have jeopardised the ability to work out what it was that actually was the prime cause
the proximal cause and then what the ultimate cause was but I did press them on that and I you know
I've got every confidence that they will do it as quickly as they feasibly can but it may be that you don't actually fight discover
This but I think you should continue
Pressing the fibre as far as is possible
They're very diligent people and they want to do it properly
That's good to hear yes, mr. Council corner
Thank you, chair, and thank you, Mr. Quirk, for your time that you've given to investigate the fire and produce this report.
I'll just start off with two quick questions, if that's OK.
The first relates to the role of members. So you highlighted how a couple of members,
councillors made themselves present immediately after the fire and all credit to them.
It's also raised, and I remember this training being held, that training for members on what to do in this type of situation
was only actually provided to Wandsworth councillors in March 2023, which is almost a year after some people joined the council.
And that training was entirely optional. There was no requirement for members to engage with it or kind of any effort, to my knowledge,
to follow up with members who missed that training for whatever reason.
So could you please comment on what good looks like for engaging members with their, and
training them in their role in kind of civil contingency and emergencies like this one,
and really how we can know we can be as good a council as possible at that.
And secondly, just on the PEAT, which is I think the exact acronym escapes me at the
I think it's personal evacuation plan
So what extent should we be concerned as a council that a number of residents didn't have these who apparently needed them
Well on the first point I think it's really important that members that there's a continual
process of training and development for members
I put in the report that, of course, members wear four hats and sometimes they wear at
least two of them at once.
And the crucial point about that is local ward members, but also leading members, members
that have a role in the executive and members have a role in scrutiny.
And I think that training is really about the way in which responsibilities are organised,
the way in which resources are deployed, and also what are the respective accountabilities.
I think it's quite difficult for members in relation to – depends on the nature of the
incident.
It can be extremely distressing.
claim.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you very much.
So I can see questions from Councillor Fraser and Councillor Kavincia.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr Quay.
Council Corner touched on some of the members who were there, and the report reflects on
the Councillors who were there feeding back to us that they were fulfilling some of the
pastoral care on the night, and I guess such as like the emotional support, hot drinks,
and that kind of thing.
Obviously, you make a point about an important is that do you see that as a learning point
moving forward for, you know, you obviously hope that nothing like this would ever happen
again, but in such instances, do you see that as a learning point moving forward?
.
Okay.
So let's go to Councillor Covington's question.
Chair, I've got a series of questions, so I might not put all of them in one go,
in case Mr. Quirk loses where we are.
So I probably have two bites at it, if I may.
Thank you, Mr. Quirk, for your report.
I've read quite closely.
So the issue, the first one for me is about finding accommodation on the night
because the train strike obviously was a problem, but is there a lesson here for
wider than Wandsworth for revisiting the London wide arrangement to see whether
there is another way of adding capacity in the event that there is this kind of
configuration of strike and a fire. And the second of that same thing is
and paragraph 24, 25, I think, covers that,
is that this £15 limit, which seems like a remarkable event
where the bureaucracy just simply wouldn't shift,
it seems to me not beyond the wit of man
for somebody to take the risk and just say,
well, 100 people, if they were getting 30 quid more
than they were entitled to, it is not going to break the bank.
And they could stake their pension on it.
and they take it eventually elsewhere.
Is there a way in which you can empower sufficiently
senior enough officers to say, this is nonsense bureaucracy.
I'm just going to take the risk.
My decision, I'm going to run with it.
Is that something that local government
can deliver without the Section 151 officer breathing down
your neck?
The answer to the second one is definitely yes.
And actually, I believe that on the night, people were flexible and then did move this.
It was just a minor irritant to some people that this fossil from the past was somehow
a constraint they had to consider.
So I think people did act flexibly, and I don't think there's an issue here about that.
I think going forward, there's absolute flexibility.
The accommodation on the night issue, I mean, I have, I think I put it, I think there may
be a subregional solution to this or regional solution in relation to commissioning or having
accommodation not necessarily on tap but ready.
It was a problem on the night, but and I'm not sure that you can as an individual authority,
even as two authorities acting together, resolve that and say if something happens on some
indeterminate date in the future, oh yes, we'll be prepared for that and we will have
accommodation.
So this may be something which is London, you need to do at London -wide and sub -regional
level.
The problem with that, of course, is that if there is an issue which is then sub -regional
or London -wide, everyone wants the same thing.
and so that may be a problem.
Just come back then to perhaps that could be a recommendation for the cabinet to say
whether they should ask London councils to look into that for a London -wide or a sub -regional
thing about accommodation.
But leaving that in your hands, you say in paragraph 21 about, what was it, described
the kind of measured against its own expectations, the organization's response was adequate and
satisfactory, which seemed to me rather a nuanced criticism. Am I right in thinking
it's nuanced criticism? I think it's just measured. It's measured.
I know the nuance word if I may say that.
It's a, well, made a career out of nuance.
It's really, it is measured.
It was adequate.
It was satisfactory.
It did meet the expectations.
But actually, it failed fully to meet
the needs of the residents that evening.
And therefore, one can't be overblown
about the responsibility, or rather,
a response because it could have been much better.
But it could only have been much better if you had more senior people present, if the
situation had been resolved, and if there wasn't these communication issues between
different aspects of the Council's organisation.
I was trying to work out in that, as my understanding was, the fire started at 7 p .m., or it is
supposed to have started at 7 .20 and 7 .20 is when the London Fire Brigade attended the
incident, which is remarkably long time given that Estey Road is not very far from Fox House.
But then the ones with emergency arrangements kicked in at 7 .50. I just kind of wondered
whether you think that kind of time, the response times are, from your long experience in local
government are by average or normal or is there something that we should be
concerned about here? Well I asked both the fire and the police about their
response and both met their responses so I think the fire brigade met their
response targets and so did the police and I think that the response of the
So, yeah, Councillor Graham, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
And thank you, sir, for your coming here tonight.
Professor, I've got questions for you, which is very important.
I absolutely agree that in paragraph 11, for the recommendations
about housing and also building control. But I would like to see what your opinion is on
planning and social services, you know, across the board. And my second question is, I'd like
more meat on the bone as regards to paragraph 11, who would you suggest when you say notification
and share learning with other building owners, landlords and professional bodies? I mean,
I know who I think, but it would be very nice to hear what you say.
Well, this is, the reason why it's expressed in this way is because there is yet, not yet,
an assessment of the cause of the fire.
And therefore that rather undermines, well, let's go out and tell people this was caused
like this and it spread like that.
I think we know how it spread, which is about the lack of compartmentation in the roof void
And the concern, of course, is that the fire risk assessment didn't inspect the roof void.
And so that's why I think this is critical that it's examined, not just in relation to
what caused this, but what was the spread of it, and whether that risk, that latent
vulnerability, exists in other blocks.
And it likely isn't.
I don't – was this a GLC transfer block in the 90s?
It looks like it to me.
But if that's the case, then this may not be an issue that's just confined to your
stock, but it could be to stock across London that was built at the time, 40s, 50s.
Because of that pitched roof issue, most people understand that they have a,
if they're living, I live in terraced housing and I've got a roof space.
Well, I don't expect my neighbor's roof space to join mine because it's separated, isn't it?
Well, in a council block, it should be separated as well in order to secure and
of security and safety to each person that one person's problem doesn't create problems in their neighbours.
But if there is roof voids, which without
compartmentation, then that needs to be examined and remedied.
And that can be done without knowing the diagnosis of the fire.
But I think that that really should be best done by people that understand.
And in the way I'm not qualified in relation to this, I would do exactly what I've written
here, which is get the architect, surveyors, and fire risk assessment to undertake that.
And that's exactly what I know that the manager concerned is doing, examining other blocks,
like blocks and blocks which may also have other voids, may not be in the roof, maybe
somewhere else that need to be examined.
Thank you.
So I've got two more questions,
and then I think I'll go to the cabinet member
to respond, yeah, Councillor Corner,
then Councillor Veritha -Thuage.
Thank you, Jay.
It actually builds exactly on that point around roof voids.
Your report sets out that the work is in process
at the moment, so I wondered if we could have
a kind of very brief report on the progress of that work,
and what assurances can be given to this committee and more importantly residents that fire risk is under control in this borough?
Hello, Sharon Leckie.
As far as the roof voids go, we are currently carrying out compartmentation works in the other five sister blocks on the estate.
That's come in at a cost of about 86 ,000 pounds per block.
And then once we've completed those, depending on the results of the survey, we're looking for a fire engineer and looking for quotes to carry out the other 326 inspections of the roof voids.
We are still obtaining the quotes.
I cannot tell you yet.
The invitation to tender set out when the Council expects the work to be complete.
Once we get the quotes in and we choose what we have had an agreement with procurement
board that we do not have to go through the normal form of tender because the work is
quite urgent.
So we won't be going through a full tender process, but we will be getting quotes.
And then once we get those, we will specify with the successful contractor how quickly we expect it to be done.
I spoke to one of them yesterday, and they maybe perhaps were a bit optimistic,
but they thought once, if they were given the work, they would be able to complete it within three months.
Thank you.
At the moment we are doing stock condition surveys across the council stock.
Does the stock condition survey work include looking at the roof voids?
And if so, could we actually get that outcome of the scale of the issue quicker than piece by piece?
Yeah, good question.
Stock conditions survey won't determine the fire compartmentation.
They'll be looking at the condition of the blocks, but that's why we need to have a separate survey for that.
Thank you.
Councillor Ferrer, Phil Raj.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for your report.
But Councillor Corner actually just asked the question and now I wanted to know, obviously,
it would be good to know what plans we have in place to prevent this horrific incident
from happening again.
But thank you.
Thank you.
So, Councillor Dickerson, would you like to comment, respond?
Yeah, I want to say thank you for the report.
And I think it's really important that we commission someone independent to come and
do this work. It's obviously I would say the biggest and the scariest incident in the entire
just under a decade that I've been a Councillor. I was actually with one of the families yesterday
and as well as this report kind of highlights the response time. I think it's really important
we recognise that people's lives are still in flux. I would say the strongest policy
outcome is how quickly we managed to secure new accommodation, permanent settled accommodation
and four families.
And in some ways, we were very lucky
because we had units coming online
that meant we could do placements fast.
But even in a new home, there is still so much disruption.
And there won't be, I think, emotionally,
there's an element of closure until the,
I know Barry has said that it's going to take some time
and we're kind of reliant on the fire brigade.
But knowing what happened is part of that journey.
And I think it's important we recognise that.
And I know my officers are really aware that once someone is placed in a new home,
and it doesn't mean it's kind of our care and our support for them is over.
Because I've been through something very traumatic.
I was WhatsApp -ing with another resident today who, again, has been given that permanent offer,
but is still kind of anxious about access to a home that might not be safe yet.
And so there are going to be ripples that continue.
And I'll make sure that this committee is updated and residents themselves are updated.
I'd say as transparent as possible, the biggest kind of grievance tenants might still have
is just kind of silence.
And it's not silence or lack of communication because things have stopped.
It's knowing when we might know the building is safe and we can revisit and things like
that.
And I know officers are working hard to try and cover some of that ground.
And finally, I want to say thank you to everyone who did go above and beyond, who was driving
around procuring accommodation, members who were sitting and listening to people is the
worst thing that probably had happened to them was happening to them.
It was an amazing collective effort.
And I fully take on board the recommendations in this report.
We're willing to take them forward as an administration.
And I think it's really, really important that we learn from what went right, we learn
from what went wrong.
And I want to thank everyone for particularly the kind of corporately how the council came
together and some of the silos we're used to were broken down very quickly.
So that's kind of my comments and anyone who might be watching who experienced the fire,
please stay in touch with us, communicate with us, reach out to us directly.
You know, the support and the wraparound support isn't going to stop now.
Yeah, thank you very much for that. So thank you for the report. Thank you for attending tonight
and taking all the questions. Very much appreciated. Thank you.
Before we move to the next item, I hope Councillor Dickard will take up the issue of accommodation
at the London level.
And secondly, the other thing is about the role of faith groups and voluntary organisations.
After the Grenfell fire, I mean, this council sent a team of officers to K &C to assist for
several months.
And there were lessons learned from that and the role of voluntary organisations.
one of the things that was reported back certainly to me.
So I wonder whether there are, separately from Mr. Quirk's report,
whether there is ongoing work to be done about the wider community involvement
in the event of a fire and whether that's the kind of work we could carry on doing.
And the second thing is that inevitably many of the people whose homes were burned
will not be insured and that's the feature of people who live in our accommodation.
Whether there is a way in which at least sort of information and guidance about how to
insure or how to be aware of the need to insure and so on
is something that we can take up in our work with the RAs and others.
I mean it's empowering people to make the choice rather than us doing it for them.
but I think there are an awful lot of people who might think, oh, it's okay, the council's going to look after it.
But in a sense, this is something that the council doesn't look after.
Yeah, thank you for those comments.

5 Battersea Power Station Council Housing (Paper No.25-414)

We're now going to move on to item five, that's the battery power station council housing report.
and we note that this paper has been added following requests from Councillor
Corner and the paper includes an exempt appendix providing some financial
details and the committee will need to go into private session
if anyone wants to consider those elements but what I'd like to do first
is I have an introduction to the report and then go on to questions not
financial related so we can keep the work of Carl Sapen.
Thank you.
Was, try again, can you hear me now?
Excellent.
Good evening members.
By way of introduction, for those who don't know me,
my name's Paul Moore.
For the last couple of years now,
I've been holding the ring on the evolving
place and growth function and team.
So, we have been stewarding this one.
I just wanted to give apologies from Joe Richardson, who members will know, who leads on the housing
development side, which is now part of the growth team.
For absolute disclosure, I am no longer the Executive Director of Growth and Place.
Very pleased to say so, NASA has joined the Council early in December.
So I'm stepping back, just supporting one or two projects under NASA's tenure.
With that said, I'm very pleased to share the cabinet decision that took place on the 1st of
December, set out in this paper. I had the opportunity to shape a significant site within
the Battersea Power Station. Substantial work, this paper represents the body of substantial
work took place over the summer.
And the autumn, really shaping a significant housing scheme,
203 units.
It was the opportunity to really bring forward
a tailor -made scheme for the council's housing requirements
now and into the future.
203 homes, we believe, will be the final number.
and on terms which involved close collaboration with the Battersea Power Station team,
and the reliance on GLA grant which is set out in the exempt appendix.
I would say November, December, quite a dynamic period in terms of that relationship.
Members who've, you will have been involved in these kind of schemes, realise that they evolve over time,
There was certainly a heavy emphasis on the design piece to ensure there was a very strong
scheme which we could then transact into commercial terms.
So there's really two key phases in there.
Where are we now?
I'm also pleased to say we exchanged contracts just before Christmas.
We do have on the council side, on the planning side now, just come in a planning application
that will be released online next week and will be subject to normal processes and decision
on the planning side.
I will stop there.
Very happy to take any questions from members.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, yes, any questions?
Councillor Covina.
I just understand in a sense the ownership situation here.
Are we effectively going to be owners of the land as well as the building when built?
And will we also be the owners of the commercial space at the bottom of the block?
And if so, that's kind of fine, I suppose.
But are there any service charge implications
because the block sits within a wider master plan area?
And so are there service charge implications
for the block owner, i .e. the council,
and the power station owner, owner of the wider master plan?
And then are there any service charge implications
for the residents who will eventually
occupy the block when built?
The full freehold will be held by the battery power station limited.
The council will be a long -term leaseholder into the hundreds of years.
So very long -term.
In terms of the will be a leaseholder therefore of the building and of the land.
With regard to the ground floor, that is part of the acquisition.
So the council will have full control over the ground floor.
The intended use is a combination of those services required to support the block, so
supporting residents, concierge, entrance, out and all that comes with that.
But the intention, and it is a project there to be shaped, is one of a, I hope it would
be possible to do something quite dynamic and interesting in terms of community use
and the relationship with the local community.
The final point on service charges, also an excellent question.
I don't have mastery of the fine detail.
All I can say to you, and I hopefully reassure you, that we went to considerable lengths
to ensure that the service charges on the overall block are within the normal thresholds
that would apply across the broader HRA envelope and scheme.
so that it is not at a rate that would normally apply on the Vought City Power Station site.
We've achieved significant comfort and assurance that the service charges would be at an acceptable rate to the HRA.
Something does concern me in that sense.
At the moment in our own stock, the residents pay for the service charge which covers a bit of the common parts of their own block,
but it also, there is another bit of element of a service charge which covers the ground maintenance of the grounds on which the block stands.
So in this situation, this block will stand in the wider grounds that Batsy Power Station own,
and do we have a duty, will we have the responsibility to contribute to any of their service charge
and if so, how is that service charge then to be paid for by individual tenants or occupiers?
In a sense, it's an integrity question but it could be a difficult question,
particularly when service charges is one of the big issues when it comes to private blocks in the area.
So I just want to understand exactly who will be liable for service charge and the extent of service charge.
Block alone, fine. Block plus is an issue.
I can't give in here. I'm very happy to set out in more detail the basis of those charges.
I just don't have complete recall here and now over the absolute numbers.
The intention is that service charges are on a block basis
and they would be within the overall operating costs of the scheme.
They would not be transacted individually
on a tenant -by -tenant basis.
I would just repeat my previous comment that the charges
that we have negotiated and we did go to great pains to ensure
that they were within the acceptable usual parameters or schemes such as this
under the HRA thank you okay I've got um counts the airs and
council corner thank you
While we're talking about leaseholds, I'm interested in the position of the right to
buy being suspended and how we can preserve that, if we can preserve that, having it tied
into the lease if it's hundreds of years great. If we can tie the right to buy
being suspended into that lease it would be wonderful to hear but I fear that's
not the case.
So currently the National Labour government have excluded right to buy
from applying to new build council housing in order to protect it. I don't
know legally whether a different colour incoming government could reverse that.
I'm assuming the original right to buy applied it to buildings that had
been built and didn't have the right to buy many decades before. So I assume it's
at the mercy of the government but currently new build right to buy is
excluded and so you know yeah Ravi's grinning. I mean theoretically I think a
The national government can make any decision about the sale of council housing, but at the moment we're insulated and in the best position we've ever been in the history of new build council housing since Margaret Thatcher changed the law in the 1980s.
Thank you. Would you like to comment?
just going to add as far as I'm concerned this block will be part of the HRA and will reside
within the standard terms that apply to other the whole of the council's estate members. Thanks.
Councillor corner.
Thank you. The one question I have relate not related to finances and what the indicative
timeline is for when the scheme will will go ahead and when ground will be
broken and when it will be completed. It'd be useful to know that. On the GLA
funding as well the report mentions there was a decision I think early in
December about the grant funding. Could we just get a high -level report on
on what the GLA's decision was in terms of any kind of specific criteria they set out
or kind of any details that were or conditions on their approval.
And then finally I also have a question on risk management and the finances but that
will wait to close session.
Yes, and I think it would be a question about the GLA.
I have to take, sorry, I have to take in general terms, in terms of where we are on the GLA
funding overall and then if there are particular points of detail we can deal with them in
closed session.
Was there anything else, Councillor Courno, or shall I?
It was just about the timeline scheme in terms of when spades will go into the ground and
when the council views the scheme will actually be completed.
Yes, happy to do that.
I think I would just refer you to section 318 of the report where we did try to take
that forward look.
What I can certainly say to you is those first four bullet points in there have now been
achieved, so we're on track against that initial first phase.
The ultimate timeline that we are working to is to complete and occupy 2029.
So that's the most important timescale.
I would lean into Joe Richardson.
He was here across the more detailed programme.
Forgive me.
I'm very happy to come back to you in terms of the spades in the ground
and against the latest programme which is buried
in the contract documents, if I may do that.
In terms of the GLA position on grant,
I can say to members that that is as outlined
in the exempt appendix.
There's been no subsequent change to that.
The conditionality overall across the piece
is really linked to planning consent
and then standard GLA expectations in terms of programme time scales.
We spent a significant amount of time, this perhaps speaks to your point about risk, with
Battersea Power Station and with the GLA to undertake that due diligence and assurance
on programme structure, capacity, to ensure that there's a delivery engine there and a
a programme clearly we would not have received that offer as spent out in the
exempt appendix had we not done that work to their satisfaction. I hope
that speaks to a degree to your third point. Have a follow -up. Slightly
different topic if that's all right and perhaps more closely related to the
issue of service charges and you know it's reassuring that the council has
received assurances that the service charges will be reasonable but of course
it's quite hard to get assurances over service charge increases over
time I think especially you know the course of the lease which is very long
indeed and one of the issues in 9 -Elms is you have a lack of service charge
transparency that a lot of residents face issues with so I think the council
has to be go even further I think than they would normally to get control over
service charges for the long term so that residents don't move in, pay
reasonable service charges for a year and then have kind of skyrocketing
service charges.
Just a point of information on how social housing, the criteria of rent
means that there are certain regulations whereby a service charge cannot go above
a certain level if you're a social or council tenant because it would price it
out of the rents that a council tenant would be able to pay.
So any council housing development can't,
because otherwise you can imagine housing associations
might think I'm gonna plug my deficits
by having a low social rent
and then a very hard service charge.
So there are kind of inbuilt protections
for any council tenant on how affordable
their rent and their service charge has to be.
Now, you might turn around and say,
well, Aiden, if we don't do this properly,
then the HRA just picks up the bill
And do not worry, we obviously are aware of that and that's why this block will not be paying for access to facilities that we don't access and things like that.
So that is part of the negotiation with the power station.
But we can come back with some more concrete detail around that.
But it is, you know, we are talking about a specific council owned block rather than a shared master plan site.
Just to...
Thank you.
I'm going to go on to, yeah, Councillor Crambs' question. Thank you.
Hang on.
I take Councillor Dickendem's point, but why would we need assurances in the first place
then of service charge levels?
What are we missing here?
Well, I think the examples you're giving of 9 Elms probably relate to a tenure type like
shared ownership where there isn't that inbuilt protection on service charge for that product
and tenure type and the challenge there has been that what started off as a specific type
of affordable percentage payment on the shared equity has then been matched with very high
service charges that weren't protected in the same way that social tenant is.
So that was all I was, that was my point.
But we can, I mean I can go into the, I mean it's kind of an empirical point.
I'm fine. This is about why a talking point with the report is that we have comfort over the level of service charges as the scheme begins.
Sorry members to...
If there's regulation controlling that then why should we be concerned?
I am conscious we are in public now.
What I would like to say, and I will repeat, this has been subject to extensive discussion
for all the reasons that you are seeking insurance.
I spent quite some time on that.
I think if you could allow me the opportunity just to summarise that and a note to members,
I think that would be quite an effective way of unpacking that one, if I may.
I hadn't come prepared tonight to set that out in fine detail.
I hope you would accept orally from me the time has been spent on that.
We get the point and in particular the need to ensure that that is proved over time, members.
Thank you. Thank you for that offer. That's great.
Councillor Graham, thank you.
I think Councillor Govindia wanted to follow up on that.
Okay. Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to follow on from what Councillor Erz needed clarification on
as regards to rights to buy being suspended.
And it's through your policies.
and when I look at the site developments on page one two three is with that with
with the new developments coming forward would that tie it in also what has been
agreed with the suspension of right to buys in the future or have I just got it
wrong is it just purely for that's the power station or as I look at the site
development in the future which you have on page one two three could I have an
answer oh so all new bills all new bills so our site developments new bills no it's
site development you build yeah so any any council property built by the
that is a new build council property is currently excluded from right to buy as of November
21st, 2024.
I do have one question, a real one as well. It's welcome, of course, 2203 is brilliant.
But when I look at the Alton one bedroom, two bedrooms, we have big families and I'm
curious and interested to know, you know, have you considered that and also when you look at the local
community and the environment, are there the schools to assist with the support for the families
when they move there? But it's the bedroom, really.
Paul Moore, thank you.
Hopefully you can hear me.
Sorry, so I won't speak to the Aulton because I'm conscious we have that.
So next item on the agenda, members.
In terms of the mix of units, what I can say again, I won't go through the detailed numbers
of that now.
I would refer members to the planning application, as I said, which is coming online next week.
The point is very well made.
and I would say that that has been the product of the work that's gone on with Joe Richardson's
team to ensure that the scheme has been designed from the ground up and that that takes full
account of local housing need members.
So we're not getting an off -the -shelf product.
I think that's the key point.
This is the advantage of being able to get in early on a scheme like this, members.
Thank you.
Yeah, that's good to hear.
Councillor Varetha. Thank you chair. Can I firstly say that this is absolutely
brilliant news that this Labour administration in Wandsworth is going
to be delivering 203 high quality homes right next to Battersea Power Station
which is one of London's most iconic sites. This will help bring our
communities together, help those families that are on our waiting list and this is
news that we should be celebrating. So my question was in relation to the
section 106 and joint venture style partnerships
with a public organisation and a private.
We've seen in the past that sometimes the quality
and specifications of things such as like lifts
are always not up to standards compared to those
within our own programmes.
So what quality assurances do we have for this new site?
Thank you.
Yeah, just a great question, members.
Just very broadly assurance.
So I've made the point already about designing
from the ground up with strong and early input from the council's housing development team.
So what I can assure you is absolutely the knowledge, the detail, the skills that the
council has on direct delivery has been imparted into the scheme and that's been the work over
the summer.
So I commend Joe Richardson's work there.
That's extended to a point of collaboration where the architect and the developer has
actually viewed some of the council's own excellent high quality housing schemes. We
got down to that granularity of look, feel, touch, see some of this great work that Wandsworth
has been able to deliver and to really make clear this is the standard that we are aiming
for and at. That's supplemented clearly by what will be strong oversight from Joe Richardson
and the team moving forward as we get into contract with a principal developer constructor
and built on the collaboration I feel we built with the power station team.
Ultimately embedded in the contract are layers of assurance and I expect you may want to
talk about one or two of those when we get into the private session.
I do make the point in the report around the assurance and security package which the council
legal advisors are clear is very strong from the council's point of view. So layers to that
protection, assurance built in there, close collaboration, personal relationships,
building on the council's own experience and skills. Thanks. Thank you very much. So I think
we'll take two more questions and then we'll go into the closed session. So I've got Councillor
Thank you, Chair. In the design now that planning is almost imminent application.
I'm assuming that Mr. Richardson will have ensured that public sector space
standards or at least NPPF space standards for both accommodation and
amenity will have been included in that. If not, Council Ayres and I will
investigator and have a go at this scheme. But that's it. What is the council's role
in choosing the architect and choosing the contractor and then monitoring the contractor?
Or is this a kind of design and build and we buy the final product without much say
in the matter?
Come in and say that you might have noticed that it's quite a strangely unique number,
right, 203. That is largely because of the role the council and the hands -on role the
council has taken in regards to space, bedrooms, building council housing. You know, I think
sometimes people forget that we know that, you know, you need spaces for prams, you need
way and we have that expertise in -house now because of the kind of amazing work of the
Thousand Homes Programme, that in -house expertise and that quality assurance is there. So for
us it was really essential for this deal to progress that we had a firm grip over exactly
the kind of things you're raising so that it doesn't become like maybe some of the section
106 kind of you get it after it's built and then you find all that very, very different
and as someone who used to be a council where my ward represented nine elms and Councillor
corner I'm aware your questions relate to this as well we see the experience of what
some of those central 106 is alike we are going to make sure that down well does not
happen on this site because it's such a, one, such a flagship development, but two, this
is Thousand Homes money, so we want to make sure that it's –
Members, in terms of public space standards, clearly yes, Councillor Goindia.
Re -emphasise Councillor Dickens' point about that collaboration of front end.
In terms of protections, there will be multiple layers as you move through each of the stages.
The architect is currently appointed and that has been going well in terms of that design process.
There are, as I say, a range of protections in terms of input, agreement and ultimately, were it the case, disagreement over particular elements of that contracting stage.
Of course, there would be a main contractor, but there would be a range of subcontractors involved,
and there are a range of scenarios in there.
I am satisfied, the lawyers are satisfied, that we have strong protection throughout this overall programme, members.
Thank you. Councillor Fraser. Thank you, Chair. Excuse me. I guess my question leads on, we hear
quite a lot at the moment, especially from Council's opposite, about how the development
industry and building pipeline is stalling and we're not building anything in London at the
moment, but I think that sites like this are our testament to it being possible. So it'd be
interesting and to learn from you Mr Moore, how are we navigating this and getting developments
to go on places as Councillor Braj says on really flagship sites such as Battersea Power
Station?
Yes members, I think this is a great example of what the council can do, working in close
collaboration. Not every site, not every scheme will be like this but hopefully it does reset
the dial with some of the investor community. It's a very high profile site and I do believe
there will be further leverage that comes from this unique, you know, it is going to
get a significant profile in the industry and the sector. I build on that by saying
this is the council's growth plan, the growth corridor, we're leaning into that. I would
say in introducing that as earlier, the energy level within the growth team, a couple of
further appointments to be made in director planning and director place based growth.
That will be the engine that does more of this work moving forward.
This borough is, you know, it's been a privilege to work with this team in this borough.
The fundamentals are still strong in this borough.
In terms of its connexions, environment and its employment opportunities, there is more
great work to be done of this kind, I believe in this borough.
I hope that's a partial answer to your question, Councillor.
Thank you very much. I'm really pleased to hear about this and this is such an exciting scheme giving
203 new homes to households and that community benefit as well
And you know I just think about in my own walls
I'm seeing ones with mills and being built up which is you know out of reach for local people and in the most part and
No benefits to the community as well, so I'm really pleased to see you know this difference is very really exciting
Thank you very much.
Now we are going to propose that under section 100A4 of the local government act 1972 members
of the public and press are going to be excluded from the meeting whilst item 5 is being considered
because it is likely that exempt information as described in paragraph 3 of part 1 of schedule
12A to the act would be disclosed to them if they were present and it is considered
that in all circumstances of case the public interest
in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest
in disclosing the information.
So could I please have a seconder for that?
Thank you.
That's Councillor Thiraj.
So we've agreed that.
Oh sorry, and sorry, and it is agreed.
Agreed, thank you.
So, what we will need to do is we will just need to pause for a moment, stop the webcast
and members of the public will need to leave and we will call you back.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr Glockner, for waiting.

5 Battersea Power Station Council Housing (Paper No.25-414)

Is there any snacks left over or the beer?
Okay.
So now we are going to go on to item six, which is about the Alton State renewal paper,
the next steps.

6 Alton Estate Renewal Next Steps (Paper No.25-415)

Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
Hello, members.
I am Vicki Clark.
I work part -time for Richmond and Wandsworth Council, providing some extra director level
capacity specifically on the Alton scheme and I'm here to talk to this paper.
A very quick summary of the paper that you're looking at today.
So following the successful ballot outcome, the paper sets out next steps and secures
the decisions and delegations required to progress the scheme for the next few months.
We intend to come back again to Cabinet in the summer of this year.
The steps that will be taken during this period include securing planning for what we call
the Block A site, which is now two buildings, not one, so a community building and a block
of new social homes, progressing design for the master plan sites and also delivering
the two new play schemes which form part of the early improvement plan.
I think that's all I want to say at this point, but obviously very happy to take questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So a question from Councillor Stokes.
Thank you very much for the paper and for the update.
It's really exciting to see this scheme progressing and progressing now at pace with the endorsement
of local residents of the ballots.
I think that's to be commended.
I just had a question around home sizes and bedroom sizes.
So in my own ward on the Winstanley York Road regeneration, we've had the landlord offer,
which means that when residents move and at the time that they move they move into a property that is fit for their
Assessed need at that time, you know not at some previous time, but at that time and that's meant that you know
Recent blocks that have been occupied like brawl mansions
I think we've got I think homes up to seven bedrooms possibly even more and you know and beautiful homes as well
And so I just wondered you know a little bit more about this Alton scheme
about that offer, whether that exists on this scheme as well,
and where we are with knowing what proportion of homes
and how big those homes might be and where we are on that process right now.
Thank you. So the starting point when the designers first approached the scheme
was obviously to develop a planning -compliant mix
with a high aspiration for a large number of social homes,
but we're mindful that that's only a starting point,
and the critical element is to make sure that what we deliver,
particularly on the social side, meets the needs of the residents of the Alton.
So we're in the process at the moment of conducting a housing needs assessment
for those residents that need to be rehomed as part of the redevelopment and
we will absolutely build to their household needs. And what we need to do
obviously is cast those forward in time because they're not moving immediately.
They'll be moving in around three to five years time depending where we
decant the first phase of residents. So we're casting that forward and that will
Give us some figures on what kind of homes we need there may be a requirement for larger family homes now
But it may be that some of those larger family units the children in the household of that point reached adulthood and would prefer to
Take a split household offer and for the adult children form a separate household
So we can't as yet be certain what will be needed
But I can assure you that we'll make sure that everyone is housed with an appropriate size home
The other thing that I think should be reassuring for members to know is that the way the HTA the architects are designing the scheme
Allows for some modularity so that or a significant modularity
So for example a floor which is currently split into several two or three bedroom units could be split differently and allow for
larger units
Obviously fewer but larger units within that floor. So there's lots of scope to adjust the scheme as we go along
It's by no means fixed at this stage
Councillor Covington.
Just following on from Councillor Stocks's question really, in a way it would be so much
easier if one could say the landlord offer in Winstanley will be matched by landlord
offer on the Alton.
Because the council tenants talk to each other oddly enough and they find out what they were
given and what they were not given.
So in a sense, it would be so much easier for the council to be able to say the same
landlord offer wherever you are in the borough.
Is that the case?
Probably not the best person to comment on that.
I will defer that question to Paul.
So I think in general terms, we sought to adopt very similar, clear and coherent principles
in terms of those landlords offer.
But I think it is important also to have regard
to flexibility to meet any particular local needs members.
So I think that's the tension which is implicit
in your question, Councillor Govindia.
And one that we as officers obviously return to
on each estate regeneration programme,
ward members would encourage us to do so.
And indeed, we have those discussions
with cabinet members as well.
So broad principles, there should be fairness,
there should be equity, that's what we seek to achieve,
but it's just having regard to particular points
of local need and local flexibility,
again, to achieve the best value of schemes
linked to housing needs assessment that Ms. Clark has been...
We can, as I said, undertake,
but all households will be provided
according to their assessed needs.
So I think that's fairly clear,
but the reason I'm not offering to make a comparison
with the Winstanley -York Road development
is because I work exclusively on the Alton.
That's why I'm deferring to...
Councillor Di Vinci, I think it's just because
these two officers haven't,
I think what they're saying is yes,
but it's just that they aren't,
it's not the Winstanley team who are here tonight
to make that comparison but as an administration I'm completely clear as
Councillor Stock pointed out that the offer that you we're not going to move a
family that's overcrowded into accommodation that would make them
overcrowd again I mean one we legally can't do that and two we wouldn't want
to but the second point is that it's better to have a detailed needs
assessment to decide whether the older children want to go into a one or two
bed for instance rather than go into a five bed with their elderly parents and
And I think that was, as far as I'm aware, the same position that was made on York Road,
Winstanley.
So I think the answer basically here is yes.
It's just that we haven't got the Winstanley team directly in the room to kind of, you
know, I think that's the position the officers have been put in tonight.
Yeah.
I accept what you're saying.
So can you write to me, in a sense, giving me that assurance?
because I'm looking absolutely from the viewpoint of the resident,
because they will know what the Winstanley people were offered,
and people in Alton will be saying, are we being treated exactly the same as that?
The flexibility point that is being made was in fact included in the Winstanley discussions.
So in a sense, flexibility is nothing new in the game.
It's about the package of promises made to win Stanley,
we should be replicated here.
Let me then move to one more and separate point really,
and this is about the general fund element of the scheme.
The community facilities cost has already gone up once
from 22 .7 to 36 .5 million.
I mean are we sure that that cost drift won't happen further? I mean how
certain are we that this is a because it's it's quite a chunky drift and I
accept it's about build cost inflation but how robust is the costing in
Okay, so I lost cancer.
Okay, that's fine.
So, the Block A civic building is currently in detailed design phase, so we can be reasonably
confident that those figures are robust and obviously we will make appropriate provision
at contract stage to control those costs as well as we can in terms of the build.
The part of the increase in costs associated with that building are not just about contract inflation.
It's because we are very hopeful that we will be able to include the Aulton GP, a facility for the Aulton GP practise inside the building.
And obviously that necessitates the building being slightly larger.
So, Portswood Place is part of the main master plan scheme and is therefore at a slightly
earlier stage of its design.
And so we obviously have a degree less certainty at that point, but we will be endeavouring
to keep costs down.
The other point to note with Portswood Place is that because of heritage considerations,
the scale of the building is actually quite limited.
And so that in itself will have a limiting effect on how far costs can rise because we
can't build a significantly taller or larger building than we're proposing to currently.
May I make just an observation here, which is that 22 .7 million to 36 .5 million drift is quite
significant and a doctor's surgery can't be absorbing all of that cost. It's in a sense,
the concern is not about what is being promised in here, it's about being able to afford it and
whether sufficient care is being taken,
that ongoing council will be able to continue to afford it.
Can I make just one observation again?
Which is that this is quite a complicated paper
and it would have been so much helpful
if there was a plan indicating where Block A is
and where this is and where that is.
I mean, I am certainly quite familiar with the old plan
and I don't think it shifted very much from there.
But I think for the committee as a whole to understand how the sequencing will happen,
a map, a plan, would have been actually quite a helpful addition.
Just to remind that this was a Cabinet paper that we've brought back to the committee.
I know, I know, but we've gone, I know, I know, but that's the purpose of this paper
was not for this kind of, I don't want to say, you know, this was a form of us being
nice to the opposition to bring this to this committee as was requested but the purpose
of it was not for that kind of level of it was for a different meeting. It's taken up
quite a lot of our time really.
Councillor Fraser, your question and then Councillor Graham.
Thanks very much and it's great to see two items on the agenda which are really quite
quite big schemes, you know, creating homes for people in Wandsworth.
And I think that made me reflect, and I was rooting on it,
that it was actually really disappointing during the ballot,
which was, I think, was it the biggest in London that we've seen,
to see the literature actually distributed by the local Conservative Party
and assume it was from you.
But, well, Minari, it was just to understand here what your objection was,
because it's had a...
It's not counting me. Come on.
It's had a resounding yes vote from residents.
So Councillor Coroner, surely you signed off these leaflets as the opposition housing spokesperson.
So what was your objection to the regeneration of the Alton?
So you approve of it?
So do I take your silence?
Our position as a group has always been what it has been on the Alton for a long, long time now.
but obviously, you know, individual people can have their say on what's happening in their local community to the...
What is your position though? Because your leaflet said vote against the ballot.
So is that your position, your party's position? Or do you, are you saying everyone in your group has a different view?
I'm saying local councillors can campaign as they wish. Our group position is unchanged.
We support the regeneration of the alternate principle, but we want it to be the best it can be to meet the potential of the area and the community.
So who was it who put out your leaflets then?
Because that's not what your leaflets said.
I can't really go into detail.
I'd have to kind of see.
So you didn't really have a,
so they're not signed off by you then you were saying.
So as the opposition housing spokesperson,
you didn't sign off the leaflets.
It is not a no -win.
You're in a sense scrutinising the council.
We're probably all in the local councils in the area.
Well I'm not, I'm not.
I'm a council member.
I'm trying to understand who the local councillors are.
No, no, it's an issue for a council debate and for political.
This is about actually genuinely...
OK, so you might have a line then by the Tamifold Council.
That's fine.
Hang on a minute.
So I'm going to...
Actually, I'm quite clear that this committee's role might function here.
As chair, I am going to ask that we are not speaking over each other.
We could just calm down a little bit and I would actually like to get to Mrs.
Graham's question because we've got a packed agenda and if it's okay, we'll draw a line under this and move on.
But no, I'm moving on. Thank you, Mrs. Graham, for your question.
Thank you, chair. It's very interesting what you're saying about the doctor's surgery.
And you'll seem to be wanting to wrap it into something,
whatever the design is going to be.
If you draw your mind back to the Asadine development
and the Brockle Bank estate and the Brockle Bank health centre,
we had an agreement with the NHS to actually take some of the chunk
out of the development,
develop an absolutely cutting edge surgery.
It really is cutting edge.
And we actually then, and now you hopefully,
are going to redevelop for within a new development.
So my question to you is, are you not in discussion with the NHS
to see whether there could be a joint venture?
Because with all this new development coming into place
in Roehampton, you know, you really will need further,
very sophisticated as we go forward.
And let's face it, it'll be five to 10 years,
possibly, by the time the planning application,
the development and things like that.
So I'm looking forward to it.
Yeah, thank you for your question.
Let's hear.
So if I may, I think there are probably two questions here,
which is one is the sort of medical capacity in the area
that we're proposing going to be sufficient,
including the new residents.
We are in discussions with the NHS with regard to that,
and they are confident that.
Are they going to get some dosh?
Are they going to get some dosh?
No, we're aiming to, obviously the NHS, the ICBs,
are in quite a cash constrained position at the moment,
as I'm sure everyone will be aware from national news.
So what we're endeavouring to do with the arrangements
for the Alton practise is to come up
with a structure for the arrangement, which
doesn't require any capital investment directly from the NHS ICB and which doesn't increase
the revenue costs to the NHS from operating the premises and which also allows the GPs
who currently own the practise property to retain an investment after the deal is made.
So we're hopeful that the deal structure which we have reached works for all parties.
We're obviously still in the process of finalising that deal and so I shouldn't go into too much
greater detail at this point in public session.
Yeah thank you for that. So I think we will move on. Oh sorry that there are
questions. So did you have your hands up as well? Yes. So Councillor Varithraj and then Councillor Stock.
It was just a really quick one. I think my colleagues opposite the table keep kind of taking my questions that I was going to ask.
Because obviously in my own ward in Wandle we have the Brockle Bank house where we have a new three -storey GP centre being built.
So my question was just going to be to ask where we are on the Alton because this obviously is going to be very much
Welcomed by not only the residents on the Alton but residents in the surrounding area and also just to say that I really welcome the early
Improvement plans especially I'm not speaking to a resident earlier
She lives on the Alton and she uses the family hub for her and charity organisation
So it's really pleased that the family hub will be relocated rather than shut down during the consultation
So just to welcome those plans
And you already answered my question before, so thank you.
Thank you for that observation, Councillor Vathraj.
Councillor Stock.
Thank you, Chair. Just picking up on Councillor Vathraj's point about the family hub,
I was really pleased to see that actually because the family hub over at Hampton has been so successful,
we're now going to give extra space to it in the new plans.
I think that's a real testament to that partnership working that we've embedded in our community,
so I'm really pleased to see that.
But my – I had just a question about retail continuity, because I think you touch at page
34, 3 .36, you touch on retail continuity.
And I think we have seen that in regenerations across London, where there has been a period
of time where retail units have had to kind of cease to exist and kind of on the regeneration
site and then business – and that's been longer than they might have anticipated in
the end, and then businesses haven't been able to return.
I did just want to be entirely clear that that is a commitment that we've made to all those businesses because we do have quite that big parade that we're developing along Danbury Avenue.
And just to make sure that it's all of those businesses, all of those shops.
Because clearly, High Street does seem to be really important to residents in Alton and the Hampton area.
Yes, I'd agree.
It's actually a quite successful High Street in its own terms and very, very important to residents.
So we're very mindful of that and not only important to residents
But it's also the livelihoods of the people that run the businesses and we need to pay due regard to that as well
We have worked through several possible solutions to decanting the retail in a way that allows for continuity of trading
The solution that we are now working up is the one that we think is the most appropriate
What that will do is allow for a temporary retail facility
very close to the existing Dainbury Parade with sufficient space for the existing buildings
on one of the early residential demolition sites.
So the order in which things will happen is that we will decant residents from those sites
into new homes on the autumn which will have been built, for example, in Block A. Then
we will demolish that site and will allow for that to provide a temporary retail parade
on that site and then that will give us the opportunity to demolish and rebuild the retail
parade and move people back in.
So obviously it does mean that people need to move into temporary premises and then move
back to their new home but the temporary premises should be of reasonable quality and also very
close to the existing premises so that should be convenient both for residents and hopefully
help ensure that businesses don't lose footfall. Thank you.
Let's just talk here for a follow -up.
It's like another question, sorry. Did you have a, did somebody else have a point?
I'm trying to then understand the geography of it. The Dainbury shops,
Where will they be temporarily located in terms of, just give us pictures, where will they go?
Where they will go, so part of the plan is to create where there is currently the car park,
to replace that with a community square, so opposite the current library site.
So on the border of that community square, that's where, that's one of the blocks that are currently there will be cleared and that's where the retail will go.
That sounds very attractive.
Councillor Corner, did you have a question?
Just to be clear, where you say they're community square, is that where the mural is?
I think they had a mural to the Queen, didn't they?
Is that the one on the other side?
On the other side.
Okay.
Yeah.
Good.
Sir Stock.
I had a slightly different question, which I think Mr Moore touched on in the previous
paper, which has been kind of on my mind in terms of our general development for a good
well now. Just the building safety regulator and the delays, what are we
doing whether that's kind of on the political side or together with other
local authorities across London to try and reduce the delays because I know
that has impact on other schemes, the regeneration schemes, Thousand Homes and
you mentioned it under the BPS scheme as well, so I would be interested to know
what we're doing to reduce those delays.
Yes, well the development sector is all staring at that question. We understand it's an ongoing risk.
I think a former London Fire Commissioner is now Chief Executive of the Building Safety Regulator
and therefore we are seeking to see the product of that reset, I think is what the industry is hoping and expecting for.
We are certainly seeking to maintain good contacts, good links.
Okay, you're very welcome to.
I'm just pleased to join the party.
I've just made one final point and then I'll stop.
Is the relationship between our building, head of building control, so Paul Stevens,
he also does work on a national level around fire safety.
So, at a formal level, lobbying all those points, holding BSR to account, prioritising
around our key schemes and maintaining good relationships into that environment would
be part of that structure.
Kay, yeah.
Hello.
I just wanted to add that also from a housing management point of view, we're advocates
through London Councils and also ARCH, the Association for Retained Council Housing.
So in both of those ways, we're dealing with issues of the building safety regulator from a housing management point of view,
getting major works through the Gateway 2 process.
So we're doing it from different angles.
That's good to hear.
Thank you.
Okay, so I don't see any more questions on this.
So I think what we need to do is, we're not being asked to photon recommendations in the papers.
the decisions have already been taken by the Cabinet.
So we will move on to item 7, which is the Housing Services Activity Report.

7 Housing Services Activity Report (Paper No.26-6)

Thank you, Chair.
Dave Wirth, Director of Housing Services.
In view of the time and the remainder of the agenda, I'll be brief.
So this report is a response, really, to what you heard at the last meeting from our partners
at the Southwest London Law Centre and focusing on their five basics campaign.
Paragraphs three through to nine give a recap of what those – that campaign is concerned
with.
The only point I'd make there additionally is just to highlight that this is not necessarily
specific to our provision of temporary accommodation.
It is a multi -barre, ongoing campaign.
Paragraph 10 on the table therein attempts to set out the relevant numbers, and really
to – that forms the basis of the rest of the report.
We are in a fortunate position that the very big majority of the temporary accommodation
we provide, around 90 percent, is self -contained accommodation akin to what a secure tenant
would occupy, i .e. a self -contained flat with exclusive use of bathroom, kitchen, and so
on.
So to that extent, we're in a reasonable position and compared to some other London
boroughs, in a better position, but that doesn't mean that we should be complacent around the
law centre's campaign.
We are, and there are examples in the paper of where we are meeting it, where we are doing
big schemes, the tooting scheme is mentioned.
That's why I'm in the works to the Nightingale Square that we've done, creating extra bathrooms,
and so on.
So that's really all I want to say by way of introduction.
myself or Mr. Nazir will take any questions members might have. Thank you very much. So
I've got a question from Councillor Cornyn. Thank you Mr. Worth for the report. There
seems to be a bit of a disconnect to me between the position of the guests at the last meeting
in the South West London Law Centre and the conclusions of this report.
This report essentially seems to say that the Council has largely met the requirements
across all the five criteria, the five basics that were set out.
To what extent would you, well what message would you give to the visitors to the last meeting about our response to their asks?
And which of the five areas is the one that the council really recognises it needs to do more to improve on?
So, I think generally we are, as they explained when they attended, we're in like continuous
engagement with them.
We see it as a partnership.
We're meeting with them regularly.
And the paper is not attempting, hopefully, apologies if it gives that impression, to
say everything is rosy.
There are issues, the Wi -Fi is one of them, where more can be done.
The point made in the paper though, and there are some examples of the very significant
costs if the Council was to take upon itself to provide those services at either subsidised
or no cost rates to the large number of people we're talking about.
So it will be an incremental process.
What we will do and what this report commits us to do, I think, is where we are in discussions
where we get new temporary accommodation opportunities like the schema tooting, we will look to add
that extra value.
And over time, therefore, improves the position against the campaign asks.
Is a follow -up to that.
Will the – is it currently the Council's view that they'll submit to kind of that
evaluation by the campaign going forward?
As I say, we want to work in partnership with our colleagues.
client representatives at the law centre.
We would look at each ask and each scheme individually.
We are more than happy, and in fact, some of the improvement works we've done at one
of our hostels, Carney Lodge in Bedford Ward, I think it is, off Ballum High Road, followed
a joint visit with representatives and tenants who were affiliated with their campaign.
So it is an open dialogue.
They came down and gave us some useful ideas which we put into practise.
Final point.
Would it be possible for members to attend those visits to understand the state of temporary
accommodation?
That's generally an open offer to any member that wants to contact us.
Something to the logistics of organising it, yeah, of course.
Councillor Dickerton, do you want to come in?
I just wanted to comment on that point, which is that to give you a bit of an update on
the correspondence we've had.
So one of the five basics is the information ask, and we have now drawn up a kind of pack
that will go out to someone when they're about to be entering temporary accommodation, which
we've shared with them to kind of – as one of the specific five basics is we've been
in dialogue for a long time of producing this, co -producing this, and I know that – Giselle,
correct me if I'm wrong, but we've sent it off now to them,
or we're about to send it off to them.
Then they can put some feedback on it,
and it's been designed up by design services,
the text has been signed off.
For us, it's a continual process of picking up where
a service user might go to their coffee session, raise an issue,
bring it back to us as long as our higher level,
analysing our stock and working out where the laundry rooms are,
what access to community fibre and maybe our own stock.
I think the point that we have discussed this a little bit at the last meeting is capacity
and potential in some of the nightly paid rental accommodation as to what making sure
that in the earlier stages in our procurement offer we are doing the five basics.
If we go to a landlord and they are a landlord that works with the council ensuring that
early on we're making sure that that property delivers the five basics.
Because it seems like a lot of the casework is coming from that kind of property, whereby
a tenant is placed in a property and later finds out that for whatever reason it can't
get broadband because it's too far off the high street and then they're in a really difficult
position.
So I think that's what good will look like for us.
Obviously, as you know, temporary combination procurement at the moment is a very complex,
It's sometimes overwhelming for our service, lots of moving pieces, people moving around,
trying to get as many people and trying to find as many providers as possible.
So I think the next steps over the next couple of months for us is really honing in on how
our procurement from that large chunk of nightly paid meets the five basics in our initial
assessment of it.
But I'm sure Giselle can talk a bit more on that as well.
Yeah.
Sorry, just to add to that following on from last meeting,
we also adapted the criteria for our private sector leasing scheme
where we acquire properties from the private sector
and lease them where we used to ask for unfurnished accommodation.
We're now going to amend that to request that they put in at least washing machines
and also to make sure that there's a facility to connect to Wi -Fi.
and we've started to adapt our information sheet
for providers to fill out before they offer us a placement
to ensure that we've got the correct information
regarding the five basics.
And if there haven't, it would be then,
if we place something for a very short term,
and then we would move them somewhere,
which fulfils those five basics.
Mr. Graham.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Ms. Nisia, for our chat this afternoon. Basically, it's
very sensible. And ultimately, just to actually have the reassurance that that's what they're
going to be putting in will take a lot of, I think, stress of the whole movement of moving
into temporary accommodation. But just going back to Grenfell and Fox House, looking at
procurement in the future. Houses do have voids and as we're looking at fire and safety,
that would naturally, hopefully be in the inspection prior to you going forward.
Yes, there are certain criteria that we always have to look at since we've had the private sector leasing scheme,
they have to meet all the statutory obligations under the housing health and safety regime,
which fire is a very key component that we, and we often haven't taken on properties
because they haven't got adequate fire escape, even though they're quite desirable,
but yeah, all those cheques are done.
Just quickly, going back to the PAC, we do have families with different languages and
that would be addressed in some way, like a link or a…
Yes, we always offer translation where required, where requested.
Councillor Ayers.
Forgive me if you've covered this while I was out, but there's a brief mention about
drying areas as part of the five standards. I think this applies to
general housing as well. If there's no drying area you're going to have moulds
because people are going to have to dry inside and I would commend looking for
some solution to this because no one's going to be able to afford electric
dryers. They're not going to be able to afford... well anyway, I mean if you could
put some attention into this in temporary accommodation and permanent
accommodation, that some drying areas which are secure, not like the outside
areas where people don't use them because the clothes are not secure, some
sort of secure drying area, basements or landings, open landings in the old style
30s blocks, well I mean 50s blocks, I'd be grateful, thank you. So would the tenant.
Just to say we're happy to consider that. There are obviously limitations of the stock and
what's possible but your point is well made, thank you.
Right, Councillor Stock. Thank you, Chair. And just picking up a little
bit on the points that I think have been made before and the update that you've been able
to give about the work that we're doing around private rented accommodation and Knightley
Blade. It's really great to hear that progress. And I think you allude to it really at paragraph
30 in the report. So just really, I suppose, to build on that and for us to make that public
I would like to propose that we make a recommendation along those lines, and I'm happy to read it
out, and officers or cabinet member can comment on it or anybody else.
So I suggest that we could make a recommendation under this paper that the Council commit to
ensuring that when nightly paid or licenced accommodation are used, or when private sector
properties are procured, compliance cheques are undertaken to confirm that the five basic
standards are in place prior to the placement and monitored on an ongoing
basis with escalation where standards are found not to be met just to really
give that commitment that we want to try and make that progress in relation to
those two categories. So compliance cheques are undertaken to confirm that
the five basic standards are in place prior to placement and monitored on an
ongoing basis with escalation where standards are found not to be met.
Okay, I mean I think that's a very good idea but let's hear Councillor Covington.
I think Councillor Dickerton almost alluded to this. The demand for temporary accommodation
is huge. The supplier temporary accommodation is very limited and the competition for it
is huge and so I think that anything that diminishes this Council's chances of securing
and diminishing a highly competitive area of work has to be thought through more carefully.
I mean, I aspiration I don't have a problem with it but you know ultimately if the cheque
is not met what are we going to do? Are we going to refuse to take temporary accommodation
and the consequence of that on the homeless family, what happens.
So I think it needs to be thought through.
Just from my perspective, my understanding is this is a pan -London campaign
and temporary accommodation is under most pressure in London.
So I think actually if all London boroughs are taking this approach,
then actually, you know, we begin to raise standards.
So that would be my aspiration, I suppose.
So the President probably does know in his experience with London councils,
all London leaders and housing cabinet members will sign up to all these things,
but when the pressure comes on where to find accommodation, it just gets busted.
You must know this.
Let's hear from Councillor Dickerton.
So, a bit of a brave new world of a new system this, but what I'm hearing is that there'd be
a recommendation that would then go to from me and my cabinet colleagues to think over and then
go through that, yeah, because I think, like Councillor Grinier points out, the aspiration
and Councillor Stockett is a very noble one, and there's an issue of practicality, but
what I like about the new system is you can throw things to us and then we have to go
and figure out how they can be implemented.
So I'm up for the challenge of it, and I will, you know, in short, I'll come back to this
committee with a set of proposals.
It will be running parallel towards some work we are already doing around prevention, cost inflation.
There's a serious general fund implications to any decision around temporary accommodation at the moment, which is already overspending.
So, exactly.
So, Councillor Winnebago, this is an important point, but as a kind of recommendation for us to go off and think about, I think that's how the system works.
I don't even know if I have the power to stop it, so you can well vote on it tonight and go ahead.
Can I, I'll come to you in a second.
So I think what you're saying is that if we had something more like the council commits to exploring, yeah, exploring.
Yeah.
Mr. Corner.
Two quick questions. One is a procedural point which is that if we were to presumably we'll need to vote on this recommendation, if we pass it that recommendation goes to the Cabinet.
Is that then a formal process where the Cabinet needs to formally accept or decline the recommendation?
And what's the time limit on that given that we're rapidly coming up to an election?
But is that good enough for this committee? I mean the Cabinet might not be the Cabinet at the time of the next meeting.
So yes, you're quite right.
There's a cabinet meeting on Monday, could we, you know.
And there's a cabinet meeting after that, but before the next election.
Maybe you could write to us. I mean, I think the cabinet could write to us.
So, yeah. So what, so I mean, yeah, you're right, there's a procedure for this and we would propose second, you know, agree, vote.
But let's hear, what is the time slot for this?
Yeah, I mean, hands up.
I've been working with Shofia and the Five Basics Campaign
for I think almost two years now.
So it's not, this isn't, this is something
that I am wholly supportive of.
We're trying everything in our power
to practically deliver the highest quality
temporary accommodation we can.
I can list off of our record of this administration
is the laundry rooms, the new playgrounds, the making sure that we're trying to provide
as much in -borough, self -contained accommodation with the hotel spend.
You know, we've done some difficult things, the inspections to try and save money, so
I think we've got a good record of trying to bring the service up.
The challenge we've faced is that even as, you know, before the spike that took place
– you'll remember, everyone on this committee, the spike that took place at the tail end
of last year, even before that when things were settling,
the costs were still going up
and it wasn't saving the general funds.
So, you know, I think, you know that I'm serious and active
about this and I wouldn't, the challenge for us to try
and improve our procurement, because I think it is a basic decency
that we, if we're going to go
into a private leasing arrangement with a landlord,
the five basics of basic human life to be able
to have a decent life and that,
we're paying lots of money for this.
I think it's really important that people out in the world know
that temporary accommodation is not,
kind of, often the quality is bad,
but the price is still very, very high.
So I think it's a reasonable request,
and we as a cabinet will go off and look at it,
and I'll work with colleagues so that it's part of a parcel
of our overall improvements of temporary accommodation.
Now, Council Corner, it is not gonna be
at the next cabinet on Monday,
because we've gotta give a serious piece of time to this.
But I'm willing to take it as a very strong
and decent recommendation from this committee.
Thank you for that and you know I do recognise I think we all
recognise that this is building on the piece of work that has been happening
because you know obviously there's a serious cost implication to the council
but residents very much at the heart of everything we do and we need to take
that seriously about the levels of decent living. So yes, Councillor Graham.
Thank you. What you've put forward, Councillor Stock, is very sensible.
Listening to what you've been talking about, in the past, there would have been a different way of doing it.
We put forward an agreement and we'd vote on it.
Now, as this has gone and it's been to a cabinet, it would go to full council next, wouldn't it?
No? And so if it... No, but I'm trying to work it out. So you can't go to the 26th of January
and you've got to go away and talk about it to get more meat on the bones. But then we, you know,
would it be ready and would we ever have the opportunity to know about the outcome?
Would that go through the chairman and she would write to us or what?
Because we're going to have an election.
We're going to have... I mean, I'm looking at the logistics.
So we can agree that the response will be fed back to the current members of this committee.
Before the election.
Before the election, right?
because we know. Yeah. Yeah.
Council Kolyner.
Yeah, really keen to see kind of a time limit on this so to ensure timeliness.
I think Councillor Scott your recommendation is perfectly reasonable.
But just that just a question on how you envisage it working.
what would the escalation look like? Do you have anything in mind?
Because as you say it's a kind of pan -london campaign right? What are other
boroughs doing? That's a question to others as well.
We're now exporting.
Well this is a good point actually because what other boroughs are doing, it varies partly depending on their policy formation and
partly on their particular needs. So you know we do need to think about what the
Wandsworth context is, but there is a lot of information out there.
There is a APPG on temporary accommodation, they come up with some links.
There have been conferences, councils come up with other things.
And I think there is a lot of shared learnings about what to do there.
Not just about housing, but about lived experience and
things like vaccination rates are often much lower for children.
Well, is that the case in Wandsworth or not?
So the exploring, it could be, you know.
I think you're going to get an indication of that.
I think in other areas, sometimes things
escalated to the cabinet member.
I suppose, from my perspective, it
would be about something about member awareness,
whether it's KPI reporting to a future iteration
of this committee or awareness of the cabinet member
or kind of political leaders that we're
struggling in this regard.
I'm not expecting daily reporting.
I think it's awareness if we're committed to this.
So I feel that people are happy with this.
So I think we look for proposer,
Kate, Councillor Stock, to exploring.
Yeah, I think so.
Yeah, and the timeframe.
Seconder? Yeah, Councillor Fraser, I saw first. Okay, yes we're agreed. Great.
This is, yeah, this is a, you know, a new system and it's great. No, but I'm pleased
that the committee are being, you know, productive and yeah, all the powers working in collaboration.
Okay, so let's move on to item eight, that's the housing revenue account budget.
Then we've got the social housing improvement task and finish group and another paper. So

8 Housing Revenue Account Budget (including Rents & Other Charges for Council Dwellings) (Paper No. 26-7)

we, I'm very conscious about time being five to ten at the moment. So, okay, so
any questions yeah housing with you over to you thank you chair my name is Mark
Davies I'm the financial controller so this report is presented each year as
part of the council's duty to set budgets for its housing stock and to
ensure that its plans remain affordable the report updates all plans capital and
revenue expenditure and goes on to review rent levels and other non
residential charges. The report sets out the financial challenges currently
facing social housing landlords. These include rising costs due to inflation
levels, maintenance backlogs, increased building safety regulations and
constraints on rent increases in recent years. The report first recommends new
capital spend of almost 242 million. Combined with the existing capital
programme, the total capital investment over this and the next three years now
stands at $758 million.
This not only covers capital repairs and improvements
in the existing stock that will significantly improve
the quality, safety, and sustainability of those homes,
but also the continued investment in the delivery
of new housing through the regeneration programmes,
site development under the Homes for One's Earth programme,
and acquisitions.
The proposed capital programme is set out in detail
in Appendix C to the report.
Paragraph 4 .44 on page 70 covers how this capital expenditure is likely to be funded.
The report then goes on to look at the planned revenue expenditure.
As previously reported, there have been a number of continuing financial pressures within
the HRA, specifically those relating to repairs.
The report then moves on to proposals for rents.
Crucially for rent setting purposes, the consumer price index in September 2025 is 3 .8 percent.
The report confirms that in accordance with the rent standard, the council is permitted
to increase rents by a maximum of 4 .8%, and in view of the cost pressures the HRA faces,
recommends that rents are increased by a maximum of 4 .8 % from April 2026.
The report then details from paragraph 4 .96 on page 82 the various service charges that
tenants may be charged.
Paragraph 4 .115 on page 86 proposes that non -residential charges such as those for garages and store sheds are increased by an average of 3 .8 % in line with the Council's general approach to charging.
For those residents that have heating and hot water supplied through communal heating systems, there will be a 20 % reduction in fuel charges in recognition that wholesale prices continue to stabilise and the wider heating and hot water account recovers from the previous accumulated deficit.
A summary of the budgets is shown as part of the HRA framework attached as Appendix
E, with graphs showing estimated reserve balances included at Appendix F.
Finally, the report's conclusion is that a maximum 4 .8 percent rent increase is now necessary,
so the ongoing management of the Council's housing stock remains affordable over the
short and longer term.
Thank you very much.
So we'll take questions and if you can be really brief in the formulation.
And Councillor Corner.
Thank you for the report.
Just on page 89 it says consultation is undertaken at the Borough Residence Forum,
which met two days ago, but this paper was published a week ago.
Now obviously the decision is yet to be taken,
But it does seem like the consultation is, is there anything that residents can say or
do to influence the council's decision making on this matter?
We've always consulted through the Borough Residence Forum.
I mean, they can give opinions on the contents of the report and they will be fed back through
the governance process.
Mr. Glockner, would you like to say anything?
Actually, I do have a question about
I don't know if you can do this, about the
actual 241 million HRA capital bids. Roughly, how much
is that going to be for major works and the spirit we were talking about at the BRF
in terms of roofs and things like that
that are not included in the 1000 Homes regeneration.
I'd probably be better off giving you a breakdown
outside of the meeting.
I mean, there's a large portion of the capital bids
relate to the site developments and regeneration schemes,
but there was a significant amount of capital bids
for existing stock.
I think it was in the region of 65 million,
but I don't know what specifically is Roo's lifts
and those sort of individual components.
Yeah, thank you for offering that.
And again, I'll just remind people
that one of the recommendations in the task
and finish group is actually that the time scale
and the pipeline about getting feedback
from the borough residents,
when the paper's going to them, is actually addressed there.
So I'm quite keen to move on to that as soon as we can.
But yeah, an answer to that point.
I think on the original question, I think we're dealing with matters on the leaseholder
focus group with Tom Crawley.
I think we could discuss it there.
I mean, if we could, if Mark is open to questions and things like that, I don't know how much
sooner the report could come out.
It would change our minds on matters.
So we just keep the open dialogue going.
As it is, then I think it's acceptable.
Kuna.
Thank you.
Just to follow up on the kind of consultation point,
has any wider research studies engagement
been done with council tenants relating to affordability
with the proposed increase?
Councillor Dickerson.
How's the corner?
This is, in the 44 years
that Conservative administration ran the council,
did they run mass consultations with tenants
about what they were gonna do with their rents?
I can talk -
Well, I can tell you what we're doing. I can 100 % tell you what we're doing. If you go
through the data, which I've done, and I've read this out of full counsel, so if you're
going to tell me off doing a full counsel speech, that's fine. But historically, the
Conservative administration would freeze rents in the year before an election and then always
go above the government guidance in the years in between. So it was a politically motivated
use of rents. Now, I promised when I became the cabinet member that I was going to steer
the HRA with sound financial footing. And so we haven't played any political games with
our rents. CPI plus 1%, covering our inflation and that additional 1 % to do the major structural
works that we need to build new social housing, to have money for emergencies, which still
means that the HRA is out of pocket because actual building cost inflation is well above
of the 3 .8%, and also means that the money that was taken out
of the HRA during the George Osborne years,
when we weren't allowed to do CPI plus 1%,
which over the 30 -year business plan
is hundreds of millions of pounds,
we are serious about managing the HRA.
So I'm willing to have the political discussion with you
about it, but that is the position of this council.
And I think it's unfair for you to ask of us things that you
know are kind of ridiculous.
I don't quite agree because the administration has made such a big play of supporting residents with the cost of living and affordability.
Rightly so, right? Like there was a huge implication.
I do think this committee should have assurances and some oversight over how decisions by this council are impacting residents on affordability.
I completely understand the arguments in favour of the rent rise, but I think there does need
to be consideration about the impact this makes on households, bottom line.
Yeah, so as you know, in terms of the vast majority of our tenants who are in receive
of universal credit in order to support their rent, they are covered and protected.
So the money is not taken out of their pocket because of the increases that happen yearly
with universal credit.
Where, and we have always talked about this openly, where there is pressure on rents,
and to give you some perspective, so the average weekly rent with these increases would be
about 150 pound for a two bedroom would go up to 157 pounds a week, so a seven pound
increase in that week.
And who would likely be most affected are those not in receipt of any universal credit.
And we have set up the largest cost of living support.
support, we have a very, very robust way of supporting tenants if they fall into financial
hardship when it comes to rent arrears, protecting them. We actually find that most people who
fall into rent arrears aren't in the category who aren't already on universal credit. And
to be frank, we try not to talk about this too much in public because of the incentive
structures, but it is very, very rare that we would ever evict someone because of rent
arrears, that only really happens if it's like a very obvious and chronic case of someone
just basically refusing to pay rent even with multiple different offers of payment plans,
supports, credit unions, support, all those kinds of things. So the wraparound support
is there. You'll see in the debts and arrears paper that that, you know, arrears have gone
up because the cost of living has gone up. But that's, that in some ways is measured
by the fact that we are taking, you know, arrears going up shows that we're not just
evicting people when they have arrears. We have longer term payment periods. We extend
it to what people can actually afford. So it's always a difficult political decision
between managing the long term financial viability of the HRA so that this thing, public housing,
a public asset, can pay for itself in an inflationary environment and maintain decent, safe, healthy
standards versus the impact on people's pockets.
And because of that universal credit coverage,
we think those who are at the sharpest end
don't feel the increase in a way that would really
damage them outside of, obviously,
the macroeconomic circumstances of cost of living,
you know, the cost of nappies and things going up,
which we have support for outside of that as well.
Councillor Covington.
The question of Mr. Davies.
In coming to the 4 .8, I mean I see the argument for that.
But was there any modelling done about the potential impact on the levels of the years
which the later paper talks about and have gone up significantly
and I recognise the cost of living but there's always that kind of the group
in the middle not on universal benefit and actually just about managing
and they are the ones who are often caught in this situation.
Has any modelling been done about the risks to that group
and the likely impact on potential arrears?
I know there is some work being done to help people cope with financial challenges
and so perhaps you could just use that to elaborate
as to what your modelling looks like there.
And once I've got my, I mean there's also the rent convergence argument.
And in a council that's been talked about as always a high rent council,
in theory convergence should mean that we should be having rent reductions
or at least relatively our rent should be going up by less than our competitors
but our neighbouring authorities.
Is that actually going to be the case or convergences for the birds?
I'll take the convergence one first.
When you look at the position where we are, the council is in terms of its rent levels, it is one of the highest in London still.
So as we're progressing to the converged level, we've got a smaller distance to go to get to that level.
So yeah, the benefit in Wandsworth is not going to be as great as it would be in other councils that have a much lower starting base.
So Dave, you mean the benefits to the HRA rather than to the resident?
Yes, sorry. So we've done some modelling on that. We're still awaiting for the consultation outcome.
We're waiting to see what that is.
Yes, so it's a difficult one because you'll never know what the tipping point is for an
individual tenant and we don't have that level of detail.
But we do build in an increase in the bad debt provision which is broadly matched to
what we expect might happen in the ARIA's position as part of the budget setting.
So I mean just to give you a bit of context, the later paper sets out the position as at
end of the financial year, last financial year.
The latest figures I've got show that Arrears have risen by near 2 million over the course
of this year.
That represents about 2 percent of the rent roll of what we would collect, and if you
actually look at the rent, we would have – I think the current Arrears position is around
the 18 million mark.
If you look at the amount of rent we've raised since the table in the next paper,
or the later paper, what started, you can say that on average that was about 780 million
over the course of the term.
If 18 million is the current level of arrears, again, it's around 2%.
I mean, 2 % rent arrears on that level of rent income is a good effort.
Thank you.
I'll go to Councillor Fraser, please.
Thank you.
It was a link point to that and just on the point that you raised about not having that
level of detail about every resident.
We also sit on the finance committee which is meeting tomorrow night and so I hope not
to be in the town hall at 10 past 10 tomorrow night but who knows.
But one of the things that Alex in the finance team there is rightfully proud of is our work
on the low income family tracker.
So when you talk about that data and intelligence, is that something, because I know that work
has expanded greatly, is that something that we could be looking to track like the arrears
and perhaps those people who we say are caught in the middle who, to try and get that information
by the low -income family tracker?
That work will certainly be happening already.
I mean, that's looking at the specific people and trying to see those that are beginning
to get into trouble in those early stages of being in trouble.
Obviously for the financial modelling for the 30 year business plan, it won't be the same
group of tenants there in 10 years time.
So we have to make an estimate, we make the most prudent estimate we can.
The stock.
This is a similar point, Councillor Fraser, because we have actually got a paper tomorrow
night at Finance Committee about the cost of living work that the Council is doing and
I appreciate it's not your team, but you might have awareness of the work that's going on
the financial inclusion team took to work to maintain council tenants and I think actually
the work we're doing there is far more in depth. I think that's perhaps what you see
then in the subsequent paper we've got coming to committee in terms of some of those areas
that are sitting there because we are working very hard as a council to enable tenants to
sustain their council tenants. I don't know if you're able to expand on that work of that
I've just been sent a message by Alex Wilson who's happy to step in and talk if you'll
permit her.
Thank you chair.
So yes I am here to talk about the debt paper but it might be helpful to cover some of this
off now. As Councillor Dickerton talked about just a minute ago, the housing
rents team do an inordinate amount of work to try and help their tenants
sustain their tenancies and as he rightly said, eviction is absolutely the
last thing we want to do is to evict our tenants and we will do
absolutely everything we can to support them to avoid that from happening. We do use the
low income family tracker and we've done some really good work around using some of that
data, for example, to identify people that are in arrears over a certain value and looked
at whether we've got payment arrangements, alternative payment arrangements in place
with them and where we haven't, we've engaged with them to try and to resolve that issue
to put those in place.
You know, we always look to establish payment arrangements
in place and have those conversations with tenants
who are struggling to pay, but it's always helpful
when that's kind of supported by proactive work
where some households are maybe perhaps not engaging
in the same way as others would.
The financial inclusion team are absolutely brilliant
and I haven't got the figures to hand,
but they're quite astounding in terms of the amount of support
and additional income they've been able to bring
into council tenants' pockets in terms of accessing,
getting them access to benefits that they're entitled to
but haven't been claiming, and also access to other support.
So things like access to social water tariffs
and other tariffs that utility companies
and phone providers provide. Also, signposting to places like Step Change and where people
need particular debt advice that we're not allowed to give as a local authority. Also,
early intervention measures. So we've run workshops for all new tenants to make sure
they understand that rent is absolutely their top priority in terms of a debt, and also
give them help around how they can maximise their income and around budgeting. And as
I say, we've used the LIFT dashboard and use it as part of business as usual to help us
engage with households who are in need of support.
I just wanted to also reflect on, I think, a question that was raised around the rent
increases and to mention that the Crisis and Resilience Fund that it now replaces, will
replace the household support fund from the 1st of April this year.
Now, this is all about still maintaining crisis support,
but it's also about helping households improve their financial resilience longer term,
so they're less reliant on crisis support and other support that we offer.
What it also does is it extends it beyond people who are in receipt of universal credit and housing benefit.
That's a really positive change because as we know, there's so many households that are just above that benefit cap entitlement and don't receive any benefit support.
support. So we are going to be able to use some of this resilience support and crisis
support to help some of those households who we haven't been able to help previously.
Thank you so much for all that useful information. It's great to sort of get all this information
from our different departments. I've got a question from Councillor McLeod and then we'll
probably move on.
Hi, thanks. I'm kind of really interested in this conversation as a council tenant and
as probably one of the people that isn't on universal credit but isn't that rich, you
know, this sort of applies to me. I'm not really, it's not really a political point
because I've been a council tenant for a long time and most of that time was under the Conservative
administration. One of the things I've never really worried about is paying my rent. I
feel incredibly secure as a council tenant knowing that my rent might go up but isn't
going to go up anywhere near what would go up in the private sector. So can I just ask,
just so we can kind of ground this conversation a bit, if we're talking about 3 .8 % rising
council rent over a year, what would we expect rent to go up in the private sector in a year?
I mean, I don't have any specifics, but Dave Worth might have some in relation to the properties
we procure through the temporary accommodation programme.
I don't have figures to hand, but the thrust of your question is absolutely spot on, that
we know the rental prices in the private rent sector, particularly in this borough, which
which is a hot market, have shot up.
It's just a statement of the obvious, really.
Of course, Renters' Rights Act coming in will put some measures of control on that,
so hopefully that will move around.
It's probably an easier figure to get, and I'm happy to look that up and share it with
members of the committee later this week.
Just to come back in there, I mean, there's a table in 4 .105 in the report which shows
market rents in Wandsworth.
So it doesn't show the increase that they would have faced from one year to another,
But it does give some comparisons between council rents with service charges, and then this or the lower medium market rents in the borough
Yes, please
Yeah, that's such ties in what I hear from my casework on some occasions.
Okay, thank you very much.
We're going to move on to item nine, the social housing improvement task and finish group.
And so first of all, I'd like to say thank you very much, Councillor Stock for chairing
the whole process and for the members who took part and Mr. Grockner and Miss
Playford as well and obviously also the officers. Do you want to say a brief
something?
I can do if we're not too worried about the gility and I can say basically what I shared at the Borough

9 Social Housing Improvement Task and Finish Group (Paper No.26-8)

Residence forum. You've taken away my thanks, Councillor Davis, because I definitely was going to start there.
So we've got the final report in front of us
from the Task and Finish Group,
but thank you to all involved.
And there's some draught recommendations
that we're seeking approval of.
And I think these will then be,
to come to Councillor Corners' point earlier,
these will then be considered by cabinet
alongside the housing improvement plan,
which the Task and Finish Group
unfortunately weren't able to see next week,
as I understand it.
So just in kind of broad summary,
the Task and Finish Group have had some reassurance
in terms of progress and processes
in terms of some of those compliance matters and those are largely on track
with what we we hope to achieve in relation to stock condition electrical
safety and the fire risk assessment overdue actions. Just to linger slightly
on the stock condition survey I think we were pleased to hear during the course
of the review that that programme is now significantly accelerated so every
single property in the council property in the borough will receive stock
conditions that surveyed by the end of this calendar year and I think that will really
help to make more strategic decisions in terms of the investment in council homes into the
future.
But I think, kind of coming to the conclusion review, there's still more work to do on
our improvement journey and I think we are collectively clear that there does need to
continue to be kind of an open and transparent update as this progresses into the future.
But I think where we got to in terms of a final report was really that kind of find
we've seen those compliance improvements but those improvements as a whole service
really can't be delivered by that type of compliance alone.
In order to have real and lasting change we need a culture shift in how we act as a social
landlord and we hope to see that kind of coming through further as Councillor Govindia pointed
to a landlord that places tenants and leaseholders at the heart of our decision -making, that
values that lived experience as expertise and treats accountability from residents,
and to residents as fundamental, and we bake that into our processes.
So just in terms of the recommendations, I think they've broadly fallen into four categories.
So first of all, better data and investment decisions.
So I talked about the stock condition survey
that's been accelerated.
Welcome that.
So we made a recommendation around strengthening capacity
to analyse that survey data so that leaders
can prioritise investment based on safety and resident impact.
So important for us to understand our stock
and use that in our decision making.
And then three recommendations in the second category
about improving the repairs experience. I think we heard from tenants and I think
the council is hearing in other forums as well that that experience, that's the
day -to -day lived experience of our tenants and that really needs to improve,
be more customer focused. So first of all we had a recommendation around
modernising the repairs journey, so shortening appointment windows, improving
online tracking, enabling easy rescheduling and capturing immediate
resident feedback to continue to improve the service.
And then we understand that the repairs contracts are due to be re -procured soon and so there's
an opportunity at this point in time to really use resident feedback and performance data
from residents to robustly monitor the repairs and maintain contracts, maintenance contracts
when we reprecure, but also to involve tenants
in the co -designing those specifications
in and of themselves when we reprecure that contract.
And then moving on to a third category,
just a general point around strengthening resident voice
and governance, so as was touched on earlier,
updating the borough residents forum constitution
and meeting schedule, because we've got this new
governance arrangements that came into play in the middle of last year. The
Borough Residents' Forum wasn't necessarily picked up at that point and
they need to be further embedded into our processes. I think we've experienced
some of that recently on committee. And then including tenant and leaseholder
representation in the governance structures, overseeing housing
performance and improvement going forward. So we've got the Borough
Residents' Forum but are there other opportunities to embed that resident
representation in some of those governance structures.
And then we're going to commission a specialist external support in order to look at our general
resident engagement and recommendation we've made there in terms of making sure that that
review is completed swiftly by the end of the first quarter of 2026.
So we've said by June of this year.
And then in the final kind of fourth section, recommendations around ongoing scrutiny and
accountability, so presenting the tenant satisfaction measures to this committee on an annual basis
and also suggesting that post the election period that scrutiny can consider looking
at managing and scrutinising the performance of the improvement plan because of the importance
it is to our council.
Thank you for that.
Really, I think what we need to do is to agree as a committee whether we all support the
recommendations one to nine in paragraphs one and two of the report.
I can see Councillor Covington's hands up.
Thank you, Chair.
I have some difficulties with this report because I do think that there are missed opportunities here.
Let me start with an easier bit, I think, which is that hopefully one of the recommendations could be tweaked
to allow the members of the TACSC and Finnish group to continue to be informed
of the firm outcomes on the outstanding 1800 fire risk.
When we come to the end of that backlog, could we be told that that's happened
or how is that progressing to kind of point to zero?
I mean I can't believe that we would want to say no to that.
And similarly, I think on the stock conditions, I know it's been raced through to the end
of this year that we should be finishing it.
But I think a regular update of how far we are
from the target would be a useful thing for us
to be kept informed of.
It's just like our ongoing interest in the thing.
I think the report misses the opportunity to put a cost
on the cost of, in a sense, the regulator's findings
and also the cost of putting it right.
And in some ways, I think that's a kind of a transparency
that would have been helpful for both our taxpayers as well as our tenants and residents.
The other thing is that the regulator's emphasis in all his kind of mutterings and writings is much, much more on the rights of the tenants of social landlords.
He seems to be less concerned about lease elders somehow.
And in some ways, again, this paper kind of ducks that ongoing, oncoming train from the regulator
in terms of what he is more focused on and how we might have to deal with that.
And I think it would be helpful to have dealt with it in here.
And so we're going to, I think we almost need to rewire the whole of our resident engagement machinery.
It's not about one bit or another bit.
It's about resident forum fit for purposes, the area housing panels fit for purpose and all of that.
I mean all of that does need to be recreated and I think again the paper fails to be bold about it in saying,
well this is a challenge.
Well, it won't happen overnight, but unless we start,
it never will happen.
Similarly, on the stock condition work,
surveying the buildings, finding fault, collecting data,
analysing data, none of that actually is public facing.
It's all good for the bureaucracy
to know all about it.
We need to have somebody who is then
has revealed and again the paper doesn't have in a sense what the expression might
be who is going to kick the butt to get things fixed. You almost need a rather
more senior authorised and well versed officer whose buck stops with him or her.
That's what again we ought to have done and then if the report gaps again be
filled in by the cabinet, so be it.
And then the third thing, I think, is an issue about it,
is that in terms of at what point do residents get told?
I mean, there are things like in a fire risk,
and then we'd have a year's, to put it right.
But if there's a category one, three months, sorry,
category one failure in a block, three months
seems like a lot of time and in some ways I can't see Kavinja I just need to
we've got about three minutes left so these are important points I say we do
have three minutes left I didn't go to all meetings but I did spend a lot of
time in these meetings and I did actually spend a lot of time reading it
and and I appreciate but the guillotine is in your gift if you wish to move it
It's up to you, isn't it?
It's fixed, it's a fixed rule.
I mean, I feel it's,
all of these points could have come
at the meeting on Monday.
It's always in the gift of the,
even if we vote for it.
Sorry.
Just a question.
You can't change something.
Right.
I'll cut you short.
I'm quite happy to write the council's talk about my points about this because I think I don't believe this is not about
Making a party political one. This is about actually improving our commitment to the residents
We said to them we were a failure. We said to them we're going to have a task and finish group
That's going to actually
Critically examine and come up with a recommendation
I am saying these recommendations need to be tougher tighter and more focused and if if that's not going to be
of interest, fine, provide to Council's stock.
Councillor Gipinja, I'd really welcome that
if you would feed into Council's stock.
And I think part of the recommend,
one of the recommendations is that this does, is ongoing.
So it's not a last chance.
thank you.
I'm going to ask for Councillor Dick.
Yeah, so I think, I mean, obviously this is,
This, the recommendations in the task and finish group are running parallel to obviously
a huge body of work covering the things that you've just spoken about that are part of
the housing improvement plan.
We'll be going to cabinet.
Now you might say, well, why didn't we get to look at it?
You know, because we've been working on this very big, large package.
And to be fair about the way the task and finish group ended up falling, and I'm not
saying any credit on this, but the last meeting of the task and finish group came up with
new recommendations beyond the scope of the ones that I read before I walked into that
meeting that could then go to informal cabinet the next day to be seen and then to be added
into the housing improvement plan. So for me as a cabinet member seeing the new system
work, there were genuine changes to the housing improvement plan which we have been working
on which speak to all of the things that you've raised. It's not this is the be all and end
all is not the outcome of the task and finish group. Of course not, but the task and finish
group could shape some of the things that maybe had been missed out from the housing
improvement plan. Your point about who's going to be accountable on repairs is all tied up
in that larger piece of work. Your point about tenant engagement is tied up in that larger
piece of work. Now, you could say, I wish the housing committee had seen. Of course,
of course, but you've got to build a good plan. You've got to take the time. And we
couldn't rush it. In the way that it panned out, it actually allowed the task and finish
group to feed into something. So it wasn't it was genuine pre -decision scrutiny by 24
hours or something like that. So it was, you know, and I'm not going to claim credit for
that, because this is just how bureaucratic sometimes these processes fall. But if your
position on the task can finish is that how much is it speaking to a bold and ambitious
and a resource committed improvement plan, that certainly has to come back to you guys.
And I imagine at the June Committee, the housing improvement plan that is going to be signed
off on Monday by Cabinet would have to come back. I mean, that would be crazy if it didn't.
But I can't bring it to a committee before my cabinet colleagues have signed it off.
So I take on board what you're saying.
I'm not saying that it's an unreasonable response to what the scope of the task and finish group
could have been.
It was never going to be the task and finish group building themselves the plan through
which we would emerge from the challenges that have been faced with us.
But your point about keeping track foregoing, absolutely agree with you 100 percent.
And it is a commitment.
I hope of whatever happens post May that that housing improvement plan would be regularly checked up and brought back to this committee to see how things are unfolding.
So at this point, I'm going to ask whether we agree to support the recommendations one to nine in paragraphs one and two of the reports.
Agreed.
Okay, thank you.
I've noted that.
So with only a few minutes to...
Yeah, yeah, so I'm going through this now.
Okay, so the item 10 is about the write -off of irrecoverable debt, over £25 ,000.
pounds.
What I think I would say at this point

10 Write off of Irrecoverable Debts over £25,000 (Paper No.25-422)

is if there's any pertinent questions, ask them now.
We won't have the opposite introduction.
OK, so we have actually met the guillotine at the moment.
So we are very time limited.
We've probably got like three three minutes. I requested this paper be put on the agenda partly because it does cover
significant, you know housing matters
Members of the committee should see it as a matter of course as with the Alton and the BPS paper
A resident had actually written to me. I'm asking questions about this paper. We have now met the guillotine
I've I've written to officers separately, but
I'm grateful for it being on the agenda and we can follow up with officers
That's great.
Okay. So, at that point, I'll say the guillotine's now fallen.
Yeah? We'll consider the remainder of the agenda as follows
where we finish the agenda.
And the meeting is now finished.
Yeah. Thank you.