Interactive webcast player

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 1st October 2026 at 7:30pm

 
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
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Thank you everyone for coming this evening.
Welcome to the meeting.
My name is Councillor Chris Barron.
I am the new chair of the Housing and Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Welcome also to the new OSC members.
Quite a few of you who are here tonight.
Here with me this evening is Councillor Corner
as the cabinet member for housing.
Bob Granville as the newly appointed
interim director of housing,
and Paul Chadwick as the executive director of environment.
I would also like to welcome Mr. Thomas Glockner,
the vice chair of the Borough Residence Forum.
Members of the committee, I will now call your names
in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphone
to confirm your attendance and then switch it off again when you've done so.
So in alphabetical order, Councillor Ahmed.
Present please.
Councillor S Davies.
Good evening.
Councillor Dickerson.
Good evening.
Councillor Durbin.
Present.
Councillor Mrs Graham.
Here.
And Councillor Tiller.
Good evening.
We have a number of officers present as well
who will introduce themselves when they address
the committee about their relevant points.
Are there any apologies for absence?
No.
So I've just introduced, and we just had a brief discussion
earlier about the cabinet, Bob Granville,
who is the newly appointed Interim Executive Director of Housing.
Councillor Connor is just going to explain a bit more about that and what is going on.
Yes, thank you, Chair, and it's really great to be the first housing OSE in my tenure as cabinet member for housing.
I'm really delighted that upon taking office as a new administration,
we have been able to deliver on our manifesto commitment to re -establish a dedicated housing service.
within the council. This is a really positive move for us and it will be headed by a new
executive director for housing and I'm really pleased that Bockranville is staying on
to lead that new services. It kind of embeds itself within the council's structures
and I'm really pleased also that we've got some really good
other senior hires in the housing space as well
in recent months.
And that will really give us a really strong team
that will be able to deliver on all of the housing
challenges we have within the council.
We are recruitment for a new executive,
a permanent executive director for housing
is ongoing, that process, and that will take its course,
and we hope to attract some really good candidates
for that role because it's a very exciting job,
leading one of the largest council estates in the country.
Through a lot of challenges as well,
and working with a lot of great people.
So really looking forward to that,
and really delighted that we've been able to deliver
on that manifesto pledge.
So, onto the minutes.
Members are there any objections confirming the previous minutes of the 21st of January

1 Minutes - 21st January 2026

2026 as a correct record?
Nope, agreed.
I will sign those after the meeting.
Decorations of interest.

2 Declarations of Interest

Are there any declarations for either pecuniary or other registrable or non -registrable interests?
Councillor Tiller.
Yes, I'm a Wandsworth Council tenant.
Any further?
Excellent.
So, after that, we are coming to our first main business, which is questions to the cabinet
member.

3 Questions to the Cabinet Member

So, under Section 10, about three of the overview and scrutiny committee procedure rules, this
same place.
Please can councillors please put their questions directly to the cabinet member and then Councillor
Coroner will have an opportunity to respond. We'll alternate between groups and the timing
for this, we are going to try for about 15 but we're going up to about 20 minutes we
should expect. It is our first meeting, so we do want to allow everyone to get the questions
in. We will begin with a question from the opposition. I'll work down the table if that's
okay. Councillor Dickerson first.
Yeah, this relates to the one in the paper, so I'm sure we'll discuss it later. What are
plans to make up for the last 253 council homes that have been scrapped? Is there a
process I know that when you took over you talked a lot about acquisition and I've got
a follow up to hear if acquisition is the route you're going down.
Thank you Councillor Dick Dermott. Firstly I'd just like to put on the record my thanks
to him for the work that he did on for four years as cabinet member for housing and I
I know he put a huge amount of work in
and brought a lot of passion and commitment to the portfolio.
So grateful for his work in public service
over the last four years.
The administration has taken the decision
to scrap the scheme's plan for the Ashburton and Lemmett
estate.
These were the subject of significant political
campaigning and, indeed, opposition from residents.
and this administration is determined to listen to residents
when this council is, when the administration, sorry,
is taking decisions about the future of people's homes.
The previous administration also pledged to do that,
but in the case of the Ashburton and Lennox in particular,
chose to ignore concerns and plough ahead
with very, very unpopular schemes.
We're delighted to have listened to residents,
and as one of our first actors in administration,
cancel these schemes.
That does mean that there are fewer homes
being built overall, that is correct.
This administration is one of the most pro
home building administrations in the country,
if not the most pro growth,
and we're very, very proud of that.
We know that there is not enough housing in our borough
to meet the needs of our diverse communities
with all the different tenure types that are in demand
within our fantastic borough.
And we will do everything that we can
to build the homes that Wainsworth needs.
That includes affordable homes, it includes private homes,
it includes homes to rent and buy,
it includes family homes, not just our homes
for single bedroom households.
And we will pull every lever we can to deliver those homes.
Councillor Dickerton.
Thank you for your kind words.
I enjoyed working with you when you were in our position as well.
You haven't answered my question though.
Is there a plan around the 253 council homes?
Because you talked about different tenures, but obviously so much of what we do in the
housing department relates to overcrowding in existing council stock and of course the
cost of temporary accommodation.
So making up the shortfall of those 253, is there a plan for that or is it still up in
the air?
So we will build the homes that want to have needs and pull every lever we can to deliver
those.
Now if he's asking for me to set out a detailed plan for how those exact properties will be
built in a different way, in a different location, I can't provide that to him right now, but
I can assure him that we will use every lever we have to build the homes ones who have needs.
For example, that means looking at GLA grant funding.
It means looking at different funding pots,
ways that we can work with developers
to build affordable homes.
And our view is that we, despite, you know,
it is a very challenging market,
and we have to be clear on that
and level with people on that.
But we believe that by working in partnership with others,
whether they're governmental organisations like the GLA,
or perhaps the government, which is talking a good game
on kind of providing funding to councils,
let's see if they deliver, or private developers, we believe that we can build those homes that
he talks about.
But we'll build them. You said we will build them. The council is still planning on building
those homes.
This administration is the most pro -home building administration, Councillor Dickadam, and we
are very proud of that. I certainly believe, and this administration believes, that housing
is one of the challenges of our time. If you look at the amount of young people we have
in this borough who want to be able to stay in this borough and live in this borough,
put down roots in this borough, start families in the borough.
We have a moral imperative to deliver
homes for those people.
And that's what this administration will do.
And we've already done a lot to get the ball rolling on that.
For example, by establishing a developers forum
where we will speak to people about our ambitions
for this borough to attract investment
and to build the homes that we need.
And I look forward to bringing forward
lots of exciting schemes for him in the future.
Perhaps someone else building them,
but I know what you're saying.
I'm sure we'll continue that discussion
on one of the later papers.
On this side, Councillor Ahmed.
Do you have any plans for the temporary accommodations,
what we are doing for that?
Like, because residents are really concerned
what's coming on.
So do you have any plan on that?
Thank you, Councillor Ahmed, and welcome to the committee.
Really looking forward to working with you on an area.
I know you're passionate and have a lot of experience
and expertise on. Homelessness and temporary accommodation is again a huge challenge that
we have to face as a council. We have over 4 ,000 households in temporary accommodation. That is a
huge amount and it's a tragedy frankly. I don't want to live in a society where so many people
are in temporary accommodation. We also have to be frank. The amount that temporary accommodation
costs and the statutory obligations of the council to provide people with temporary accommodation
is financially crippling. At the beginning of this decade, the council spent £5 million
a year on temporary accommodation. It now spends almost £40 million a year on temporary
accommodation. That is a 700 % increase. There's been significant inflation during that period,
but it's not the equivalent of 700%.
We have to get a grip on this spiralling cost
of temporary accommodation.
And this administration, certainly me as cabinet member,
will be doing everything that we can to give the council
all the levers that it can have to meet that challenge,
both financially and in terms of making sure
that as many people as possible have the dignity
of a safe and secure home.
For example, we've already brought in the PRS offer
where we can use the private rented sector
and work with landlords to give people
more permanent homes where suitable.
We've got a paper later on in the agenda today
that looks at ways that the council
can procure temporary accommodation
and we're going to bring forward much more.
So stay tuned for that as well.
Councillor Hamid, you did raise the important point
about people being worried and scared
when they're in temporary accommodation.
I totally understand that.
It's a really serious issue,
and certainly lots of vulnerable people
are in this position as well.
We will always act with compassion towards those people.
And I'm committed to reviewing how we communicate
with people in temporary accommodation
and work with them to make sure
that we have more appropriate housing for them
and we're able to support them as best as we can.
Councillor Davies.
Thank you. My question is, I am a Councillor for Wandsworth town and I have been really
very shocked to see some of the flats in private rented sector and I am talking about damp
to the extent where it is wet, very dodgy electrics, holes in ceilings. I am thinking
in particular about a mother with three children
in primary school and how this is affecting her health.
And she cannot get her landlords
to take any action whatsoever.
So I would like to know what the council will do
to support the good landlords
but drive out those rogue landlords
and to get some movements for the families.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Davies,
and welcome back to the committee.
I'm not familiar with that exact case, but I'd be very pleased to look at that if she
was to contact me outside of this meeting and we can look into it.
Look, rogue landlords, landlords who don't fulfil their obligations to provide a safe
and secure home are completely unacceptable and we will clamp down hard on, as an administration,
and do significant enforcement to tackle rogue landlords where they exist and make sure that
people have the safe and secure home they deserve.
You may quote one.
So the landlord licencing scheme that would do precisely that,
that's the kind of like enforcement or encouragement for good landlords.
Ones with town was next in the roll out.
And so this particular person, they were looking forward to the moments where,
you know, something was in line.
So will you consider please, you know,
having a landlord licencing scheme, thank you.
Thank you, so we're certainly committed on making sure
that we have robust enforcement against rogue landlords.
With the landlord licencing scheme, we are reviewing it
to make sure that it is as effective as possible
in clamping down on bad practises in the PRS.
That does mean, as she alluded to in her first question,
and having a targeted approach to make sure
that where there are good landlords who do a good job
and put properties on the market
and provide them for people to live in,
we should encourage that.
We should not be tying them up in red tape
and driving up costs that are then passed on to the tenant.
But we should absolutely be targeting bad landlords
where there's unacceptable practise.
So we are committed to supporting tenants
in these situations in Wandsworth town.
The previous administration did say
that they would roll out a landlord licencing scheme
across the borough, but as we sit here today,
and certainly kind of the day after the recent election
in May, 15 out of 22 wards still did not have
the landlord licencing scheme.
So they simply didn't deliver on that promise.
Point of information.
And we will review it, and we will make sure
that we have the most effective targeting
for rogue landlords possible.
Council will do.
information. It was illegal to roll out a full buyer -wide selective licencing scheme
until I think a year and a half ago because you're only allowed to do 20 percent and you
had to go to the Secretary of State. For the first part of our administration, that would
have meant going to Michael Gove, who was very strict about stopping that. It was only
when we got a Labour government that we could roll out to 100 percent. And it was simply
a capacity issue. We promised that the residents would do it, and we had a plan to roll it
out. So I'm very happy for you to – you can't hold the position that it would have
been good to roll it out 100 % but then be reviewing, rolling it out in wards that we
had the evidence base like Wandsworth Town, like Ballum, like St Mary's, which were going
to get it in that rollout, that's a contradictory position.
And as you know from my previous change, I don't mind you holding ideological positions
as long as they are not contradictory and don't make sense because it doesn't make sense
to criticise the decision that we were doing, which was the correct one.
I can respond to that.
So our approach to enforcement in the PRS
will be based on evidence, not ideology.
That's actually what I missed.
Well, we agree then.
But what we could also agree on, because I could bring up
the PDF of your 2022 manifesto now, if you want,
and we could look at it on the big screen.
You said you would roll out a landlord licencing
scheme across the borough.
In 2024, your party, as you pointed out,
won the general election.
You could have then rolled it out.
Why didn't you?
That's a really easy question to answer.
and we can get Chris Nash here to explain it to you.
So the way that you stagger it in order for the scheme
to work effectively and not to have the...
The issues that you're saying will happen in Wadsletown,
which is the reason you've paused it,
is exactly why you go stage by stage.
So we started in the east of the borough,
where there's the highest need,
and we were doing it on that evidence basis,
and there's an entire report that you can read,
I hope you do, that would give you the ability
to roll out to 100 % within the next 18 months,
and that's because the licencing fee washes its own face,
So the landlord pays the licence, it allows us to do selective licencing.
We can hire the enforcement officers and we can scale up.
If you do it the other way around, you end up with a licencing scheme that means nothing
because you don't actually have the enforcement power.
So I'm more than happy to have a meeting with you separately about how we can roll out to
100 % within the next 10 to 18 months.
That'd be fantastic.
Just on this, this is not a debate about landlord licencing scheme, Councillor Corner, I think
you've made your point.
I think we'll move on.
Councillor Douy.
Yes, thank you, sir. So, yes, I've got one question for the cabinet member. So, at what
point does the cabinet member consider borrowing levels to be unsustainable since death costs
are projected to rise from 12 % to 26 % of rental income by 2035 -36?
Thank you, Councillor Duke. This is a really important point and it will be a really critical
one going forward because the previous administration had significant plans to borrow on the HRA,
we have significant pressures on the HRA.
We will have a detailed discussion later on in this meeting about the HRA as well.
But it's a really, really important question because getting this right is vitally important
not just for now but for many, many years in the future.
So the previous administration wanted to borrow almost half a billion pound over 30 years
50 years, that's going to have significant,
that would have significant implications going forward
for the amount of money that we could spend on
everything that the HRA needs money to spend on.
Just to be clear, borrowing on the HRA
is often a good thing.
You just have to manage it appropriately, right?
What we want to do is make sure that borrowing on the HRA
is A, manageable, which, and I think there are
significant risks at that at the moment,
so the answer to his question is, you know,
the amount of borrowing that's appropriately lower than what it is planned to be at the
moment in an ideal situation.
But it also needs to be set at a rate that allows us to actually invest in the housing
stock that we have at the moment.
As you pointed out, the costs of debt are set under current plans to double and that
means less and less money over time to actually invest in the homes that people live in.
Thank you.
Councillor Tiller.
Thank you, Chair.
On the Alton estate, we are glad to see demolitions in preparation for a new community hub and
much needed housing.
There is mention in these reports of reviewing the rest of the Alton renewal plan, supposedly
to make savings.
Officers have instructed for Hampton Councillors that there is very little scope for changes
to the current plans without losing over 60 million pounds
in funding from the Mayor of London,
which would be quite the opposite of making savings.
Why the delay and uncertainty for Alton residents
when the plans have received 82 % support
in the residents ballot?
Thank you, Councillor Tiller,
and certainly valued his time
when I visited the Alton estate,
one of many times I visited the Alton
since taking on the role of cabinet member of housing.
We have to be clear about the challenges
of the Alton regeneration.
The current, well the plan that the previous administration
put forward is very costly and requires a significant amount
of GLA grants and that won't cover all the costs
by a long stretch.
We would then have to use our HRA funding
to pay for the rest.
We need to make sure that the Alton regeneration
is deliverable and fully costed so that we can give residents firm commitments that we
can deliver as to what's going to happen on the estate.
I'm really excited that we're proceeding with the Block A scheme.
The demolition is being finalised.
There's a plan there to bring community services into that key building that's highly
visible on the estate.
It's going to deliver 55 new homes.
That's a great thing that's happening.
Looking at future phases of the Alton regeneration,
I know that many residents have told me,
and the MP for Putney, Fleur Anderson,
has also told me that people would like to see
different shops, maybe a supermarket there as well.
I think it's fair for this administration
to take some time to understand
whether these asks can be delivered
so that we can make sure that what happens on the Alton Estate meets the potential of
the area.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Graham.
Thank you, Chair.
Following on from the Alton, following the housing spending review and the continuation
of Block A at the Alton, will the cabinet member in the future review those which have
being cut due to financial constraints.
Thank you, Councillor Graham,
and good to see her back at the housing committee.
Absolutely, we'll keep the Thousand Homes Programme pipeline
under review at all times.
We're working within a challenging housing market.
I think everyone accepts that.
But we also have ambitious plans to deliver high quality,
well -managed homes that meet the needs
of as many people in this borough as possible.
So we'll always keep under review,
you know, the Thousand Homes Programme
to make sure we bring forward schemes that are appropriate
and that meet the ambition that we have
as an administration.
In terms of the schemes that have been taken out,
they were done for a mixture of technical reasons
and as I mentioned earlier,
as a response to the desires and wishes of residents
on the Ashburton and the Lennox Estates.
and we're pretty clear that those aren't going ahead.
I'll come to Councillor Dickerson.
If it can be one question with no supplementary,
because we are coming towards,
and I'd like to get one more question after that.
Yeah, the point is he keeps correctly raising
that it's a difficult time in the housing market
and viability is stretched and challenged,
but that contradicts exactly the point around
that's precisely the moment when council
should use their own land because the likelihood
of making schemes work on section 106
or with private sites where the land value eats up
all the possible profit is a problem.
So it's precisely the best time to do infill
on our own sites.
I come back to the question about the plan
for the 253 homes that have been cut.
That's 80 million pounds.
We will go onto the borrowing figures later,
but that's about 300K a unit.
Like I don't see how you're gonna,
even through acquisitions, get the standard and spec
and quality of a council -led delivery programme
because the value in it was that it was on our own land.
So we are really missing out as a council
from losing those 253.
And your arguments about the economy seem to contradict
the policy that you're taking forward.
There's so many things about economic arguments
that I could take into title, but I'll refrain from doing it.
I'm up for it, I got tough skin.
Let's have, and it's not for me to decide the agenda
of this committee, of course,
but maybe we can have a questions
to Councillor Dickerden's session next time.
There's a lot to ask him about,
and what he said he would deliver
and didn't end up doing in the last term.
Look, the analysis about the tough -heart housing market,
yeah, it is tough, but market conditions change.
We'll work with developers to see
what the art of the possible is
so that we can deliver the homes one's worth needs.
His administration pulled up the drawbridge
and didn't talk to developers at all
and banned people at the council from talking to developers.
Could we secure 200 homes at that spousal station if we did that?
Council homes?
Another good question.
In his manifesto in 2022, he said he would open the books
and make all property deals public.
Why wasn't that one made public before the election?
I think you... I mean, you saw it.
The reason why we can't do it is we're not allowed to.
It's a gold paper.
I can't publish gold papers.
I don't have, as much as I'd like to,
I don't have the power to publish a gold paper.
The point is that many developers
who have come to the events that this administration
has already held in its first months
have expressed dissatisfaction, to say the least,
at his administration's approach to developers,
which was essentially to not talk to them.
They have been overwhelmingly positive
about this administration being open for business
and being a pro -growth administration.
And I really look forward to seeing what we can achieve
in yes, what is a difficult housing development market
at the moment.
But I'm really optimistic and ambitious for this borough
and we will work with developers to deliver the homes we need.
Thank you very much, Kazkal.
Unfortunately, I have been,
we've gone over by two minutes,
even if the extended time allowed.
So we will have to move on now, but I think that was a good example of how Cabinet member
questions can work.
On to point four, the Borough Residence Forum report of the meeting held on the 30th of

4 Borough Residents' Forum - Report of meeting held on 30th September 2026 (Paper No. 26-231)

September last night.
I was personally there and would like to thank everyone who attended.
I know that some of the councillors here were in attendance as well.
It was a really positive thing.
This is a paper for consideration on the HRA paper and the resident engagement paper that
was considered by the BIF last night.
It's a reminder to members to give attention to the views of the BRF when considering related
items on tonight's agenda.
Mr Glockner, if you would, if you have any comments to add at this point.
Yeah, I mean, not much other than the discussion was fairly lively.
We hadn't had a BRF for about nine or ten months, so there was some pent -up demand.
And I think that the discussions centred around this paper release, but also the proposed
engagement structure.
And within that structure, you can see it on page 85, the new engagement structure would
consider getting rid of the area panels, which the RAs feed into two members, which again
feed into the BRF, which is a great kind of recruitment,
engagement process for us.
And it also moves the resident associations from a formal sort of body to an informal
activity along with state inspections, TSM, so forth.
So I think people took a little bit of umbrage with that.
We view the RAs as an incredible engagement vehicle, powered by the area panels, empowered
certainly powered by the BRF, we see ourselves as very accountable and stewards to many,
many people that you don't see that are in WhatsApp groups that are tenants.
And I think just the way, and to be fair, I think the director of policy and enabling,
everyone has new titles, Kaye Wilmon handled it very well, and I know Kaye and I know many
officers. But at the same time, we queried the engagement manager. And several times
the last six months about what's the engagement strategy. Two of us, Joe Playford and myself,
are on the HIC committee and were part of some of the discussions with HQ and the consultant
that eventually, I think, influenced the paper. There's another paper out there. And this
came out last second without anybody knowing about it. So I think it ruffled a lot of feathers
And that was essentially, you know, the result of that was last night.
So I'll leave it at that and then I'll choose to comment later.
Thank you very much for that, Mr. Gogner.
And please do, later in the paper, comment.
I would like to – bearing in mind that we will be discussing the papers later – I
would like to ask the Committee to note the report for information.
Is everyone agreed?
Excellent.
And on to one of those items of business, the housing revenue account business plan

5 Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update (Paper No. 26-232)

updates. A report by the Executive Director of Finance, Mrs. Merry. This report relates
to a key decision that will be considered at Cabinet on Monday the 12th of October.
Mrs. Merry is in her place and would you like to introduce it?
Thank you, Chair. So for those I haven't met, my name is Fenella Mary. I'm the Executive
Director of Finance. And apologies to those who were at the Borough Residence Forum, because
I will repeat my intro, but hopefully that will give you a good summary that we can then
take questions on. So the paper in front of you goes to the annual cabinet meeting and
is an update on the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan. That looks at the future income
and expenditure that covers all of the Council's management of its housing stock. The paper
This starts with the business plan that was approved earlier in the year and then moves
that forward with approved changes since then.
That includes the final position from last year's financial year and it also reflects
our latest assumptions on elements such as inflation, forecast of income and expenditure
and repairs and maintenance pressures.
The report also reviews the existing capital programme and recommends revised cash flows
on that programme. As we've spoken about earlier, there have been changes to that capital programme
and they are included in this report. The revised capital programme that is being proposed
in this paper stands at £663 million over the next five years and the detail of that
capital programme is listed in one of the appendices. The report also sets out how that capital
programme is going to be funded.
The majority of that funding is from borrowing,
but it also does include external grant
that we will receive capital receipts
and also contributions from leaseholders
plus revenue contributions, which is effectively
using some of the tenants rents to fund some of the programme.
The report then sets out the revenue position
and projects forward the various income and spend areas.
And it sets out the various risks
and the financial pressures that we're currently facing
managing our existing housing stock and estates.
The report then proposes to revise
the Council's rent policy to allow for the implementation,
perhaps in the future, of rent convergence,
which is the government's national policy
introduced by the rent standard
to harmonise rents for similar properties.
And the adoption of that rent convergence policy
would still be subject to an annual decision
by cabinet and would come to this committee beforehand as part of proposals when we set
rents each year.
And then finally, the report focuses on our reserve projections over the future years
based on the income and expenditure assumptions included in the report.
Overall, the report shows that the HRA remains viable, but flags that we're facing much greater
pressures in our costs from repairs, from building safety and more stringent
regulation standards and also the condition of our homes. We're therefore
increasing investment and we're going to use better stock condition information
to target where that investment is placed and take a careful approach to
rents and borrowing so that the plan remains affordable for the future. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mary.
We will begin with any questions from members on the report.
Councillor Dickerson.
Thank you for this.
Is it all right if I direct some at Ms Mary and then come back to the political ones to
Councillor Corner?
The only, I mean, it is still very similar figures to the figures that I remember when
I was the cabinet member.
and given how much hay has been made around borrowing
and the debt and the moral horrors of borrowing,
which I'm glad that you've corrected tonight
by saying that there does have to be some borrowing
on the HRA and it's a good thing sometimes.
Other than the 80 million on the 253 cut homes,
are there any other planned savings
other than rent convergence?
And because it's looking fairly similar to the projections
that we were given and we were preparing for,
I guess the flex will be in the regions.
Is that where the possible difference in borrowing figures are going to come from?
Because otherwise it's fairly similar to what we were going to do,
which was fairly similar to the borrowing that was planned
by Ravnica Vindhyas' administration,
because the HRA had always had some borrowing built into it
by the nature of the age of the stock
and what I think is a positive, ambitious building programme.
Thank you. The numbers are familiar
because you're right, those figures you've highlighted are the ones that have changed.
The borrowing is still significant and you're right to suggest the regeneration schemes will
be part of that. Reviewing those regen schemes will make a difference. If we change the regen
schemes, then it would change the borrowing that's assumed. And we haven't done the review of those
yet, so that would still be to come. The borrowing pre -2022 was definitely lower than
22 to 26 and the commitment is to continue to look at the borrowing.
But exactly as you said, borrowing is not going to be eradicated on this plan.
We've got huge pressures on our stock and our stock condition
and there will be borrowing to fund that definitely.
Thank you very much. Any further questions? I know Councillor Dickard does, but if we,
Councillor Davies, if you would like to.
My question is about the stock condition surveys, knowing that we wanted to get to 100 % within
a year, and I can see that the progress has slowed on those surveys.
So I think one question is, just to understand a bit about that, but then also sort of thinking
about the level of investment that's needed into the repairs and maintenance.
If this was done in those years when interest was very low
and we made hay when the sun shone,
what the difference would mean to the Council's finances then?
I struggle to get up then.
So just on figures on the stock condition surveys.
So, yes, we've re -profiled our targets
to now reach 100 % on the block survey.
so that's the communal surveys by the end of December this year,
and to be at 100 % on the tentative surveys by the end of the financial year,
so the end of March.
And we're currently 77%, I think,
77 % of the way through the communal surveys,
and just under 50 % on the tentative surveys.
So we're confident working with our contractors
that we're going to get on track to meet those targets.
Very small supplementary. And do you have the resource to carry out all the analysis
at the moment?
So yes, we're carrying out that analysis. I've actually got a new person starting on
Monday to assist with that. And also with the new Director of Housing Management, we're
considering how we make sure we are properly resourced to do all that, because obviously
that in the future is going to inform the capital programme.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dube.
Thank you.
Based on this paper again, what support will be put in place for those tenants who are
not on housing benefit and will have to make a full increase because of the rent convergence?
Thank you for the question.
Social rents are low.
They are not private sector rents and they are low rents, notwithstanding, as you say,
that tenants could still struggle to fund any rent increases.
So somebody who isn't on benefits or on universal credit would have to fund any increase themselves.
Rent convergence would apply a plus one pound a week increase on top of inflation, rising
to two pounds a week.
So that's the kind of level across the board irrespective of what the level of rent is
that is currently being charged and irrelevant to the size of the property as well.
But it's still an increase.
We have lots and lots of support for tenants and we put a lot of effort into helping them
to be financially sustainable.
We've got tenancy support officers that work with fundable tenants.
We've got financial inclusion officers that go out and help tenants, including budgeting
for their day -to -day finances. We have a team that helps them to
apply for any benefits that they might be eligible for that they're not currently applying for.
And we will work with tenants around bespoke payment plans if they do fall into arrears.
So we're confident that there is support out there.
We just need tenants to engage with us if they're struggling.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Unless anyone else has anything, Councillor Bickertim?
I get lots of letters through my door telling me how much,
you know, the council's in financial trouble
and how much the spending has, you know,
the four years of labour.
Paragraph 9 talks about the reserve projections in the HRA, which are there any other councils
that have a reserve of 166 million that during a big period of spending of the 10 -year period
fall to about 100 million, but by 20 year and by 30 year are going to be back up to
167 million?
This seems like one of the most healthy HRAs in the country, which is fantastic, which
is how we like it.
But do we have any comparisons with other local authorities
that face the same level of stock challenges?
I mean, the thing that has always, politics aside,
the big challenge for us has always been our tower blocks
and what huge changes might come down the line
in terms of fire safety.
But do any of the councils have an HRA
in this healthier position?
So unfortunately, I don't know every HRA,
but I think the answer is probably we are one
of the healthiest HRAs in terms of balances.
The revenue balances on the reserves
are steady at that level, but partly because we're borrowing.
So taking reserves on its own isn't the whole picture
effective, because the borrowing over that period
is planned to significantly increase.
That said, the HRA remains viable.
The risks and the pressures within that HRA
are things that really we need to keep an eye on,
because those balances can easily and will easily go down.
We've got repairs overspends at the moment and that's a big issue the cost of the stock condition survey as well
So having those reserves really does put us in a good position
You're right compared to other other councils, but we just we need to be mindful that there are
Significant financial pressures and we need to take those into account when we're looking at what the levels of those reserves are
Councillor Graham
Thank you, sir, it's page 45 it's
I do a lot of work for special needs and disabled and with carers and households experiencing
wider financial pressures.
And then if you then go to page 49, it is the, however, disability is likely to be underrecorded,
particularly along the way.
standing need and tenants.
So my, and then it goes on to page 52.
ODA disabled tenants may face overlapping risks
and disabilities likely to be under recorded
among long standing, well tenants.
Tenants, and I suppose my question is,
what's going to be put into place
to prevent rent arrears and potential for homelessness
because that is a big worry.
I think about also TAs and stuff like that.
I can answer, Councillor Graham,
the first bit around knowing our residents really.
So one of the things in the regulatory inspection
was about how we understand the needs of our residents
and what we do with that information.
I think at that point we have realised that the data we have got on our residents in regards
to vulnerabilities is not where it should be.
So we have put in a lot of work into doing that.
We do tenancy visits where we are targeting those more for the people that we haven't
spoken to for a long period of time.
We are also looking at other agencies where we can get much more information in about
our vulnerable tenants so we can use that to better inform the services we deliver.
Councillor Graham?
Thank you for that answer.
Is that not on, isn't it?
Are you actually working with adult social services
because there is a wider need and information?
I know you're working with other agencies,
but are you actually communicating with adult social services
because I do know, you know, some of the carers,
the great pressures,
and this is going to be a big knock -down
to them, are they also working with you so that they can reassure their residents if
you're with me?
So on knowing our vulnerable residents, yes, we are working with other services and we're
also working very closely with the rent collection service. So when we get this information in,
we're hoping to have it in a place where lots of people can access that information so it's
not just housing because obviously some of our vulnerable residents cross multiple services
so we will make sure we're all working together
and sharing that information.
And Councillor David, then Councillor Dickerson.
Yeah, I think Councillor Davis asked a similar question
about is there like a revised plan to revisit
the stock surveys if they are not completed by December?
I think that's a deadline, isn't it?
I don't know if you did answer that before.
So December is for the communal, so that's all things like the age of the roofs and the
windows in the communal areas. Inside tenants' homes is the end of the financial year. So
what we will do is after that, so we've had an accelerated programme to get all those done
in a year because previously the best we'd achieved was a 6 % sample. So once we get to
that point, we will move any that we haven't, if there's any that we haven't had access
into that will move into the new programme. What the new programme will be is 20 % a year.
Every five years you are always doing 100 % of your stock. If there is anything we don't
achieve that will move into the first phase of the new 20%. It is a continuous programme.
Councillor Dickerton. This one is for the cabinet member. From the
what your administration has done is you've cut the borrowing to build an asset that delivers
rent but you're going to continue with the very significant borrowing for day -to -day
spend on maintenance and capital costs. That doesn't seem to me to be smart economics because
one is spending something on something that doesn't deliver rent, it's just on the maintenance
of stock and the other is a long -term asset that pays for itself over a long time. So
So in some ways you're being kind of,
you know, you're doing the thing you were against,
which is borrowing, you're doing it,
you're doing it exactly the same way that we were,
but you're actually just reducing the element
that delivers income back to the council
and focusing like we were going to do
on day -to -day and everyday spend
on a stock that is ageing out, right?
So could you kind of explain yourself?
As he well knows, because the inspection happened on his watch, we failed our regulatory inspection
in February last year.
We got a C3 rating.
The regulator said there were serious failings in the way that we were managing our stock
and I really welcome actually the consensus amongst residents and councillors that we
need to improve how we manage our stock.
That's why this administration is shifting the focus on how we use the HRA more towards
managing and maintaining our current stock because our residents deserve to live in safe,
warm, high quality, well managed homes without the threat of antisocial behaviour as well.
And that's making sure that we create those high quality, well managed housing and run
high quality well -managed housing in this borough is absolute priority for for this administration
is we we do all the work that we need to do to get a c1 rating which is our our ambition.
We're not going to apologise for shifting the focus of the HRA more on to maintaining our stock
and I think if you spoke to residents they would welcome that decision to spend more money on on
maintaining their houses.
That's precisely my point.
There is no shift in focus.
These are exactly the same numbers as ours.
The only change in focus is the reduction in the one part of borrowing that pays for
itself and then delivers long -term income and also saves on temporary accommodation.
So I totally agree with you.
We are absolutely unified on the housing improvement plan that we signed off.
But what I'm saying is there is no shift.
I mean, unless you're telling me that we are actually going to continue ahead with the
80 million that we're saving on not building housing and invest it in some new form of
more than that production or some other focus on it, but that's not what's in this paper.
That's not what is being discussed.
So that's my question.
My question is on the way that we borrow is important.
And I am not shy or scared of talking about borrowing, and I was for my tenure in the
role.
but we hear that this administration is against borrowing and I'm saying you're
stopping the borrowing on the thing that could actually in the long term be
financially beneficial towards the HRA but continuing to spend in exactly the
same way on maintenance costs as we had planned. You're asking a political
question about what the administration, what I want to achieve as cabinet member
for housing in terms of how we use the HRA to support our current residents
vis -a -vis building new homes.
And I think I've been pretty clear in my answer.
Going forward, we will shift the focus
towards maintaining our existing stock.
And that's the priority for the reasons he set out
in relation to the regulator challenge.
That's not to say no borrowed money
will ever be spent on new housing.
That's not what we're saying.
we are just marking a clear shift in emphasis
for how the HRA balance will be used
and what our priorities are.
Councillor Davies, please.
Yeah, I would like to know how many people
who are council tenants are living
in overcrowded accommodation,
and I'd like to know, you know, maybe,
I don't know who can tell me that,
but also I'd like to know,
if you can describe to me what the impacts are on the family of living in that very overcrowded
accommodation. So I'm very happy to answer that. Living in overcrowding in overcrowded
accommodation is really, really bad. It damages people's health. It damages young people's life
chances. It means, you know, there are real, you know, everyday challenges about living in that
For example, children not having the space they need to do to do their homework or people not being able to dry their clothes adequately because they don't have a garden,
they have to dry their clothes indoors and it uses up space and it creates damper mould challenges.
And multiple children and teenagers sharing a bedroom.
There are serious challenges and serious problems
that we have with overcrowding.
It's a huge social problem and I'm absolutely clear
that we should be doing what we can to address it
by building the homes that Wandsworth needs.
Just before we move on to that,
do any officers have anything to add on that?
No, but we can go away and find that out.
That's not a problem.
and Councillor Graham and then mr.
Glockner then Councillor
listening to the to the argument and knowing the council and what the question
question was that is why we want to spend the money to address what is the
regulator has raised as concerns. Of course what Councillor Horner is saying, of course we do need a new place but we've got to really improve.
I mean I can think of a number of estates where I may have point the finger at you for non -attention but I'm not going to do that.
So yes, that is where we're spending the money to actually improve.
You may have that look, Councillor Davies,
but that is our priority.
And of course, there is overspend in the revenue forecast for 26, 27.
But with the due financial management, it's
because of the slippage with external decorations.
So we're actually using, we're being very wise with our money.
Of course we want new build.
But you're playing about with why aren't you doing new build.
We've got to, charity begins at home.
Our house and our houses need, I mean,
I know somebody in flowers need under your administration.
But there was great distress.
So that's where we are.
So yes, of course we need new housing,
but we've got to start at the very beginning
and improve our stock.
And that was a good question that you asked for, Councillor.
I will come to Councillor Davies first and then.
I just wanted to explain what that look was.
I just felt a little bit confused
about we were mixing up repairs, maintenance,
and overcrowding.
And I think they're two very different situations.
So that if someone is in an overcrowded accommodation,
that has its own negative impacts
that won't be to do about whether you need
a new kitchen door or window lock or whatever it is.
I think that's clarified for us.
I'd like to bring in Mr. Glockner, if you would.
I think this carries on to what we've been discussing.
Okay, so on the stock condition reports in the community,
that's great to hear that the 100 % will be completed.
You've talked about this a lot. Will they be published for the residents
in some form? We know we're going on
to buildings. Can we see a picture in the aggregate
of what you're doing with the tenant inspections? I mean, for example, at the plaque,
You say like 40 units here are affected by damp and mould
or it doesn't have to necessarily identify the flat,
but it gives us a good idea,
because I know you're gonna fix them now.
It gives us a good idea to give us a general idea
of how we need to push for major works
and understand our buildings and so forth.
So we're actually writing a paper
on progress on the stock condition survey.
and we are looking at how we can develop maps
that show where stock condition surveys have been done,
where areas of the borough where there's perhaps issues
with damper mould or certain types of hazards.
So I'm more than happy to bring a paper like that here
on making them public.
So they'll inform the capital programme,
and that will be in the capital programme from 28, 29.
So you will know from that what's in them.
I suppose if I'm honest, I haven't thought about
how we would actually publish them as a whole.
But definitely we want to be transparent about our information.
So we can certainly think of a way of making that information available.
One question to Kay and then one to Councillor Coroner.
Is that OK?
On the C3 grading and the stock condition, historically this council did a stock condition
survey based on the RICS guidance, which was you did a small sample size, correct?
And we did a, what, from the 1980s onwards we were doing 1 percent.
And then under our administration we went from 1 percent to 6 percent and then 6 percent
to trying to get to 10 percent, well, we hit 6 percent.
Is that correct?
So officers under our administration
decided to increase the stock condition survey by 100 %
relative to what had happened under 44 years
of conservative administration, which
seemed good on paper to us as newbie fresh counsellors
within the administration.
But then later we realised that that was totally out of date.
It meant that we didn't know the condition of our stock.
And then the previous administration,
the Labour administration, decided to go first 100 %
over five years and then scrap that.
we're going to go for 100 % in one single year. How much do you think that the previous years
of us not having stock conditions have built up a kind of graveyard of ghosts, of category
one hazards, things that we haven't picked up? And I know that we, I try not to be political
about the grading because I think it's a legacy issue and it's to do with culture and departments
and it was very complicated and painful and it was a failure to our residents.
But do we have any idea of the kind of things we might uncover?
And there might be some good news around it because we do actually go into properties
a lot.
If someone reports it, we go into properties.
We've got our repairs data, the number of repairs that we're constantly doing.
But there will just obviously be people who have been living with these problems and haven't
been visited and haven't reported it.
What percentage do we think we are likely to find?
It is quite a difficult question to answer.
But yes, previously Rick's guidance was everybody did a small sample of their stock.
I think we did a particularly low sample.
And then we aimed for 10 % but we achieved 6%.
I think, like you say, we are getting into properties all the time
That is on a more ad hoc basis with tenancy visits and repairs.
I think we were not able to have confidence that we were getting behind all of the tenant
stores and we understood the condition that all our tenants were living in.
We knew the ones of those reporting issues to us but not those that did not make contact.
As well as accelerating the stock condition programme, we have also changed our tenancy
visit programme to specifically target those that we have not been in touch with for a
a long period of time or that have got known vulnerabilities
in order to try and gather some more
of that information more quickly.
I think we, so all the stock condition surveys,
they assess across a range of hazards
and come back and let us know if there's category one
or category two hazards.
I don't have those figures off the top of my head,
but we do know those figures,
and we can look at those across our stock profile
to get an idea of where we've got certain problems.
And I think it's fair to say
that we uncovered more issues than we expected to.
So I think it just shows the benefit
of doing those stock condition surveys
and the need to make sure we're doing that
on a rolling programme so we never get in a position
where we have only done a really low percentage of stock.
I raise that point because that's where
on the thing we were discussing around,
if you are really genuinely serious about investment
in the stock rather than build,
then the 80 million that you're saving
from build programmes is likely to be eaten up by capital spend in programmes. And that,
for me, that's a really difficult political trade -off because that is losing long -term
assets and rental income and much of the mould and damp that is caused by overcrowding, which
we know is causing huge amounts of disrepair because we're just too many people living
in one flat, paid off against a single capital expenditure, you know, everyday costs and
borrowing being used to finance that,
that is the scary territory of the HRI, right?
So that's why I raised that example,
because if you're serious about it,
then where the savings are made,
they'll probably be going into plugging other gaps.
That leads on to my political question to you,
which I'm not gonna ask you that again,
because you didn't give me an answer,
and I imagine it will be the same thing,
but on rent convergence,
your policy on rent convergence is, again,
to try and, in a generous reading of it,
some fairness within the existing tenancy structure and system,
but also because you're trying to raise funds
for this large amount of repairs and maintenance.
And I actually...
We had these conversations prior to changing administration.
We probably would have gone down the same route as you.
I think it's really important, though, that we get into an understanding
of how you are going to play with rents,
because previous administrations would whack up rents
We'd do things like convergence, we'd try and do the thing that was right for the HRA,
and then in election years hit the HRA with things that over the cumulative period were
in the tens of millions.
We added it all up.
There's an entire paper on the games that were played with rent and the cost of the
HRA that cost that.
I mean, we wouldn't be having in this bind if there hadn't been so many election buns
that add up over time.
So it'd be good to get a clear steer from you that you are committed to a sensible,
fair, but also financially resilient policy around rents now, and that those days are
over. And if you're going to do convergence, you're going to do it seriously, fairly, looking
after the people as Councillor Dubé, you're absolutely right. There are going to be some
people who are shocked by that transition. But as long as there is no political game
playing. We were very frank at this committee. And for four years in a row, I came and said
CPI plus 1 % because that will deliver good quality homes.
Can I get a similar commitment from you tonight?
Yes, I can give him the commitment
that we're committed to a sustainable approach
to rents that balance people's ability to pay with the need
to maintain a sustainable HRA foreign to the long term.
He is right to point out, firstly,
rents are capped every year, as he well knows,
but just for the context that they are capped by law.
If you choose in a single year to have freeze rents,
for example, then the next year's rents
can't just be increased to make up for that,
if that makes sense.
So it is important to continuously look at rents
and make sure that we can take advantage
of the additional money that it brings in that does go back to residents and under our
administration more of it will go back to the management of their home.
So yes, I can give him that comment.
To clarify, you're committed to the sustainable long -term CPI plus 1 % rent increase for the
next four years.
And I welcome that.
If that is the case, I really welcome that.
And I think that's a really progressive and forward step
by your administration.
Yeah, we're committed to a sustainable HRA,
and we'll make decisions based on that.
I mean, that's a top priority of this administration,
to make sure that we can fund the improvements
to our housing that we need to deliver,
and that the regulator told us that we need to deliver.
What I'm not going to do is sit here and set rents
years in advance.
And when he was cabinet member for housing,
he would make the same argument.
So, but I can give him the commitment to sustainable and appropriate management of the HRA, absolutely.
Councillor Graham, then Councillor Ahmed.
Thank you, Chair.
And following on from what you're saying, I'm looking at convergence.
And the reserves, it will go down, but then within the, by 2030, it would have reached
level of 167 million again. It's 166 million is the cap off and then it goes down. I think
that's where the money absorption will go in whatever is the priority. Am I not correct,
Mrs. Mary?
Yeah, that's right. So we've modelled what the impact of rent convergence would be, which
is obviously additional income to help fund our investment. And then we've also modelled
the ongoing cost pressures and the assumed borrowing,
and the net position of that is what you're seeing
with the reserve balances.
Councillor Ahmed.
Thank you, Chair.
What are we doing to improve our services of deliverance?
Because the services are not that up to the task.
And there is a lot of anxiety in people
that the services we never get at the doorsteps,
like I give you a lot of examples,
like a notice board, a broken notice board,
it took two months to be repaired.
So there's a lot of quiet things.
My concern, the resident concerns are,
what can we do to provide those services
in a more professional way, in a timely way.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Ahmad.
The administration is committed to a really ambitious
housing improvement plan, which will not just deliver
on the regulatory challenge laid down for us
by the social housing regulator,
but fundamentally transform how the housing,
the new dedicated housing directorate
will work with tenants and leaseholders
to make sure they live in really high quality,
well -managed houses.
And I'm really excited about the work that's going on here.
There's so much work that's been going on,
but just some highlights.
Since we came in after the election,
we've recruited an independent chair
of the Housing Improvement and Transformation Board,
which has a representation from Councillors,
residents and officers, which will help provide scrutiny
and drive forward progress of the housing improvement plan,
along with forums such as this committee
and the Borough Residence Forum as well,
to really make sure that we hold ourselves to account.
We've recruited some fantastic new senior officers,
and they're looking to recruit a new executive director now
to really lead, provide the strong leadership that we need
in that new dedicated housing department.
I've established a programme of estate inspections.
We brought those back.
They didn't happen for many years,
but now counsellors, officers,
counsellors and officers will walk the estates.
Information, they started,
We had already started the state inspections under our administration.
I was doing them in the months leading up to the election.
I established a programme of estate inspections and we are rolling those out.
I'm not sure what he was doing but we certainly never saw evidence of those when we were in
opposition.
We're really delighted that the new housing department will be a visible presence on our
estates and councillors will work with estate managers and senior housing officers to make
sure that...
services that residents demand.
I'm not saying that no one ever visited housing estates.
What I'm saying is there wasn't a structured programme
of estate visits.
Well, we never saw that in opposition.
We're now bringing it in.
We never saw it in opposition.
Yeah, exactly.
If we're getting away from the time.
Obviously made it very difficult.
Council Carner, if you can summarise quick.
And those are just some of the highlights
of the fantastic work we're doing.
We've also made improvements to the housing improvement plan
bringing in new work streams to focus
on leaseholder service as well,
which I'm really excited about as well.
And a renewed focus on antisocial behaviour,
which is a blight on our estates.
We've appointed a new cabinet member for enforcement
who will support that work.
And we're recruiting and funding through developer levies,
new police officers as well who will help with that work.
So I'm really excited about the work that we're doing
to provide the service that residents deserve.
Thank you, everyone, for those robust questions.
Do members have any comments on the reports
or any recommendations to cabinet?
We have had quite an extensive conversation.
Excellent.
A paper to vote on for information.
Thank you, Chair. So the system you're referring to, I think,
I was thinking of voting on the recommendation, is not how we're trying to operate, scrutiny
going forwards. But, yeah, thank you.
Okay. So we will continue. That was an important paper and a good discussion. On to agenda

6 Ten Year Plus One Leasing Model (Paper No. 26-233)

Item six, the 10 year plus one leasing model.
Report from the interim executive director of housing.
Again, report relates to a key decision
that will be considered at cabinet on the 12th of October.
This is not Mr. Paul Cooper, this is Mr. Smiley,
who is the director of housing policy,
to introduce the report if you'd like to continue.
My name is Altyn Smiley.
I joined the council about six weeks ago, so I'm really, really excited to be part of
the newly created housing directorate.
And one of the key sort of priorities that has been mentioned by Councillor Coroner as
well as other councils in the room is around temporary accommodation.
and that's one of the key challenges and priorities for me in my role.
This, the paper that I'm introducing, is one of the measures that we are looking at
in diversifying the supply of temporary accommodation.
So the report is seeking approval for a strategic approach to procuring temporary accommodation
through a minimum of 10 -year plus one -day leasing arrangements with private providers.
And the intention of this approach is to reduce reliance on the expensive 90 -page accommodation,
which is one of the areas that we use to procure at the moment. And it will also provide a greater
cost certainty, it will improve the accommodation quality, and also increase financial sustainability
as well because through this arrangement we would be able to charge higher
local housing allowance rate rents as opposed to a temporary accommodation
subsidy rents which are 15 years old. Also through these arrangements the
council will enter into the long lease terms, we've managed the placements
directly, but we will assess every opportunity when it comes through a
Board and the Board will comprise representatives from finance, from legal,
procurement, revenues and benefits to make sure that any leasing arrangements
that we enter they are valued for money. And the strategy is basically what we're
looking to do is to create a balanced temporary accommodation supply so that
we're looking at you know over the coming years to increase this model up
to a third of the temporary accommodation book,
with another third being Council -owned temporary
accommodation, and then the next third being
sort of more flexible arrangements, such as short leases
and reduce our reliance on nightly paid accommodation
so that it allows for that flex
where the demand fluctuates.
And so that's the main sort of aspects of this proposal.
So please, if you have any questions.
Any questions from members?
Councillor Ahmed was first together and then Councillor Dictum.
Thank you, Chair.
In temporary accommodation, what is it like when it goes from temporary to permanent,
is going to change the,
what will be the council role in that
when it's transferred from temporary to the permanent
and then it's gone to the private sector.
So my question is specifically,
what's the council role will be in that?
Like how can it gonna be managed those property
is the council will be just give them the private landlord,
just connect with him, and after that,
what will be the role left behind for the council
to help him in lacking maintenance and agreement?
And if someone's want to buy their properties,
that option will be available.
Thank you.
That's sort of a different sort of context
to the one that we are referring to in the report,
but in principle, when temporary accommodation
is the duty to provide sort of temporary accommodation
until that duty is discharged
with an offer of settled housing,
an offer of settled housing can take different forms.
One of those forms is social housing,
another form is private rented accommodation.
So what we will do is we'll look at individual circumstances
to make sure because we have a legal duty
to ensure that we provide residents with suitable accommodations.
So all the suitability cheques will be assessed before offers are made
and it will be tailored to the individual circumstances of the household.
Councillor Dickerson.
Yeah, it's nice just seeing so many of our policies tucked away in this paper.
Well, actually Bob brought them from Redbridge.
And I think the reason why we were a bit,
this, the only risk in 10 plus one,
I think it's a really good idea, I support the paper,
but the risk and why you kind of needed to wait
for a Labour government was because the DWP
could close the loophole, right?
And that is the big nervousness.
Now I think if there's critical mass
and lots of councils do it,
that means that there's an unlikelihood of doing it.
And I don't imagine this government is gonna do it.
But there is still a nervousness.
Things I hear from Nigel Farage, you know, around how they're going to deal with housing.
Is there a...
Yeah, like, worst case scenario, how quickly does it spiral if the loophole within the
DWP is closed?
And I think we...
Look, I'm saying, I think we should do it, but it's just something that is worth raising
at the Scrutiny Committee so the public are aware.
and also to help us lobby to stop anyone from ever doing that.
But how kind of existential would that be financially for us?
I mean, I guess we're scaling up slowly.
In the paper it says we'll only get to a third of our tenancies would be covered by it.
Sorry.
We will scale it up slowly in stages.
We will scrutinise each individual lease agreement that we enter
And with respect to the question what the risk is if the loophole is closed, it's a similar risk
to any other sort of government interventions that may or may not happen.
The worst case scenario for us is that it flips back to DA subsidy,
but we are already in that scenario.
So either way, we are not going to be worse than what we are right now.
Councillor Jim.
I'll just follow up on that.
Again, the only area where I see kind of risk, like I said, I support this scheme, is that
maintenance and repair liability, because that's a change, right?
And compared to some of the private units that we would usually rent on lightly paid,
we don't take on that.
But for these longer -term arrangements, we do take that on.
Is there a way that we can, I guess, work with tenants and landlords to talk a bit more
about how we would manage repair maintenance.
If something goes wrong, they tell us quickly
so they're not scared or there isn't a kind of nervousness.
They just are aware that the council is now liable
and therefore the kind of things need to be reported
quicker than it needs to be, you know,
so that we don't end up with large amounts of damage
if a leak happens and a tenant is nervous about it
or something like that.
So we would look at all the arrangements that are in place
and look at all the most vulnerable.
I've looked at this model in my previous employment
and we were looking at sort of different options
in relation to do we manage that internally,
do we contract out to, you know, one of the managing agents.
We have shorter lease arrangements,
which are not for 10 years, but they are shorter,
so we would do the due diligence
and work hard, what's the best model
to ensure that this is viable.
The final question, which is the painful one,
the supply of this kind of housing,
the landlords that we're hoping to work with,
the ones willing up to sign up for this,
do we have a rough idea of where those landlords are?
Because obviously, the previous administration
had a very clear consent policy
on not placing people outside of Greater London.
Are we gonna be able to pool within, you know,
as much as we thought, it was very hard
to always keep people within Wandsworth,
but that works sometimes.
Like if you, if you've deemed displaced off the Patmore,
Lambeth is closer to you than being placed
in Roehampton, for instance,
because Wandsworth is a big place,
but I hope we're not looking to go into lots of 10 plus one arrangements
with places outside of Greater London and break with that policy of placement.
So at the moment, we are looking at the operational,
how we can operationalise this in relation to the expertise in the market
so that we can get the best sort of viable deal
and whatever properties and leases that we enter into,
the fundamental part of this is that the property
has to be suitable for the residents.
It has to meet all the suitability requirements,
otherwise we will not be lawfully able to do that.
So there are safeguards that are prescribed in law
that we have to consider as part of our assessment
as to, you know, where the location of these properties will be.
Councillor Davies, please.
Yes.
Yeah, I was very interested in the question and I'm not sure if I've totally got the answer.
So I am aware that by law there is something that you need to look into about sort of support
networks and so on, but I don't have confidence yet about whether in Wandsworth or very near
ones with, we can have enough providers for that.
And we also need to think about the suitability in terms of
mobilities or if you don't want someone three floors up without
the lift, if they've got a baby buggy and all of these things.
But I'm also sort of wondering whether these, I've got so many
questions actually.
So a little bit more about them.
Are they going to be sort of clustered together,
very dispersed?
Is it,
it's one of my questions.
How are you with discussions so far with landlords
and does that give you a bit of a feel?
Yeah, those are, yeah.
And also about the,
is there an inspection routine straight up
to identify any hazards in that home.
Thank you.
So at this stage, we are asking for the authority
to engage with this in the details that you've mentioned.
So we haven't had those discussions in that depth
at this stage because we've brought the paper
to agree there's an approach
and then we'll do the due diligence in relation
to all the aspects that you've mentioned and referred to.
But I keep going back to the point
that there is a suitability order, there is code of guidance that prescribes all the aspects
that you referred to that we have to consider in terms of suitability is very multifaceted,
so we have to look at them individually and then the composite sort of impact of all the
elements of suitability and how they affect the individual households when we reach a
conclusion as to whether that's a viable offer.
and that will inform our procurement strategy as well.
I'm going to go across to Councillor Graham
and then back to Councillor Dickerson.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm looking at page 63, 3 .1.
Naturally, it'll have to be the housing regulator standards,
which we'll be looking at,
possibly trying to make them C1
so that they're fit for purpose.
I'm thinking futuristically. The first paragraph of 3 .1, the care is through leasing and arrangements.
With private providers, will they have to put their property, we will be paying for
the property to be put to the housing regulator standard, or would they? That's one question.
and the second one is that there would be a need to have a certain amount of properties
to make a viability or are you actually looking at each property could be of cost. I mean
I'm just thinking of overall. I think it's a fantastic initiative and I know it would
create stability in our stock but those are the questions really. Would it be up to standard?
So having regulated standard, who is going to pay for it?
I suppose we will be.
And of course the question of inspection
and making sure that the washing machine's not broken
or stuff, that would come to our responsibility.
And of course viability of how many in,
how many properties would make a viability.
So all the viability sort of assessment,
all the due diligence will happen
when sort of individual schemes are identified.
At this stage, well, we don't know
because we need to scar the market to make sure
to find out how many properties will form part of it.
But we haven't done that in that depth at this stage
because we haven't had the authority to engage,
which is we're here tonight to get that authority.
In terms of, you said about us paying for it,
We are entering into a lease, which has to be longer than 10 years,
so that it qualifies for the higher income.
So we're not acquiring the properties, we are entering into a lease.
We do these sort of leases already, but on a short term, three to five years,
and this is proposing to take that to a longer lease.
Thank you.
Councillor Decudem.
Yes, I've got one question from Matthew and then I'll go back.
Paul Alton couldn't answer that question for me because a political question.
Are you as an administration committed to keeping the policy of consent?
I've been around long enough to know that suitability can place people in Grimsby and
you know, there was a...
And look, Labour councils were doing this, don't get me wrong, but this council was different.
this council said we have a consent policy on placements outside of Greater London.
Is the current administration committed to not placing people miles away from their communities
and dispersing people to where accommodation is cheaper?
I just think that's an important ask, this political ask.
Thank you.
We will bring forward a detailed temporary accommodation strategy in due course very
soon, and I look forward to sharing that with him.
Look, it's really arbitrary to talk about, you know, the boundaries of London as some
kind of boundary beyond which you can never place anyone.
It might be that there are properties outside of London that can house people in temporary
accommodation on a more permanent basis, which are cheaper for the council, larger, so give
people more space and prevent overcrowding, which your side have discussed the importance
of a lot this evening.
might allow people to have a garden.
It's perfectly possible that a lot of people
who require temporary accommodation
can have a very, you know, a house that suits them
who's outside of London.
I don't get why you're so determined
to restrict the council's ability to place people
in housing that might be entirely suitable
and that they might want to be in.
Absolutely agree, it's about consent.
So my point is is that we had a very serious policy
that any resident could write to me
if they thought they were being placed too far away,
and they said, I don't want this,
and this is outside of London.
And look, I know the arbitrary lines, but I'm a Londoner.
Born and raised in London, London means something to me,
and many of these families are from London,
and so it does mean something to them
to be placed outside of London.
And I guess the policy was always about consent.
And occasionally we got a report from a family who said,
oh, I've been placed miles away and I didn't want it,
and we would investigate that,
because occasionally an officer in the council
would do that, but that consent is what I'm grasping at.
If a family is willing to move out of London
because of all the reasons you added
and it's been explained to them and they're up for it,
of course we have no truck with that,
but councils historically have to save money
being involved in this process
of shipping people outside of London.
I just, you know, it's part of my, in my gut,
I just think it's wrong, right?
We're going to have the most flexible approach
to temporary accommodation that we can have as a council.
We're going to make sure the council has every lever
that it's possible to have to sort
the temporary accommodation challenge.
The finances are absolutely crippling
the council's general fund,
which is hugely bad value for money for council taxpayers.
It's spiralling out of control.
We need to get grip on it.
But we also need to treat people with compassion.
And every placement that this council makes
will go through a rigorous assessment to make sure that placements are suitable.
But ultimately we will take the action that we need to take in the interest of the council
where those assessments are passed. So that's our position going forward.
I totally agree it's a huge burden on the General Fund and that's why we should build some council housing to help with the supply.
But anyway, are you going to keep the five basics as a procurement model?
I know that your previous leader, Richard Jones, was a big supporter of that.
It was a big piece of work that this committee did.
I know the Five Basics campaign is growing.
This is to both of you.
Are you politically committed to it?
Alton, is it part of the procurement model that is embedded in the Council?
I really hope it is because we tried as best we could to try and get the Five Basics as
something the landlords and the suppliers were aware was what we were expecting from
Is that a dual question?
From my perspective, what I've done in the first six weeks
is to really look at our temporary accommodation supply model
and see how we can diversify it,
because at the moment it's very either nightly paid or council -owned.
So really looking into the detail and trying to get suitable accommodation.
I think that's the...
We have to get suitable accommodation
because we need to make sure, and this initiative here,
because especially nightly pay is very transient
and people can move multiple times.
So what we're hoping to achieve with this
is to provide that, even though it's temporary accommodation
it has that stability where people don't have to move
because the nightly pay provider changes it.
Yeah, we discussed five basics as a committee
just for context for people who weren't here
The five basics are essentially an ask to make sure
that temporary accommodation has,
gives people an appropriate place to cook,
wash kind of wifi connexion, storage,
and understand that basically information is provided to them.
Of course, we would love to make sure that all people
in temporary accommodation have those five basics
who wouldn't, but there are complex and expensive
and difficult trade -offs that we have to make
in the case of a council, temporary accommodation is a huge challenge and I don't think he was
ever able to deliver the five basics to everyone in temporary accommodation when he was the
cabinet member and I can't honestly sit here and give that commitment either because the
challenge is just so massive. But of course we would want to provide those wherever possible.
I think it works really well for this scheme because it's a long term scheme. I think it
works really good for that level of procurement. I think there will always be emergency accommodation
people who turn up on the day, we've got to find them something. We've always known that.
Nightly paid is also often really weak on the five basics as well. That's why I genuinely
really support this, this is the move in the right direction. It's good to hear that we
will try and bait that into procurement because that's the key. We were always rushing. It
was always like, we're overwhelmed, the caseloads are high, we're rushing to get people placed,
we're rushing to meet us actually duty. In doing so, the accommodation was poor, the
information was lacking and often the cheques weren't physically happening. And that's,
you know, it's kind of why the moves that we were making a year, two years ago, it's
a get us to a place where we can actually enforce this.
I welcome that. And this policy is all about making sure we have longer term accommodations
so that we can kind of get the highest quality accommodation we can within a reasonable price.
I'll go to Councillor Dree, because she's been waiting a while, then Councillor Davies.
Thank you.
This one is just a precautionary measure, similar to what Councillor Dickerton asked.
If a provider decides to exit the arrangement after 10 years, I think, it is rather than
the 11 or more expected.
What protections are in place to avoid certain loss of supply?
In relation to what happens at the end of the 10 years, you know, we will have a long -term relationship with that provider.
So as part of us fulfilling our duties to our residents in temporary accommodation, there will be continuous contract management, if you like, of that.
So as part of that, we would build that in.
If we know that there isn't an opportunity to extend it,
then we would know that well in advance,
so that we would put in the necessary measures in place
to, if it's not possible to extend,
to find alternative accommodation.
Councillor Davies.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, so my question is really,
if we're thinking about families who are living in temporary accommodation,
if they are going to be rehousing a different location with the Wandsworth,
it might well be that they stay at the same school,
the same support network, the same after -school clubs,
and so on, and be in touch with their family and their community.
I very much hope this does not happen,
that people have to move out. I've really been told
you've got to move out of London.
Then we know there's a lot of trauma.
We know that moving anyway is one of the most stressful things in your life.
And also every move that a family, a child does has a 5 % dip in their GCSE levels, for example,
and there are missed vaccinations and so on.
So I just, I would hope that you would be able to also be speaking, you know,
wherever people moving within Wandsworth,
and hopefully not outside,
that you'll be able to be in touch
with the Children's Services Department there,
and very much have a trauma -informed approach,
because some people living in temporary accommodation
are quite vulnerable,
have maybe escaped domestic abuse
or other very traumatic events,
just to give people best life chances, really.
Thank you.
Absolutely, and that's for all the reasons
as you've mentioned, is why we are looking at this policy,
because the same sort of families with children
who are currently in temporary accommodation
that is nightly paid and is quite transient,
they would experience sort of moves more than once.
And this will be an opportunity to get some stable accommodation
that where the move happens, then, you know,
anyone who's going through that process
then engage with the local services
and there is that stability.
Yes, every move will have a disruption,
but we'll try and do everything that we can
to minimise that disruption.
Yeah, just thinking about some people who might have English
as an additional language or learning disabilities, for example.
I think they need a lot of care
to have that taken into account.
And different people need to go to different pace
to make the adjustments that are required.
which is why the suitability assessments ahead of every move are fundamental,
you know, to make sure that, you know,
this arrangements will not be, you know, potentially suitable for everybody.
And that's why we're only sort of going to scale it up to about a third.
So we need a mix.
We need to diversify our supply of temporary accommodation
so that we can meet all the range, all the scope of need
that we are here to support.
Thank you. It does sound like a sensible policy to me. I have just got a few.
Of course, yes.
Councillor Dabé.
Yes, I will just start with another question. Since the net cost of temporary accommodation
has more than doubled in the last three years, has a savings target been set for this model?
Yes, so we are sort of looking at approximately £6 ,000 per unit saving a year, so it's one
of the reasons that we're looking at this model as a cost -saving target as well.
Thank you very much for that.
Do members have any further comments on the reports or any recommendations of the Cabinet?
Thank you very much for that.

7 Outcomes of the Spending Review - Housing OSC (Paper No. 26-234)

We'll move on to the next item, item 7, outcomes of the spending review, parts relevant to
the housing OSC report by Mrs. Mary, the Executive Director of Finance.
Thank you, Chair.
So this is an extract, as you said, of a document that was published on the night of the Council
meeting a couple of weeks ago. It's relevant, this extract, to this housing
OSC and the policy intentions and commitments in this document have either
already been or will be going through the formal decision -making process so
we've already seen the impact of the decisions suggested in this spending
review around the capital programme and advising some of the schemes and there
are other intentions and policy commitments in there,
and a range of officers willing to take questions
if there are any.
Thank you.
Yes, I should mention that Mr. Granville and Mr. Chadwick
are also here presenting this report as well.
And as it is such a broad -ranging,
taking lots of elements of housing,
lots of other officers will be on hand as well
to answer any questions.
on that point. Are there any questions? Councillor Dicklum.
I've got lots of questions on this. I mean, there's just some stuff in here which I don't
know where it's come from. I can't, because there's no numbers on the paragraphs, it's
hard for me to, but I'll read out one of them which says, when new homes for social rent
are delivered, it will ensure they are prioritised for ones with residence and bring an end to
the practise of using them for temporary accommodation. I can't think of an example ever where a
a new build property from the Thousand Homes Scheme
was used for temporary accommodation.
We had a local lettings plan that focused on,
so I just, I mean, can someone explain
where that's come from or where that accusation comes from?
I mean, it sounds a bit like a kind of dog whistle to me,
one that isn't reflective of policy.
Yeah, we've got, it's not an accusation
or anything about the past.
In our manifesto we said that you build
council housing will be prioritised for
People in council housing on the waiting list not bring an end to the practise of using them for temporary accommodation
I can't I mean can an officer tell me if we have ever placed in a new build thousand home scheme
And use it and taking it over and use it for temporary accommodation we've never done that miss Chadwick
Hi, sorry, Joe Richardson, Director of Housing and Development in the place still over here
at the Council. I would have to come back to you. It's not something I recognise, but
I'll have to cheque the figures and come back to you.
I make that point because this is one of these weird political documents we've been accustomed
to over the last couple of months that doesn't seem to have an officer's name on it. Another
Another thing I want to reflect on is a spending review. When this review was presented, there
was an attack on the delivery unit as some kind of like strange spendthrift, sorry, not
the opposite of spendthrift, highly expensive kind of vanity project. But is the Cabinet
member aware that in the delivery unit's repairs programme, focusing on repairs, which is really
essential, we had someone who was a living council tenant in the delivery unit to help
explain their experience within what it was like
to deal with overdue repairs.
Officers didn't get back to you.
Bizarre area team complications,
which was really helpful to help shape
the housing improvement plan.
And nowhere in this is like the main way
that you can make savings,
which is some of the absurd contractual arrangements
we have where often we'll have someone go out
and visit a property four or five times.
they'll get the wrong spec, they'll get the wrong report.
There's no actual detail, and there was an incredible report
by the delivery unit into how we could save money
on repairs and things like that.
So this to me seems like a political document.
There's lots of stuff smashing the fact
that we're building council housing,
we've discussed that earlier.
There are these like fake claims within it,
and I just, this to me is like a bad way of doing policy.
It's a bad way of doing politics.
It hasn't produced anything other
than these like ridiculous meetings,
and the detail is kind of sparse, right?
I hope we get proper papers,
I hope we get proper investigations
into real efficiency savings.
Like, I want Tom sitting up here talking through
how ridiculous it is that we often send
a contractor three times.
I want Anna to talk about how she's gonna
tear that whole system up.
That is a way we make savings.
This is just, this is politics.
It's Peter Graham's weird little note.
Thank you, Chair. Certainly in favour of getting your papers and discussions at this committee
about how we can improve housing, and that's exactly what we're going to do. Look, we're
proud of the spending review and it was much needed. Let's remember why we have this spending
review in the first place is because your government withdrew £18 million of annual
funding from our council, supported by local Labour MPs in Wandsworth, and your administration
did nothing to oppose that, leaving it to us to now oppose it now that we're in administration.
That's a huge cut, savage cut to our council's funding.
And combined with your administration's
general overspending as well,
creates a budget black hole that's bigger
than the council's entire payroll.
The cut by the government is bigger
than the street cleaning, parks, libraries,
budget, all combined.
It's an absolutely huge hole in our council's finances, and that's why we've delivered the
spending review, so that we can look at the current spending of the council and rein it
in so that we can deliver the services that residents value and not waste money as his
administration did.
If we did nothing, why was the letter to the government waved around in public as some
kind of gotcha at the last council meeting, which Simon Hogg wrote directly to the government
fighting the government on this?
Why were we also criticised for hiring a service
to help us try and affect the outcome?
That was a tack.
So, there's just total contradiction in the position
this administration takes.
At one hand, it wants to point and go,
look, you're divided, you fought your Labour government,
you fought your Labour government on the funding review.
And then, it also wants to say that we didn't fight
the government, which we obviously did,
there's evidence for it, you've brought it
to the public record, you've shown the letters,
I can show the text if we really want.
The thing that frustrates me is also that was just a speech that is irrelevant to the
housing revenue account.
Like, there are savings that can be made within the housing revenue account that don't relate
to the fair funding arrangement.
The one area which does relate to the fair funding arrangement is temporary accommodation,
and we are cutting the supply of council units that can help to deliver an end to that.
We're coming up with policies to address that, but those are all policies that you've kind
of inherited from us, there's nothing new there. So that's why I'm frustrated with this
because there is so much that could be done within the housing revenue account to make
efficiencies and savings. There's nothing in here about all the work that was done on
the repairs programme. The whole plan was to deliver an app, a physical and online app,
to make the repair service easier, faster, quicker, so that contractors aren't wasting
their time. We need to make sure that jobs are done securely. None of that's here.
Councillor Carner and then we will move on to other councillors but we can come back
to Councillor Dickson.
I'm really interested in looking into new ways of using technology to improve the housing
department and I spoke earlier about our housing department transformation.
This isn't just about ticking boxes on a regulator scorecard, it's about fundamentally changing
the way that the housing, dedicated housing department and services will work with leaseholders
and tenants to improve the services that they deserve. So very happy to look at that. Look,
there is so much profligacy with the previous administration. I don't have time to even scratch
the surface of it now, but just on the delivery unit, that was essentially a bunch of people who
reported to the previous council leader completely to the side of the existing officer structure.
the previous administration before that
didn't need that at all.
Why did you?
I can answer that.
I can answer that.
Are you happy with the service you already provided?
It was just a complete waste of money
and that kind of parallel officer theme essentially
that served politicians alone
and were completely unaccountable.
If you read the housing improvement plan,
it was precisely because of the culture
that had developed in the housing department
over many decades that it came to the point
whereby we needed to set up something separate
and bring in new people with a fresh set of eyes to change that culture.
There is absolutely no way I would apologise for that.
I think you would agree that that was the right thing to do.
I think that the housing improvement plan that you have inherited
and that you are enacting is a basis of some of that
having to do that within the structures.
You will learn in time that the council is a machine
and not all parts of the council work together,
and so sometimes you need to bring in independent experts.
And one of those was a literal council tenant
who had lived experience, who was one of our officers who had lived experience of the failures
of the housing department and helped to develop the repairs part of the housing improvement
plan. So I'm not going to apologise for that as a model of trying to transform things.
I think it was excellent. I think you will end up doing things similar. You just will.
You will find silos and cultures that you will want to transform and you'll do things
similar to us. I just want to come back to the actual point of this spending review document
that's come before the Housing Committee because, for instance, it talks about reviewing the
private sector landlord licencing scheme.
This is meant to be a document about spending review.
By reducing the amount of licencing that we do,
that is less income coming into the council.
You know, landlords complain about the licence.
They say, why are you taking money?
But that is something that washes its own face
and then becomes income generating.
And yet this is a spending review document
that is making a political point
because they don't like private sector landlord licencing
and using it as cover as it's somehow related to finances.
when actually running a selective licencing scheme is good because you take people to
court more, you get more fines, you get a licencing. This document is ridiculous and
I respect you, I don't respect this document, do you know what I'm saying? This is a police
of political theatre.
Councillor Carner then we will move on to...
I've said we'll review the landlord licencing scheme, I'm not going to be bounced into conducting
that review live at this committee, but we will bring forward proposals in due course.
Look, I have total confidence in the officer team that I'm working with on a daily basis
to deliver the housing improvement and transformation plan and improve it, in fact, from what we
inherited.
I'm proud of the work we're doing.
We don't need some parallel delivery unit that costs a million pounds a year of council
taxpayers' money to help us do that.
And yes, we will draw on outside advice when we need to,
and we are doing that on an ongoing basis
to make sure that we deliver the service
that we need to deliver.
Councillor Dickerlame, you know full well
that a bunch of these people who were working
for the previous council leader
were just basically Labour Party apparatchiks.
It's completely unacceptable use of public money,
and frankly, the previous council leader
should apologise for bringing that in.
Like me complaining in the next paper that you've used HQM.
I mean, this is like nonsense politics.
We'll draw on outside advice, but we'll
make sure that it's impartial, not
an inappropriately political way of spending council tax
pays.
I think we are moving slightly away
from what is a very broad paper in itself.
Councillor Graham.
Listening to what's going on.
I mean, two things, Roehampton and Latchmere,
one of the most deprived in the country.
And you've actually penalised us by what has gone on.
So in a way, it's made it.
Could you explain that?
I don't know what you mean.
If you look at the actual here on page 53,
Roehampton, it says here that Roehampton,
Latchmere, and Tooting, which are amongst the most deprived
in the country.
And we know Tooting is, and Latchmere, and Roehampton.
Because that is where we put most of our money.
On page 53.
I mean, you know, it's equality, impact, needs, assessment.
That's where I'm coming from.
and it's evident.
I don't understand the point.
So,
so I'm not quite sure what the question was there, but.
The question is that
because of the previous administration,
We have got a very big hole to fill as regards to the reserves and it impacts on everybody.
As regards to our borough, Roehampton, Latchmere and Tooting we know are some of the most deprived
in the country and it saddens me.
That's all.
So a graph of capital investment, housing investment,
under the last four years compared to the previous 10.
And I think you'll find that there was more investment
in those areas.
We've got a closing regulator.
And we'll let's get on.
Councillor Connor, if you have any comments on that,
otherwise we'll move on to.
Yeah, I think it's really important to understand
what deprivation, what drives deprivation,
and how we can deliver a housing service that
that really, really important.
Any further questions?
Councillor Douwe.
Yes, so looking at page 73.
So maybe this is for the cabinet member.
So the paper references improving housing services
to address the C3 regulatory grading.
So what is the timeline for returning to a higher rating?
Thank you, Councillor Doot. It's as soon as possible. We have set a target to get a C1
rating, the highest rating possible. We've put in a lot of work and set ourselves a load
of actions to get there as soon as possible. What we're doing is meeting with the regulator
on a regular basis.
I'm really pleased to report that those meetings have been very positive and we've built strong
relationships with the regulator and it's through having those meetings that we'll be
able to understand the precise timeline for when we might be able to go for a re -inspection
and start moving up those grades.
I do want to see a C1 rating as soon as possible and I'll be very pleased to report to this
committee when we think that we can hit those standards and when that inspection would happen
which would of course be in the gift of the regulator themselves.
But yeah, very, very keen to get there as soon as possible.
Do you have another question, Councillor Duda?
Yeah, very quick one.
I'm quite concerned about the leaseholders.
So will there be any support offered to the leaseholders
facing major works charges?
Thank you, Councillor Luedo.
Thank you. This is extremely important. Leaseholders deserve a better service than what the Council
has previously been giving it, and we need to change the service that they receive and
improve it. The previous administration had a pledge to bring back Leaseholder Major Works
boards. When I checked earlier this year before the election whether any of those had happened
or been held, the answer came back, no. This is unacceptable to promise Leaseholder improvements.
We went, I physically attended the leaseholder,
with Sharon Leckie if she was here.
Every time there was a major confrontation
around major works, we had a physical public meeting.
We did one at the Penfold Centre,
my first, I think it was my first year.
Well, I've got you back, well, in the report
that we took to the last full council meeting
before the election, we set out a report
setting out all the promises that you made in 2022
and how many of them have not been met
and we provided evidence on that.
and the evidence for that was I had an email from officers
saying that you hadn't held any of those meetings.
So we didn't set up a formal board
to replicate the structure of the BIF.
What we did is we physically went to the estates
where the major works, I guess crises were happening,
and the cabinet member and the local ward councillors
and the officers sat at a table
and went through the consultation
rather than the drop -in sessions,
which is exactly what leaseholders had wanted.
The reason why we didn't set up a parallel structure
is because that would have undermined the power of the BRF
and we'll come onto that paper later down the line.
Okay, so you've admitted that you haven't delivered on that.
But to be clear, we have introduced new workstreams
into the housing improvement plan.
That's something we've done as a new administration.
And these workstreams will look at making sure
that we have better repayment terms for leaseholders
that leaseholders are more involved in the decision -making
and also providing opportunities for leaseholders
to purchase the freehold where appropriate.
We're also going to look at transparency
of service charges as well,
and I'm really excited to see that work progress.
Councillor Davis.
We're also going to look at ways for leaseholders
to participate in decision -making as well,
which is something we discussed at the borough residents
forum yesterday.
And I look forward to improving on the way the council does.
I would say we are going to come on to the resident engagement
strategy after this.
So Councillor Davies, is this about leaseholders?
Yes, please.
Yes, about leaseholders, I'm thinking
about the Wendlesworth Estate in Wandsworth town.
And there's been quite some protracted engagements
with officers and cabinet member over four years,
including listening to them,
and it's from them where the increased offer
by repayment of terms came from.
And, you know, but they're facing major works now,
which has been stalled.
And, you know, I've been asking you to meet with me
and officers and the chair of the Residence Association.
You replied that, yes, you would,
and I've chased you up about this,
but I think it really is a priority for the residents now
to hear from you.
They're very hard.
They're an asset, really.
They help with scrutiny function.
So I'd just like to recommend that we
get a meeting set up soon.
I'm happy to meet with her about that
and work with Wandsworth town councillors
on that important issue.
So, we will come back to Councillor Dickham. Mr Glockner was trying to get in there, so
we'll get him first. Councillor Duke, that was a very pristine
comment you made that we've been fighting, and there's been good reception for a payment
plan for major works. There's an existing one, you might know of it, 48 months. I think
the floor is like 3 ,000, but we'd like to mirror a Westminster plan. I encourage you
look at it with different tiering.
And we'd also like to extend the formal sort of mortgage
programme.
The repayment plan is quite attractive.
You can get a rate of 3 .8%.
You can even carry the balance on your property
and pay it back upon sale.
I mean, interest will compound.
But we're trying to increase cash flow for leaseholders.
So it'd be great to keep in touch with you on that.
And there has been a good reception so far,
as there was previously.
but it's something we need to get done.
Council debate and then we'll come back to Council Dictum.
So, having watched the Prime Minister's speech,
just an additional question.
Will there be any additional government funding available
that the Council could bid for?
I don't know if one of the officers wants to come in on this.
Ms Mary?
Could you repeat the question again?
Yes, I was just saying that,
will there be any additional government funding available
that the Council could bid for?
Well, I mean, we're waiting to analyse
the forthcoming announcement for the government.
So that's the first step in that respect.
I mean, it's a 10 -year programme that the council has submitted a bid for.
So beyond that, there's various funding parts, but not that anything I would quote to and
point to at this moment in time.
Oh, it's just a thoughtful thought.
Okay, Councillor Dicklian.
This speaks to the leaseholder point, which is like we're in September, eight months since
the last, I think nine months since the last housing committee.
When we took over the council in June, the kind of handover policy stuff, which is what
we've got today, handover policy stuff, like nothing drastically different from what was
already in the pipeline, other than cutting 253 council homes.
In our September meeting, we flipped the Thousand Homes Programme, we launched the Property
Acquisition Programme, we gave lifetime security tendencies, we launched land or licencing,
we gave the leaseholders the four years interest free.
In our manifesto this time round, we had the Westminster offer.
That was what we were offering.
We were going to go to that tiered system.
Like, what have you guys been doing?
Like, that should be here at this committee.
We should be signing off.
If you have a leaseholder plan, it should be happening now.
There just seems to be, like, a huge amount of drag and slowness.
And we've been waiting around for ages.
And if you're going to do the similar policy on leaseholders
that we were going to do in our manifesto,
I just don't understand why it's not at this committee,
why it's not coming to cabinet.
like everything is so slow.
We signal the change in all our affordable housing policies
at the first September committee in 2022.
This is like weak source and we've still got,
I'm sorry, I'm taking it out on you,
I should be taking it out on Peter Graham
because I just find that, I find it really annoying
that we're being locked in this ridiculous political dance
on this spending review.
And it just means like material actual policy change
and proposals are well behind where they should be.
Like the election was a while ago, you know,
like we did the four -year interest -free paper September 2022. Why is your proposal not here?
I'm really delighted that Councillor Dickerdame is so enthusiastic and eager to see more conservative
policy coming forward and I'm delighted to deliver that.
It's about leaseholders. I want to make sure leaseholders get a decent deal. These major
works are going to happen in the next year. They've got to...
Thank you. Can I just come back on that? Look, I'm sorry, I'm not going to take lectures
on this major works engagement, right? Here's a quote from the 2022 Wandsworth Labour Manifesto.
They said they would, quote, bring back leaseholder major works panels. On the 26th of February
of this year, I received an email from housing officers saying, although the council's leaseholders
guide mentions a major works review panel, that has not been called for well over a decade,
possibly two. And now he's saying we're not moving fast enough to meet our pledges. He
arguing about what a panel means. That's the point about what a panel means. I attended
numerous major works panels. We sat on a panel and residents who were facing major works
charges got to question me, got to question officers. I wish Sarah and Leckie were here
because we ran a consultation three times on the Wendell's work, wasn't it? Yes, we
did three levels of consultation because of the voting system for major works. So the
The idea that we weren't running major works panels, I think, is ludicrous.
I think what you're talking about is a formal delegated body, and we move towards the kind
of individual opt -in focus groups, which are part of the next paper.
But we can't fight on semantics.
You know that I fought as hard as I could to try and make...
You're going to have to do those fights as well.
You can call them panels, you can call them what you want.
I am keen to have robust discussion, but if we can prevent it from descending into direct
back and forward and go to the chair, please.
I think that will keep it a bit more structured.
Councillor Corner and then we will look to come closer.
I'm really glad that he's supportive of our determination to bring forward and improve
service for leaseholders and really look forward to delivering on that and having his support
in doing so.
Thank you very much.
Do any members have any further comments on the report?
Nope.
And now, onto the proposals for a new resident engagement
participation strategy.

8 Proposals for a new Resident Engagement Participation Strategy (Paper No. 26-235)

Reports by the interim executive director of housing.
Ms. Willman will introduce the report,
as she did last night.
Thank you very much for all your efforts last night as well,
and all officers were there.
And would you like to introduce it?
Yes, so this is very much a discussion paper
and not a draught strategy,
and I think unfortunately it's been seen
perhaps as if it was a draught strategy,
but it's really not trying to do that.
It's trying to open up a discussion about what the future of resident engagement could be.
So what we're trying to do really is broaden participation to include more people
at a level of their choosing then really to broaden that participation
so people can get involved at different levels.
They don't have to necessarily go through the traditional structures and always be at meetings.
They can come in and opt into areas that they're choosing.
So, following the regulatory judgement,
which we've talked about in other papers,
we commissioned a consultant called HQN,
which is Housing Quality Network,
to undertake a review of our resident engagement.
So, they haven't proposed specific structures,
but they've just looked at what our approach
to resident engagement is, and given us ideas
of the types of things we should think about.
So, this paper then sets out the early thoughts
based on the review, and looks at practise
from other providers, and resident feedback,
for example, from the residence conference last year.
So, appendix four sets out just an idea
of how structures could look,
and the idea there is that you've got
a top -level strategic residence group,
you've got specific groups for tenants and leaseholders,
and then you can have topic -specific groups.
And one of the things that isn't mentioned,
which should be, is one of those topic -specific groups
could be building safety, but you could also have
a group on repairs, antisocial behaviour,
so then you can get residents involved
in an area they're interested in for a particular topic.
And Appendix 6 sets out a timetable
and the survey with residents has just begun.
But I thought as well it was important to cover
some of the areas that were discussed yesterday at BRF
because I felt we had a really useful and detailed conversation
by residents forum yesterday.
And I wanted to highlight some of the views
I recorded from residents.
And Mr Gough, if you think there's anything I've missed, please.
add anything in.
But I felt some of the views of residents were
that residents associations are highly valued,
but there needs to be more flexibility for residents
about how they can be set up, including neighbourhoods
being able to join up, so not being so restrictive
of who can be in a residents association.
But there was a real value put on residents association
as a voice for residents and also the ability
to be able to speak to senior officers.
Area housing panels were also valued and we talked about the idea that we want to make
sure wherever we look in existing meetings, we're looking at what are the best bits from
those meetings and how can we use those to make meetings in the future better.
Residents were very keen on co -design rather than us, which I think some of the discussion
Mr Glotten yesterday was that perhaps that it was felt that we had come in with a proposed
structure of just asking residents to say yes or no to it, but residents are very keen
on co -design and we need to think carefully about how we co -design it so it's truly led
by residents and not by officers.
We had some proposals about groups split by tenure, so sometimes there's a leaseholder
only group and a tenant only group.
I think there were some concerns around that about splitting groups by tenure, but then
I think we had a broader discussion about actually if you had specific topics, by the
nature of those topics, some would be specific to certain groups and some would be open to
everybody.
So for example, antisocial behaviour, everybody's interested in if it was about major works
repayment period, repayment plans, it would be probably lease holder only group.
There was a request to consider timeframes because it was noted that the timeframes were
quite tight in the paper.
I think residents really value the Bo residents forum
and I think we all agreed that in the last few meetings,
perhaps the last year, 18 months,
it's become a much better forum
where there's much more engagement
and much more conversation.
And we were talking, well I don't know if we talked about it
but I certainly thought about it afterwards,
making sure we pick the best bits out of that
and there's always that high level scrutiny
but perhaps it's not coming in right at the end
to look at a paper just to finally sign it off
but is actually much more involved all the way through
in how a paper develops rather than just the final version.
There was also some feeling from residents
that residents' associations should be really involved
in the process and help with the co -design
and not necessarily going to the chairs
but actually going out to the residents' associations.
And there's some real thinking we need to go away and do
about how we are going to do that co -design.
I felt residents agreed with the principles
to broaden engagement and to ensure more tenants are involved, but I think we all agreed that
you're never going to get 100 % of tenants involved. It's just making options available
that are popular to as many people as possible and people can get involved at a level of
their choosing. I think we talked, there was some bits of language in the paper that I
think, not contentious maybe, about structures being traditional. I think we were then sort
talking about traditional doesn't necessarily mean either good or bad, but it means that
it probably hasn't been looked at for a while and we've got to make sure those structures
are fit for purpose. There was some discussion around the terminology of you said we did
and what terminology we use and I think there's more discussion to have around that and I
think it's important that we're able to show that residents influence our services and
and then we can talk about how we communicate that
to residents and how we've done that.
And then I think a real theme also was just about
the need to build trust.
So residents feel that the council is genuinely co -designing
and I think there's perhaps been a history where
it hasn't felt like co -design.
It's felt more like there's maybe a one -off focus group
or we've written a paper and it comes at the end
of its life to the row of residents for them
and there's a chance to look at it.
but actually you've got to build trust with residents
through other areas, so beyond resident engagement.
So residents genuinely feel like we're co -designing
and that is something we are really committed to.
So I don't know if Mr. Glockner,
you think there's anything I've particularly missed there?
Yeah, I would like Mr. Glockner,
if he's happy to start us off if we can.
I appreciate that, Kate.
I think you've covered a lot of ground.
I think the main thing is that with the new structure,
I think you have to understand, and I hope you do,
that with the RAs, there is a vested interest.
We see ourselves as very accountable
to a lot of different people.
I think that's vital.
The opportunities with the area panels
for us to meet officers is a critical draw.
I think our networking with each other
goes beyond what I think I understand.
And there's many tenants that we support
and we actively try to bring along.
I mean, we have ideas to do that.
So we shepherd a lot of stuff.
What I don't see in this new plan,
and I talked to HQN about this,
where the accountability factor comes in
with all these new people.
Because there's an opportunity cost
when you have all these different people showing up
and then we don't ever see them again.
We don't get a report back.
you might be able to show the social regulator
that you've gotten a bunch of tenants going,
but we're actively year on year participating
and reporting and scrutinising.
And the scrutinising element is very important
because it's a very difficult thing to do.
And I think I am all for the new stuff,
leveraging technology,
but to produce a paper where you're like saying,
no area panels, RAs downgraded to this,
when you have 40 RAs, which represents 30%,
30 % is a bit naive and it's scary.
Especially when two of us are on the hit board
and we could have just talked about this.
And especially when I approached Andrew McKinnon,
engagement officers for six months and said,
what is the engagement process.
I asked for the actual HQM paper that I was a part of
and I saw it listed.
So I know you guys, we have developed
a much better relationship and a lot of respect.
And I do want to produce more tenants
but I don't know why it's a mutually exclusive deal
where we can't support the other panels and the 40 RAs
and also leverage that ability.
Because as Charles brought up last night,
we're scalable.
I could bring in another four or five properties.
We're ready to go.
We've done this, you know, if we care to.
I'm actively trying to bring tenants in.
I said, at the area panels, I'm happy to say,
hey, you know, we bring all the tenants into the next BRF.
Sit next to us.
We'll work with you.
Air your grievances.
See how it's done.
Get comfortable with it.
But with this new sort of participatory model,
I mean, it sounds great, but let's say you roll it out
and you start killing participation in the RAs,
and all of a sudden, you know,
sort of like the residence conference
where we're changing topics all the time
and you're seeing some success,
you're not seeing some success,
there's a stewardship and accountability
that the RAs have done.
So that's what we're fearful of, okay?
So I think that's pretty much what we said
last night as well.
But we're, you know, and I did say I highlight,
like, on the Leet's Hotel focus group
that we work with Sharon and Tom, it's become a success.
It's an online thing.
Councillor Dickerton talked about online things
where you can scale it out.
You could certainly do that.
I mean, there's elements where there's question and answer.
So if you went out to 100 different people,
but all this stuff is scalable.
But I mean, I think you have to leverage what you have.
In response to a couple of things,
Ms. Lautner, because I was reflecting well overnight,
actually, I wasn't sleeping very well.
No, no, I was just mulling it over.
And I was reflecting about the fact
that I don't think I explained well enough what that higher...
I mean, what I would just reiterate again
is that is an idea of a structure.
It isn't a formal structure.
But the idea of that strategic level
is something similar to a borough residence forum.
So although you've got lots of residents coming in
and being involved in areas they're interested,
that strategic level is a much more static group of people
where it has that strategic accountability.
Because I know what you mean,
it's all great having people involved,
but there's no strategic accountability from residents.
It's difficult to work.
So I don't think I really explained that properly yesterday.
And then also I was thinking about this informal -formal
and I don't think that's an overly helpful way
of describing it and I hadn't,
If I'm honest, I haven't fully clocked that,
the way that we've got formal and informal,
and I don't think that is very helpful,
because what does it even really mean,
what's formal and informal?
So I think there are definitely things to take away,
and I know as well that you and I haven't worked
that closely on this area,
and I think we should work much more closely on it
to get your ideas about how we should do it,
and also that sort of plan for how we co -design,
because I almost want that signed off
for residents to say, yeah, I think that's you going
in the right direction.
Mr Glockner, we will come back to you most likely.
But if any Councillors, Councillor Tiller.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much to Mr Glockner,
who's made excellent points there tonight
and together in the RF.
Yeah, so I've for a long time been very keen
to have for there to be new avenues for residents
outside recent associations to make their voices heard.
I've been talking to officers about this
since before the Regulators Report, actually.
And I'm glad to hear the flexibility from Ms. Wallman
about not sticking too rigidly to this structure,
because this structure on page 85
is quite worrying if you take it literally
as a plan for the future.
So, yeah, the points I wanted to raise were
yeah, that I'd be very concerned
to see area housing panels go,
and also the separation of tenants and leaseholders
does worry me a bit, because there are some issues,
in fact only tenants and some only leaseholders,
The overlapping concerns for tenants and leaseholders
living in the same blockable street
is much larger than that.
I know that from being an RA myself
and being a tenant but talking to leaseholders,
we have a huge amount of the same concerns.
And furthermore, it's useful for residents
in a particular area of the borough
to be able to share concerns.
For example, as we do in the Western Area Housing Panel,
where people from all over Southampton,
and all those patterns, you can talk to each other.
And that's very useful.
So I do think there needs to be a geographical element
and can we build new structures around the existing ones
rather than, and make them complementary
rather than throwing away what we got,
which is evidently very valued by residents
as they made it clear last night.
And also, I'm a big fan of RAs,
I think if anything, they're a bit too difficult
and regulated when it comes to setting them up.
You have informal associations of residents in a block
and what's happening to each other,
but it doesn't turn into an RA
because of various restrictions and strictures.
Could we make RAs easier to set up?
could we reduce percentages, the minimums
that are required of certain this or that.
Yep, that's lots of questions I know, but thank you.
I'll answer as many as I remember.
So yes, on residence associations,
the idea is to make that more flexible.
That was already something we were thinking about
and also it was suggested by a residence forum
because there's ideas about numbers,
whether you can be in a collective
with more residents from other neighbourhoods,
so we're very keen to make that more flexible.
I think on your question about area -based,
what we very much want to do is,
I mean, I was thinking about how to go about it yesterday.
You want to say to residents
who go to the area housing panels,
what are the positives about going to the area housing panels
and what are the negatives?
And you want to say to residents
who don't go to the area panels,
why don't you go to those meetings
and what would be a positive and a negative way
for you to be engaged?
So we don't want to just say,
right, we're deleting that structure
and we're moving to this one.
We want to look at all the positive things
of our current structures
and all the things that are missing
and build something that's even better.
So it's sort of like nothing's off the table really.
We want to think about everything
and we want to think about how do we engage
the broadest range of residents possible.
I know that residence associations are very valued.
I know that some of the value of those formal structures
is the fact that people get to speak to senior officers,
and I don't think that should be the only way
that people get to speak to senior officers,
and I think that broader transformation might mean
that there's many other ways to speak to senior officers
and that there's less, you know,
your officers generally are more available
and therefore there isn't necessarily the need
to see them at those more formal meetings.
So there's lots of things changing, but I just think getting that co -design right is vital.
And I think that's something we didn't emphasise enough when we brought the paper to the Borough Residence Forum yesterday.
Councillor Davies.
Yeah, I think reading this paper, it made me think about what's the what we're looking for,
for in terms of resident participation
and what are the benefits to them,
what are the benefits to the council,
and what are the benefits to the community.
You know, and some of that is about, you know,
having someone listen to you or idea generation
or feel empowered or screw yourself up or networking.
You know, and sometimes just being in the same room
generates something else, doesn't it,
or best conditions for,
and then you get that most tailored approach.
I think it's great to have it co -designed,
but we also need to bring in the new people,
so the people who've never participated before
in any way, and hear their voices,
which might be not framed so much
by what they've experienced.
And also, I think, in the,
you know, like if you were doing
sort of a communications campaign,
you would have it very multi -layered,
but so everyone accesses things in different ways.
So you would want to have what's happened,
a Facebook and in -person and phone call,
all these different points.
But I actually think that as well as co -designing,
we could actually consider having tenants
or leaseholders sit on panels,
sit on recruitment panels maybe,
to help build up that trust and the communication
and that you are more regularly just bumping into people
and feeling part of the system.
So that's just some of my thoughts.
Yeah, I mean, I can't really answer fully on recruitment,
but I know that in the more senior post recently,
residents were on those recruitment panels.
And yes, I agree with you totally.
It is not about abandoning structures that work for the people it works for.
It is about thinking about where does it not work for people and how can those things be
better and how do people want to get involved with us.
Not everybody wants to go to formal meetings but that is not saying they don't have a place.
It is just saying people should have lots of avenues to come to us.
Councillor Graham and then Councillor Dickard.
Thanks, Chairman.
Rowing back about two years,
Councillor Dickerton, when he was cabinet member,
had a very good initiative, because we'd actually done it before,
when I was chairman of housing a long time ago,
of drop -ins with a participation officer.
Now, there were about 15 council officers
and about 15 people coming in to the drop -in.
That's, the letter went to the A boy in the birdtop,
the Fitz tube, three totally different energies and needs.
And then it was a timing three to seven,
and then they'd walk about on the estates.
And of course, everybody got that thinking they were,
oh, Fitz, he was going to have a walkabout birdtop.
and the Ebon and that's exactly what happened on the Henry Prince with the
other areas which are totally different but I do you know turning this round I
do feel that if we had a constructive walk about this councillor, Councillor
Corner is just suggesting with the police and with transport and making it
just more personal, I think we could actually turn that,
but make it smaller.
I mean, that's my take on that.
There's something good in that, which I really,
and of course, none of them really.
It was only the Aben and Henry Prince were RAs.
But this could be a way, in a way,
meeting those people who do not want to be on the residence association and that's one
thing. But then I did ask one of my lovely residents on the rooftop estate and it's exactly
what the housing regulator was saying. No transparency and lack of communication. And
One of the issues also for residents' association
is the turnover of state officers.
That is one.
And then other difficulty getting responses,
feeling that they escalate, that they get action.
Lack of ownership, accountability, and difficult
to identify.
Poor communication during repairs, delay in repairs,
difficulty navigating council process,
but also complaint fatigue.
But I'm following from Councillor Tiller.
We must really look at how we can help our residents associations develop, because they
are the voice of the very heart of our housing.
And the Burtop had rats, it had issues because of the dreadful mistakes with the leasehold
charges, and that's really how they wanted to become a residents association.
And I think we need a more dynamic centre
for participation as regards to helping our residents.
Because, oh, I want to develop a residence association.
Nobody knows.
They don't know how to develop a residence association,
but they know this is it.
And so really and truly, it's all monetary as well.
Because they'd have to find a venue for a meeting.
And so they really do need backup.
But anyway, I think that it is very needed.
And I think it's so important to have
leaseholders and tenants working together as well,
because of Fitzhugh's tenants and leaseholders.
But also, you will have different needs to tenants.
and I think we have to be flexible.
And this is a listening discussion
and we support residents to the hope.
Ms. Wilman, if you'd like to,
and then Councillor Connor can just.
Yeah, so there's a few things in there
which are also linked into what Councillor Davis said.
The regulator is very outcome focused,
so it's not about saying your structures
should look like X, Y, and Z.
It's saying show me how your structures,
what's the outcome for residents
and how can you show me that residents
have then influenced the service that you deliver?
So that's what we've got to do.
We've got to be able to show that if we,
yeah, if we change the structures,
how has that led to a benefit?
And I think some of the issues that you raised there
about lack of responses, turnover of offices,
complaint, fatigue, I think that's wound up
in the much broader transformation programme
that we've got in place around the transformation
of housing management and it also lends itself, I think,
to those topic -specific groups that you're talking about
because you might have residents that specifically want
to have a group that talks about a particular issue.
And I think the first thing you mentioned was,
I think it was about the estate road shows.
And I think that's an example of something
that we have certainly thought was a good idea.
I think it's worked well in some areas and not others,
but I think it's a great example of
us not deciding what we think is best
and actually speaking to residents
and asking residents what they think
is the most useful thing,
because I think the danger is we think we know best
and we think people are like this
because we're like this,
and then it turns out it's not as popular as you think.
So I think that's a good example
of us making sure it's coming from the ground up.
But it's the cost of officers,
not looking at the monetary,
but it's the waste of officer time
because they need 13 or 14
and we need to be more nitty -gritty into the actual heart of the estates.
And that's what we're saying.
Councillor Conlon, if you'd just let it sit here.
Yeah, thank you, Chair, and thank you for the contributions to that.
I think it's good that we've got an emerging kind of consensus coming around.
Obviously, there's huge amounts of work to be done to get this right,
But I think it sounds like the key themes
that everyone believes are important are coming out.
I think I'd just like to put on record
that residence associations will always be hugely valued.
I think that's really, really important to state
and we need to do what we can to give residents,
those who lead residence associations,
the tools and resources that they need to be able to do
as effective a job as possible in representing
the residents on their estates,
whilst also making sure that we support residents
who choose not to be members of residents associations.
And that's also important.
I reflected last night on a piece of casework
that I worked on a year or so ago
where residents were told by their housing association
that if they didn't join their residents association,
the housing association had no obligation
to engage with them, which is completely unacceptable.
So we will never do that.
It's been mentioned that the regulator for social housing
is prioritising looking at how we engage with tenants
and that makes it an integral piece of work
as we work towards that C1 rating.
And then my final point would just be to say
that I do think that we need to have the courage
to change in this council.
We need to keep the things that work well,
but let's make sure that we really modernise
our residents engagement and make it as good as it can be
so that it reaches as many tenants
and leaseholders as possible.
In a successful way.
Councillor Dickerden has been waiting for a while.
Yeah, I mean, I'll reiterate some of the stuff
I said yesterday.
I mean, I think there are some parts that don't work
because of other parts that don't work.
So, and maybe we're confused to scrap some of those parts.
So, the challenge is if you've got a repairs service
that residents don't have trust in
and don't know how they can get results on,
then the structures through which they engage
become focused on individual issues to do with,
that's the opportunity they get to raise their repair.
And that means we've always found
this just like strategic upstream work
where a resident can shape the actual outcome
of something before the decision is made
has always really just been missing, right?
And if it comes back to the conversation
about major works and stuff like that,
people get really frustrated.
The example that we gave where we consulted on some works, some stairs, the council officer
had just been thinking, oh, I'll make these stairs safer and nicer, but hadn't talked
to people and they liked it how it was and they didn't want to have to spend the money
on it.
And that just kind of like catching something early which saves loads of money and resource
and going through contracts that don't work, catching that upstream strategic decision
is the bit that I just think is really, really important.
And I think the reason why the BRF was fired up yesterday is because in some ways we could
have had a whole summer of them designing this paper that came to this committee.
That would be the real functioning of co -design.
And we've got all these focus groups set up now.
We've got the participation register.
Look, I think there's an absolute will from officers here.
And it's a really difficult one because, like you say, the regulator doesn't prescribe an
answer.
So we have to kind of test and see.
and some of those drop -ins were great.
Some of those drop -ins, it was like 15 officers
hanging around for hours and three people came through.
So that has an impact on officers' buy -in to the process.
So I do think that the solution is just getting
as many residents through the participation time.
We've got 800, we've got to get them doing something.
And I think the thing they can get doing
is like on strategic decisions, how would it work?
Okay, we know that you turn up to things
to make your individual complaint.
How do we stop that bottleneck?
Because that stops you from being able to discuss
the broader things.
What do you mean?
Well, at most of the RAs that I go to,
the RA doesn't get to discuss that much strategic
decision -making.
I mean, it elects delegates, and those delegates often go
to the area panels, but the area panels can also sometimes
have quite a lot of casework, depending on what area panel
you're in, but some area panels become casework dominated.
And that, I think, is where the regulator is picking up on us,
alongside the question of tenant engagement.
And I'm going to side with Matthew here.
We're going to have to make some changes.
Some people are not going to like them,
but we do have to get tenant engagement up.
And that is an attack on leaseholders at all,
and I don't think you think it is.
Yeah, so I think that's really important.
Yeah.
Yeah, if Mr Guacno, you can...
Well, I was just going to say that one of the things
when the regulator inspected us,
I think we were able to show how residents
have influenced decisions like small improvement budgets,
but when it came to big strategic decisions,
it was too piecemeal and ad hoc that certain policies
or strategies had had focus groups and working groups,
others hadn't, they just had online consultation,
and I think it's that part is how are they
strategically involved from the start of it, not later on when you've already got
the ideas and that's where we were weak and that's where we're trying to improve.
So it goes to what you were saying really about the strategic side.
Thank you very much for that. Councillor Davies, if you would.
Thank you and I think there is something there about sort of building trust between
officers on the ground, officers who removed,
and residents as well, and really listening,
not just through the participation channels,
but just presume, okay, so basically,
I've had a few encounters where an officer
has presumed what the residents will want for their state,
and actually it's very different from, yeah,
so I think at every step, people just need
to be included and I think by that approach of just listening at every stage, that's probably
going to help the whole programme actually.
I think often it's well intentioned but you don't necessarily understand what you think
you understand and you don't understand what somebody wants and that I think one of the
things that one of the residents said yesterday was about how it takes a long time to build
trust but you can quickly lose it.
And, you know, we, I, you know, I suppose it personally saddened me a bit to think that
I'd done that with that paper, because that was really not what I was trying to do.
But I think it is very much that, isn't it?
Don't assume what people want.
You've got to ask them and find out.
Mr. Glockner.
Yeah, I mean, just going back, I don't, I think you're in a tough spot here, personally.
And let me just, you know, assure you, you haven't lost any trust.
I think something that Iden brought up,
I think what you see in the BRF in the last couple years,
and I think there's a reason why it's happened,
but everything is much more open, free to discuss things.
I think that's why there's greater participation.
I think I see that in the Western Area panel
where people feel free, it's such a livelier,
and people feel like they're airing their grievances.
That's sort of what you need to push to go to,
where people are like, wow, I can really talk
about something, be supported on it,
and I totally agree with you about bringing more tenants in.
I'm a firm believer that the estates work hand -in -hand
together with residents, leaseholders, and tenants.
It's just the way it works.
It's the way it was set up.
It wasn't the way it was set up,
but there's obvious reasons why it's happened.
I prize my relationships with the long -term tenants,
and any tenant in there,
because there's so much you can learn,
so much history about things.
I don't know why some people engage more than others.
I can tell you from leaseholders,
we have a financial vested interest.
But also for long -term tenants, as it stands today,
they also have an extremely long -term vested interest.
I would say also with all these things going on,
and the council, as I brought up,
it was super complicated to begin with,
the fact that we have estate services, housing, this,
I mean, it just goes on and on.
We put together a phone contact sheet,
and it's amazing how many people you have to call
for individual problems.
So it can be somewhat frustrating for people,
but I can tell you it's very worthwhile
once you get to know people, officers,
you can get things done, you can get SIB projects,
things like that.
So I guess what I'm saying is
on the stock condition reports,
that could be a potentially huge unlock with you
if you leverage it properly.
Because what you said is,
I'm gonna figure out what's wrong with your property,
I'm going to fix it. At that point, that would be music to the ears of many tenants.
That doesn't solve the overcrowding, this or that, but it can damp, mould, and it shows
that you care. At that point, I would have some of these officers hand out stuff about
engagement and stuff like that. Also, you do have to leverage us to get more tenants.
I mean, we act like a whip almost of getting people out. I'll give you an example. The
Insider Housing Conference a year ago, I got the tenant. You had to pay for him to come.
You had to pay for it.
This year we didn't get any tenants.
I don't know what happened.
That to me is very sad.
You cannot get one tenant to go to
a very important conference that is a tenant,
you could fall into a conversation
that would help your life dramatically.
So this is a difficult nut to crack.
So please don't lose any sleep over it.
I think a lot of us were all like, wow, that was,
but it was good because I think we know each other
the last couple years.
And so I do think you can leverage this stuff and scale it that way and build on the trust
that you have with us.
And no, we're not going anywhere.
And most of us, as Harry said, would like to be replaced by someone that will also be
the stewards for us.
So I like the new ideas, all these different areas.
We actually have a cleaning inspection idea that Tom and I have been talking about, or
But what you have to do is you have to get to know your cleaning area team, you have
to do it, and you have to be honest and open about, hey, this is a clean area.
You know what I mean?
But it would open up avenues for people to get better cleaning, to get better relationship,
because it's all a relationship business.
That's all it is.
In an age of technology and personality, this is a relationship business.
And that's what we want to keep going.
So I understand the complexities.
I'm on the hit committee and even tonight learning even more about how complex things
are.
I think you have an existing base.
I think you realise that and you can leverage us and you can lean on us.
You can push on us.
You can yell at me.
I don't care.
I've been yelled at before.
All we want to do is generate ideas.
We want to become like a fast break basketball team.
And to do that you need five people to go all the way.
And you need people that can do everything.
And so it can be tough, but it is super rewarding.
So we're at that stage.
So don't feel bad about it.
What we do don't like is looking at seeing a graph and like,
oh, they just legislated us out of this whole thing.
And we've been waiting around for eight months.
And we've been talking to people.
We've been actually trying to pursue it.
And I know that's probably an oversight.
But I have full confidence the way the BRF is going,
that we can build these structures,
but at the same time, we have to leverage what we have.
And I'll leave it at that.
Yes.
Councillor Douay, do you have one last point?
Yeah, so thank you.
So, reading through the paper, unless I've missed it,
so it doesn't say what mechanisms will exist
for residents to escalate concerns
if the new formal groups are not working as intended.
I suppose it...
I mean, it doesn't say that
because it's only setting out an idea
of what a structure would look like.
So I think once we know what our structure will look like,
everything will have code of conducts and constitutions,
and they will all explain what you would do to set out,
if you were unhappy with those structures.
And as Ms. Zibnotna said,
we can talk about where things aren't working.
Just because we change it to something
doesn't mean it can never change again.
You know, we can trial things and test things,
and we would, you know, whatever that strategic group is,
the Borough Residence Forum would consider those things
and how well they're working.
One more, Councillor.
Okay. Another one which came to mind.
So, how do we ensure that the new engagement structure,
structures are fairly representative
and not dominated by the same voices?
Well, that is forever the challenge, I think.
LAUGHTER
Yeah, I mean...
I suppose what we can do is we can try and learn from others.
We, you know, me and a colleague of mine
were at an interesting conference the other day
where they were resident involvement officers
talking from a couple of housing associations.
I was at the Arch Conference the week before,
which is the Association for Retained Council Housing,
so that's a national organisation,
and there were residents there from Ashfield Council
talking about their resident engagement.
So some of it's learning from others,
thinking about basic things about timing of events
and all that kind of stuff.
I think there's things we can write into constitutions
about representation and tenure type.
So I think it's a whole range of things,
thinking about when we write out to residents
or communicate with residents,
do we do it in different languages,
holding events at the right time,
in the right places, making sure they're accessible.
So there's a whole range of things to consider,
but I think that is always the challenge,
is that you want it to be representative
and then how do you ensure that happens.
And I think it's just getting as many people on board
to help as possible to reach as many residents as we can.
Thank you very much for that.
No more, Councillor.
That was actually a very important discussion,
and thank you, everyone, for speaking about that.
I know resident engagement and participation is difficult.
We all have storeys of our own residents associations
who work incredibly hard in my board
with the Henry Prince estate and Zohida, the chair.
They work incredibly hard but don't always
managed to get that enthusiasm and engagement
that from many people on the estate spot,
it's good that we are looking at ways
to address some of those issues.
Does anyone have any, do any members have any more
comments on the report?
No.
Yeah.
We'll move on to point nine,
which Mr. Wernham will address now.

9 Work Programme (Paper No. 26-236)

Thank you, Chair, I'll be fairly brief.
So members have in front of them the Work Programme Report.
It's fairly similar to the report
that members will have been used to
from the previous municipal year.
So within that annex of the appendix,
what's set out there at the moment is just
those key decisions that we know about via the forward plan.
So that is not an exhaustive list by any means.
Those could change, they will likely be added to
and with as the cabinet wants to progress key decisions.
This is an opportunity for members can,
at this stage if they want to, suggest items,
but what I would suggest is as we have done previously
and as other committees are doing,
to have a work programming session offline,
so outside of this formal meeting
where we would have the chair,
the cabinet member would be there as well
with the executive director,
and then the opposition speaker as well.
And then we could increase it wider,
but I think that way members from both groups can then feed in through their relevant and
Councillor to add in additional items, but I just want to stress that
All of the cabinet key decisions relevant to housing will come to scrutiny automatically any key decision
From that room at will then there is an opportunity to add in additional items
Maybe similar to sort of the the resident engagement discussion that members have had this evening
more forward -looking things, policy, development
and those kind of matters.
Those are the kind of things we're looking for on a longer -term basis.
Happy to take any questions, Chair.
Thank you very much for that. Councillor Dickerson?
I support the proposal for us offline.
Is it okay if it's all of us invited?
If someone doesn't want to go, they can't.
I'd quite like to know what your thoughts are on what we discuss.
We've got some ideas, we'd quite like to do something around accommodation conditions,
which I know is quite a cross -party area where you can really get into the nitty -gritty.
But if everyone could attend, just not because I think it'd be a more useful discussion about
what our work programme will look like.
I'm inclined to agree with that.
I think it would be useful.
Obviously, members don't have to attend, but the invitation will be there.
If you can't attend for any reason, then you'll still be able to feed your ideas into myself
or Councillor Dickerton to take forward.
Any further questions?
No.
That now concludes the meeting.
Thank you very much.