Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 8 April 2025, 7:30pm

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 8th April 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Declarations of Interests

Share this agenda point

2 Interim Update on the Regulatory Inspection (Paper No. 25-133)

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

1 Declarations of Interests

Okay, so welcome to the meeting and my name is Councillor Paul White and I am chair of

the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Members of the committee, I would now call your names in alphabetical order.

Please switch on your microphones and confirm your attendance.

So we've got, apologies for Councillor Austin.

Councillor Ayers?

Here.

Councillor Cushane.

Here.

Councillor McLeod.

It's late but he will be here.

Councillor Rigby.

I'm here.

Where does the alphabet go?

From Chris Lane.

Erm...

LAUGHTER

Oh.

Yeah, sorry.

What's that?

Oh, right, sorry.

OK, yeah, sorry.

Councillor, Mrs. Grimes, sorry, apologies.

Hello, present.

Oh, yeah, and Councillor Gavinier as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm here.

And there's only going to be about two councillors,

if we're on this.

Councillor Tiller?

Here.

Councillor Varifaraj?

Here.

And I'd like to welcome Councillor Dickerton as the cabinet member for housing, and we

also have the deputy chair of the BRF, so Mr Glockner.

We also have officers present down at the end of the table who will introduce themselves

when they address the committee.

So declarations of interest, are there any declarations either pecuniary or other registrable

or non -registable interests regarding what we're going to be speaking about tonight?

No, okay.

Council Leithold, I normally mention that.

Okay.

Yes, and I'm a council tenant.

Yep, okay, brilliant.

Okay, so we'll go to the first paper then.

So that's interim update on the regulatory inspection.

2 Interim Update on the Regulatory Inspection (Paper No. 25-133)

And we have Councillors.

Mr. Werth, Ms. Wheelman and Mr. Stewart.

And Tom, not to forget Tom Crawley.

And sorry, everyone's been left out there.

Anyone with a name between C and G is just a person on Grotto apparently.

Sorry, sorry, Councillor.

I thought that would be useful for us to settle how we're going to deal with this.

I mean, in a way, rather than having to say, well, no, but I want this.

So let's just agree the rules of this evening.

My own view is that we come here in a bit of a sorrow

about putting something right, rebuilding trust with our residents and so on.

And I think I don't particularly want arguments about small things.

So let's agree the process tonight.

My own view would be that we should have a detailed introduction

to the regulators report and we should be able to go through

that on a page -by -page basis and then go

through the officer's report before we come to a conclusion

and whatever that is at the end of that.

I second.

Yeah, so the plan I had foreseen is that Kay would introduce the report

And then I would say something around to the effect, which I can say now, which is that

we really welcome tonight.

So we're kind of happy you called it because we think that this is really useful.

It was hopefully we'll take out some of the politics that were in the chamber when it

was brought up as a question and it allows us to have genuine officer engagement with

the processes that we're going forward on.

So I think this is a very important special meeting and to talk about it, this isn't a

normal meeting.

this a special meeting to respond to a very important particular issue. And we are willing

to take as many questions as you have. So don't feel like you have to, you know, we'll

introduce it, we'll go through the facts and the details and then we'll hopefully jump

into questions from, because my side will have as many questions as your side. So I'm

happy to, you know, the aim of this is to be as transparent and open for residents as

possible. Because I think it's important they get the facts because the last thing I want

this for residents to be scared or to not know what's going on.

One more point which is about, of course there is a reference to the local plan review in

here, so perhaps we'll cover that in the main paper debate.

And the second question is that we all had an email earlier about Burke Close, and it's

an issue that I'd raised with the officers quite separately from the email that we all

got.

So hopefully at some point officers will cover that I don't particularly want to make you know

Much about it because I'm sure there is an investigation on what on the way on that

So I could we agree on an order that we do regulate social housing

Or and then so introduction of the report then questions

Then we move on to planning and then finish with the discussion of but close as a specific piece of casework

Okay, thanks. So just to say as well, this is a summary really because we're going to

do a fuller, more detailed report to June, but it does cover all the main facts. So I

wanted to really cover when we were inspected, a bit about the process and then go into the

judgment. So we were notified in late summer 24 that we were due to be inspected and due

to the nature of our committee cycles, we agreed that they would, the inspection would

take place during November, so they could come to November committee, which I'm sure members remember.

So they attended a borough residence forum, a housing overview and scrutiny committee, and held in -person meetings with residents,

senior officers, and the cabinet member and leader over a two -day period.

So in those meetings, they really covered all the consumer standards and how we met those standards.

So those standards are quality and safety, neighborhood and community, tenancy and transparency,

influence and accountability.

So they've got set criteria within those about how they think you meet those standards.

And the gradings issued by the regulator range from a C1 to a C4 with a description of each

grade on the website.

The C just stands for consumer standards.

So in effect, the grades are 1 to 4, 1 being the best, 4 being the worst.

So Wandsworth received a C3 grading which means they did identify some

serious failings on the consumer standards and they were in relation to

the quality and safety standard which I'll come on to. And the council confirmed

and sorry not the council the regulator confirmed we were compliant on the

neighborhood and community standard and the tenancy standards so on those two

standards they confirmed we were compliant without highlighting any areas

we needed to improve on.

There were some areas identified for improvement on the transparency influence and accountability

standard, and some of those were around we acknowledged that although our formal resident

engagement structures were very robust, there was more work we needed to do on our informal

structures.

And although that's set out in our resident engagement strategy, we acknowledged there's

still more work to do in those areas.

So those were issues that were covered in that standard, but they weren't serious.

They were just issues that they highlighted that we need to improve on.

So the serious failings really were around stock condition.

So their view is that we should complete stock condition on 100 % of our properties.

So we argued that we have used the RICS guidance, which is an industry standard guidance, and

It's been a methodology that's been used for years in the sector, and that is where you sample a small...

So when we're saying stock condition survey, this isn't the only time we go into properties.

We're going in and out of properties all the time, but these are in relation to checking for health and safety hazard rating system, HHSRS.

I always get that one, sorry.

So the industry standard methodology was always that you did a, you sampled a small percentage of your stock,

and then you could clone that data across your stock to get your decency figure.

So it wasn't around, it's not the only way that you assess the quality of your stock,

but it is in relation to the stock condition methodology.

So to put that into context, in 2003 the council did a 1 % sample size, in 2012 a 5%,

and in 2022 we aimed to do a 10 % sample, but we were only able to access 1 ,106 properties,

which equates to 6 .5%.

And I think some of that issue was probably off the back of COVID

and people being reluctant to let it into properties.

So we argued that point on stock condition about that methodology,

but I think we've now acknowledged after discussion through the regulator

that that methodology, although it was fit for purpose up until recently,

is no longer what they expect,

and they actually expect a full stock condition survey

to be carried out on 100 % of stock.

So, we have now moved to that position and we're about to start a new, we've procured

it and the contracts are in place.

We're just getting ready with our IT systems really to get it all loaded up.

So, we're ready to start that this month and we are moving to 100 % on a five -year rolling

program.

So, 20 % sample every year and then at five years we'll have reached 100 % on tenanted.

And for communal areas we're inspecting 100 % over a two -year period.

So we're moving to what they expect to see.

The other issue was around electrical safety certificates.

So they need to be in place in the communal areas and tenanted areas.

And although we'd had a contract in place since 2021,

I think it's fair to say that we weren't in the position we would have hoped to be with that contract.

And it wasn't as far along as we wanted it to be.

And at the time of inspection on the communals, we'd only inspected 25 % of those.

So we'd only tested and got the ICRs for 25 % of the stock.

So you can see in paragraph 11, I've said that at the time of writing this report, we

were 88 % tested on communal areas and 70 % of homes.

And now I've got the latest figures.

We're at 95 % on communal and 76 % on tenanted.

So we're improving all the time.

and on the tenanted we aim to be completed by the end of this calendar year.

So those were the two series that they counted as the two series failings.

They also highlighted that we had 1 ,800 fire remedial actions outstanding.

So although we've completed 100 % fire assessments across our stock,

we still had 1 ,800 actions remaining that were overdue at the time of inspection.

So to put that into context, we had completed 38 ,000 actions.

And when a fire risk assessor goes to a block, they have categories for the seriousness of the actions.

And they range from serious, and these are their terminology, from serious down to trivial or best practice.

So of those 1 ,800 that were outstanding at the time of inspection, none of those were serious actions.

They were all at the lower level.

and now we're up to 1 ,200 outstanding actions.

So we've made quite a lot of progress

since we were inspected,

because I didn't say at the start,

we were inspected in November,

but our judgment was actually released in February,

so there's been various bits of back and forth,

and we were able to provide additional information.

So there are really the issues

around the safety and quality.

And just to say a bit more about the resident engagement

on the transparency influence and accountability standard,

and how we listen to residents' views

in those more informal ways.

We've already held two focus groups,

which Tom can talk more about, because he was at those,

around low levels of satisfaction

with repairs and complaints.

So we've already done two of the focus groups

that we said that we would do with residents.

That information will get published on the website,

and we agreed a series of short, medium,

and long -term actions.

Last year's residence conference was open to all residents,

regardless of whether people were involved

in the formal structures,

and that had the biggest turnout of residents

at one of our conferences so far, so we're continuing that.

And Tom also can talk more later about

what we're doing around other areas

to do informal resident engagement on our estates.

And that I think is, that is the bits I wanted to highlight

on the regulatory judgment.

So I'm sure you'll all have seen the judgment

that got posted.

It's not very long.

I mean in areas where we're compliant,

it just simply says we're compliant.

So I think that's what to expect from an inspection,

isn't it?

It doesn't really tell you what you've done well.

It just says the areas where you think you need to improve.

But we're now in a position where we're meeting

the regulator on a monthly basis,

and we've had our first meeting,

which is not long before we've got our next meeting,

is it, end of this month,

where we're agreeing an action plan with them.

So the first meeting really was just a case

of them running through the things that they thought

had been highlighted during the inspection,

and we were sort of cross -checking that

with our action plan to say,

and everything was on there really,

that we thought needed to be.

And that will present to June committee

once we're in a position where we've agreed it

with the regulator.

It's still a sort of draft document at the moment.

But that's what's happening now.

And I think we're engaging well with the regulator.

I think they're happy with what we've done so far.

And we look forward to the meetings.

We don't know how long they'll be going on

for their monthly until they're satisfied.

I think that we're progressing with the things

that we've promised and the cabinet members also on that and that's all the senior managers

on that meeting.

I think that's all I really wanted to say about that and just to say that in June we

will be able to come back with more detail.

I think it's still going to be the same things that we've said now but there'll be more detail

on progress and the action plan will give a bit more detail on some of those other areas

that we've said we're going to do.

But what I would say is, you know, while this isn't what we hoped for, you know, and I've

personally felt quite sad about the judgment.

It's all very fixable and we do genuinely think that the residents are safe in their homes.

We've done an FAQ on our website to sort of lay some of the fears of residents.

We're also going to put something more comprehensive in the June edition of Home Life, where we're going to explain more to residents.

We're also going to have the health and safety tenants satisfaction measures are going to go to committees.

So they're gonna go in the key performance indicators,

so that big suite of indicators you get.

They'll also be added to the area housing panel reports,

so the reports that go to the residents meetings.

So we're going to be more transparent

about where that information goes,

so everyone can see it.

And that will start on the AHPs from quarter one.

So that's coming soon.

Yeah, and I think, I mean, I said I'd finish,

and then I thought of loads more things to say, sorry.

But this time I have finished.

Something about complaint handling, which is in the regulator's report, and it's not

been covered in the introduction, so just perhaps a line or two about that, please.

So complaint handling was highlighted, we'd already picked up on it, obviously, because

in terms of the tenant satisfaction measures, it was very low, the satisfaction level there,

I think it was 16 percent.

So we had plans to hold a focus group to address that,

and that was held I think on the 25th of March.

So I attended, met with a group of residents there

to talk about their experience of the complaints process.

And we agreed various actions which will shortly be published

on the council's website and fed back to those residents.

And then obviously, as Kay suggested,

the repair satisfaction focus group,

there's some short, medium, and long term ones

that we put into place over the next few months.

And the latest tenant satisfaction measure data does seem to show

that there's already been improvement in complaints

and satisfaction with complaints.

It's more up to say 21 to 22 percent now.

So I think we're on the right track but there's obviously still a long way to go

and hopefully the focus group will ensure that that progress continues.

OK. Councilor Rigby.

Yeah. Hi. Thanks for that.

So when we go out and speak to tenants the thing that they really care about is their repairs and whether

the home is free of mold and damp and

we you know, there are cases of

Like very

Very long -term repair issues, you know going back many years things that have been neglected

What were we surprised there was no real mention of repairs damp or mold in the report?

I mean, the regulator engaged with us very thoroughly on this issue, and their conclusion

was that we generally offer an effective repair service, and that was reassuring because we

have put a lot of work over the past couple of years into improving the repair service.

As you've alluded to, it's still not where we want and need it to be.

The tenant satisfaction measure for repair satisfaction, which Kay referred to, was I

I think 53 % last year.

And again, indications are it's more at like 58 % now,

so it's kind of on the right track.

And we held a repair satisfaction focus group

to look at this and again have some actions

to take away from that that was really useful

to hear from residents about what their concerns are.

So we'll be implementing those over the next few months.

With DampenMould specifically,

we obviously set up the mold removal team,

which has been a success, I think most people would agree.

We grew that team last year and will be back in committee in June to essentially kind of

report back on how successful that's been, make sure we're ready for our law which is

coming to force on the 1st of October and also looking at just how we can improve our

response to that further.

So I think overall I suppose I'd say that yes, the regulator looked at it very closely,

said it was an effective service but we're not resting on the rules.

We want to make sure it keeps getting better and we're on track to do that

Counselor

Mr. Graham

Thank you very much

Mr. Crawley for that explanation. I'm it's well well done

I'm very interested in knowing

Who who you choose or who comes forward to these focus groups and do you have?

different tenants and leaseholders to others because I find that would be very

interesting. Is it two from BAPC, two from Pertney or two from, you know, of Pertuting?

How do you actually select that, your customers? So for the repairs focus group

it was primarily tenants and we spoke to people who had said that they were

satisfied when they completed the Tenant Satisfaction Survey and said they didn't mind being contacted

subsequently, but it also included tenants who had registered in our tenant participation

So it was a real mix of people, you know, ages, et cetera, and from across the borough.

So and the complaints were similar.

Again, it was people who'd responded to the Tenant Satisfaction Survey, weren't satisfied,

and so they were happy to put their views across and then a mix of people from the tenant

participation register.

The co -ops, we have ten co -ops and management.

How have you been able to bring those people into the discussions?

Because they have their own autonomy in a way and yet you kind of manage them.

How do you manage that?

Well, they were surveyed as well as part of the tenant satisfaction survey.

And I've been feeding back, well, I was engaging obviously heavily with the cooperatives while

the regulatory inspection was going on to make sure that they had all the data that

we had and were sharing it with us and then we were sharing with the regulator.

And then subsequently post inspection as well, we've been speaking to them about the outcome

of it and what they might need to do so that we make sure that the kind of improvement

or at least our improvements cover their stock as well.

Councillor Givinha.

Thanks, Chair.

Some questions about the process, the regulator's process.

As I understand it, they came here, well, the November meeting,

but the report took quite a while to write.

It's not unusual.

Presumably, the regulator's process is not unusual.

we had an advance copy of the report to tease out factual accuracies and such like and

just just confirm that and how long we had over that but turning to

their own inspection

How many days did they spend inspecting and how many properties did they inspect and across what sort of?

property profiles so that I get a grasp of

Their remit and how they exercise their remit

And the other question is where does the TMO and the co -op property sit in terms of the regulators purview of their functions?

And similarly, I mean, I know that they are interested in our landlord functions and therefore the leaseholders perhaps don't get to look in a sense.

But from our view as a council, where do we see the leaseholder interest in this exercise?

Because certainly the communal areas and safety of communal areas is a matter for leaseholders, if not the repressant and such like.

Ms. Wilma?

So I'll try and remember all of those questions.

And the first one, yes, we had an opportunity,

so we saw the draft regulatory judgment

and we had an opportunity to make corrections,

but like you say, it was just factual inaccuracies.

We did go back on that.

I think we had about seven days,

but I think because of the Christmas period,

it ended up being slightly shorter,

but it would have been seven days ordinarily.

They came, so we, I can't remember exactly when, but probably around September we submitted

daily information to them.

What we did is we wrote a big sort of narrative report really that was about 30 pages long

and had lots of links to documents and attachments and that set out how we felt we met each consumer

standard.

So we sent that in advance of them coming to talk to us.

They then only inspected for two days, so they came in and talked to us for two days.

We had a sort of core of officers and also the cabinet member and the leader in one of

the meetings and also they spoke to, I don't know if I mentioned that, a group of tenants

as well, which officers weren't present at.

But yeah, it was two days, was it even two full days?

Was it one and a half?

Yeah, it was one and a half days really of interviews and we then had an opportunity

to send more information if we had any, which we did send a bit more information, but we

didn't have lots because I think it was quite comprehensive what we'd sent the first time.

They don't go and visit the estates.

No, they don't enter any properties.

And it was quite interesting actually because I presented at Arch recently last week about

the regulatory inspection and the regulator was also there.

And they were saying of the local authorities that have been inspected so far, 53%, or was

it 54 %?

Both the same really, aren't they?

53 and 54.

Were in the C3 category.

And also, I mentioned about they don't inspect, but their view is really, in what we're trying

to do, we haven't got time to go out to the estates.

You'd take us to the, you'd probably just take us to the best estates.

We wouldn't get a full look at everything anyway.

So yeah, I mean that is a gap in what they inspect and there was something else wasn't I forgotten the other bit

In terms of whether cops and our most I mean the regulator treats co -op tenants as if they're council tenants, so it's really the same

And leaseholders

Sorry, yes on leaseholders. So you're right

they're only looking at tenants.

And also what you said is obviously correct.

The communal areas and things around the neighborhood

and community standard are equally relevant

to leaseholders around antisocial behavior

and how we maintain the communal areas

both from repairs and a cleaning

and gardening maintenance point of view.

Also, the satisfaction survey that we do every year

with those tenant satisfaction measures within them,

We asked that survey of resident leaseholders and tenants,

so although we only have to report on the tenant satisfaction to the regulator,

we report on both, and I think we agreed at the TSM report we did back in November,

we would make sure that they're both included in that,

because as you well know, our stock is 50 % tenanted, 50 % leasehold,

so while the regulator might not look at leaseholders,

because that's just as important to us and we need to consider them.

So on that, Chair, sorry.

And I thank you for referencing the November decision because I thought it was more firmer

than that, that we felt that the November paper, and I remember last year's paper,

talked about the President's, the tenant's point of view, and then we agreed that a similar

exercise for leaseholders should be undertaken.

So that's in the sense have we done that or is that in work in progress or will that happen in due course?

Well I would say from a point of view of the report

We will just include tenants and leaseholders in in in one report because I think that was you know

That was we should have done that in the in the last report really

But the survey is always leaseholders and tenants

Thank You chair

Yes, I'd also like to put two questions in one as it were.

So firstly, fire safety looms large in residents' minds,

especially since the Grenfell tragedy.

And I'm glad that later in this meeting we'll look in detail

at the fires in Bert Close in my board.

But could the officers say more about the 1 ,800 overdue

fire safety actions and the nature of those actions and what examples

what they might be. And also I'd like to talk about residence associations, being

a member of one myself, they're clearly a very good thing but and they do need to

be supported. But the regulators report pointed out that we need more systems in

place for people who don't have a residence association and in my

experience, evening meetings can be a barrier

and put some people off.

So when will we be able to test the hub model of engagement?

What's the timelines on that?

Thank you.

Scrolling.

So in relation to the fire risk assessment actions,

as Ms. Smallman said, they've reduced now

to 1 ,200 overdue actions, and we do expect

to clear all of those within the next few months.

Now, again, as Ms. Smallman said,

None of those actions are considered serious

by a fire risk assessor, but obviously it's

still important that we do clear them.

Many of them relate to the small communal areas

within acquired street properties.

So sometimes access can be a bit difficult to get in and inspect

and then deal with those issues.

There's also, in terms of examples

of what's outstanding, some of them

relate to recommendations about improving security to a block

or upgrading a roof hatch, for example,

or even something as simple as locking a meter box.

So they tend to be those sort of relatively minor

actions that we just haven't got around to completing yet,

but will do as I say over the next few months.

And again, it's worth looking at them

in the context of the 38 ,000 F4 actions

that we have cleared,

particularly in our sort of high rise blocks.

In terms of resident engagement,

We appointed a new resident participation manager,

pretty much while the inspection was on actually.

And they started first week of January,

and were working with him at the moment

to increase the number of resident associations,

because you say they're still a really important part

of our resident engagement process and formal structures.

But we also are looking very carefully

at capturing more tenants

through our informal engagement processes,

so that they can have an influence on the decisions that we make.

Because I think we've been really good historically about tenants influencing decisions at a really

local level on their estate.

So small improvement budget, big cycling closures in, et cetera.

But what we need to improve at is making sure that those tenants who maybe aren't members

of resident associations don't want to be members of resident associations can also

speak to us and offer their views on the kind of bigger strategic issues.

So we're looking at having some, as you said,

sort of hub -type model, you know,

engagement events that go around the estates

and probably are hosted in our club rooms,

inviting large numbers of residents to those

and having a kind of team of officers there

who can deal with those inquiries.

And I think as part of that, we'll capture,

what you said, we did kind of response to those,

but also try and capture their views

on wider policy decisions and issues

So we can find out what their priorities are and then act on them and we expect those to start probably around the summer

I would I think

Just want to see that we're still on the subject of resident engagement. I wanted to ask a question about communicating

the

the outcome of the

the regulators inspection and also what the council has been doing since to improve matters and you mentioned that

Yeah, there'll be something in home life and things on the website as well and that's all very good

But I think we're all aware that the vast majority of residents don't read home life

They don't go on the website

Probably the most direct way to get to residents is by setting a circle around and I think you've seen how short the regulators

Report is that you know it it wouldn't it would be quite easy to communicate the outcome of that report

And also what the council has been doing to rectify things and the two or three page circular other plans to

Deliver that door -to -door or or some kind of communication. That's as comprehensive as that I

Think it was so home life of course does get delivered to each door

So they have got an opportunity to read that

and we're gonna put something quite comprehensive

in the June one.

We'll also, I suspect, discuss it at the residence

conference which is in October.

Again, I know that's not all residents.

I think the view was in sending a circular letter

you might unnecessarily worry residents about

the safety in their home, but it is something

that we can, it's an option where we can still

put that into the service charge letters.

I mean personally I think I won't be alone around this table in thinking that's still

probably the best thing to do. I do get the point about scaring people but actually sometimes

you do need to get scared about things that are really important such as fire safety.

And obviously it's regarding very critical matters to residents. And yeah you're absolutely

right, we all get home life but somebody might flick through it, somebody might not open

it at all, whereas a circular, it says very clearly right at the top what it's about,

it's much harder for residents to miss the information. Given the importance of this

report and the things that it covers, I personally think it's difficult to get around the argument

that it would be probably the most efficient and comprehensive way to send a circular around.

We'll just note that then.

Councillor Rigby?

Yes, going back to the residents association.

So in my time as a Councillor, you do sort of talk to tenants and they sometimes express

there's a bit of a them and us in the estates.

And if things can get cliquey and sometimes it's not an inclusive space, the residence association.

So while the hub might mitigate for that,

what are the sort of rules around residence associations to make sure that tenants don't feel pushed out,

rightly or wrongly, can sometimes feel that they don't have a right to be there?

Every resident association will have a constitution that sort of sets out the behavior that we

would expect from those that form the committee and how that RA is managed.

But there probably isn't anything as specific as what you're referring to really about that

relationship between the people that run the committee and those on the estate.

Obviously they're expected to be representative of those.

And in order to become accredited they have to have members that are up to a certain percentage

depending on the size of the estate.

So one of the things that the new residency inspection manager is looking at is about

how we can increase the number of RAs.

So we had a focus group with residence association members in January, and we agreed to extend

the accreditation period for two years, basically to make it easier and less administrative

a burden for residence association to kind of reaccredit.

and we're also reviewing the RA handbook and that may well be something that we

come back to residence conference to kind of either present residents or to

consult with them on so that's being changed at the moment I think as part of

that we can have a look at the Constitution and see if there's anything

that we need to alter in there to make sure that the concerns that you raise

would be addressed. Yes so at the moment is there anything in that Constitution

that says right 50 % of this estate are tenants so therefore 50 % of this

Residents Association Committee must be tenants is it a specific can it be as

specific as that it isn't at the moment but I think that's something that we can

look at certainly thank you and just going back to what Councillor Shane was

saying as well we are going to report these in the area housing panels as well

so back to the RAs so they'd be perfect so there'd be transparency over our

progress and everything which the residents can discuss at the area housing panels and

possibly at the BRF as well.

Sorry, I'm going to Councillor Miss Graham.

Thank you, Chair.

I've always championed champions and I know I've always had to fight to make sure they're

actually on the area housing panel.

And I feel they are very committed

if they are coming to the housing panels.

There's also been discrepancies about whether they're

allowed to have a grant, because they're just housing champions.

And I've also found that in the past,

they've been the champion for their estate,

but they've never been consulted. I think that really is very, very sad that I actually have to

say this. So I'd very much like to know what kind of view is the Council taking as regards to where

champions stand. Okay, I know champions have tried to develop RAs, but they've championed

in the estate and they are happy to come and stand up for the estate.

So they do have their commitment but I think they must have more respect.

I think I might jump in here because it's a bit of a…

I would say that champions are in some ways the worst of both worlds

of the things that the report highlights because in some senses

you want to try and foster an RA but if you haven't managed

to foster an RA and therefore your estate doesn't have an RA, to just put one individual

forward that just slots into the very system that the regulators report.

Well, I think that's your opinion.

But what we're trying to move, basically we're trying to drastically move away from that

old model whereby the RA is, one, I think RAs are fantastic.

I want us to encourage our raise and I think that we need to foster more of them and where there isn't an RA

I think it would be a mistake to then just highlight one person in the champion role

That's why I think what I'm looking at post this inspection report is to move much more to that hub model whereby

Everyone on the estate rather than it being vested in one person gets access to officers access to a full day meeting

So it's not only people that can go in the evenings, it's not only people because your area panels have the same barriers.

So you're kind of slotting the champion into the existing system, which we think is good, but has these barriers.

So in some ways, what we're trying to do is actually move away from that and try and make it much easier for someone who's got a busy life.

They might have difficult working hours. They might have childcare responsibilities to get access where there isn't an RA present.

And I think that the champion model doesn't quite address that.

it might replicate some of the things that make the,

you know, it's almost like the RA but without the democracy. And so

what's good about the RA is the democratic element. So

that's a kind of more political point that I know the officers can't really get too

involved in, but that's why I wanted to come in because I think the most important thing for me is

fostering RAs where they work and where they're healthy,

but giving opportunity where RAs just aren't possible

because of the busy lives that people lead. And I think

I think that was a direction that we had been talking about

for a number of years, and this report strengthens

our move towards that.

We made the Residence Conference open to everyone,

not just people who are delegates to RAs.

That meant that it was the most attended that we've had.

So I think being a bit more flexible

with that kind of delegate model is important,

while not undermining the fantastic way the RAs do.

Because it's a bit like union density, right?

The RA is like the dream, where you have unionized the states

that has elected representatives and full participation and there's a whole accreditation

scheme. And what you don't want is just to have where there isn't that structure, one

or two people being able to just fit in as a kind of paper, what's the word, a kind of

plaster on it rather than addressing systematically more mass participation on that state. So

So we'll probably move away, if I'm honest, we'll probably move away from champions.

Yes, I welcome it because we want to get to the actual residents face to face.

And I'm very pleased to say that under the Conservatives we did that because there are

some estates who really don't want RAs and there are some estates which don't want champions.

And so it's like, you know, you coming to the estate that, you know, having a letter

to them and that gives them the opportunity to actually come and meet.

So we have tried that and it's very, very much welcomed and it'd be interesting to see

how it, but champions do have a place if they have a commitment.

And I agree where you're coming, but they're not sticky plasters.

I hope nobody is listening tonight who is a champion, says you are a sticky plaster.

Anyway, thank you, chair.

We obviously totally respect the work that the champions do, but it is not sustainable.

It is not a sustainable model.

Councillor Varifraj.

Thank you, chair.

I just firstly wanted to say, obviously, whilst the grading of the report is not something

anyone expected, I am actually really pleased to hear about all of the work that has been

and the grading has come out to address the concerns that the regulators have raised.

So thank you to the whole team and to our cabinet members.

I know he's really passionate about fixing these.

So my question was on the EICRs.

So during the inspections, I think it was 64 % of our talented properties were inspected,

whereas only 25 % of our communal areas were inspected.

So I just wanted to know why there was such a huge difference between the two.

Thank you.

Yeah, as Kaye Wilman has already said, I think we had a contract in place, but we weren't

making the progress required, and it wasn't until the inspector realized what loading

they put on this that we talked to the contractors to up the rates.

Just by way of background, every tentative unit is let with one of these certificates

in place, so they're not covered.

It's just that the regulator decided that in advance of the government movement this

is that tentative properties and social housing should be brought in line with the private

rental sector where you're required to have a certificate at letting, but then after five

years you have to repeat it.

So that's applied in private rental sector since 2020.

The regulator said that's what we expect you to do now even though the government is

still probably two years behind and it's not actually required.

With respect to common areas, it's still not a requirement and there's no proposal to make

it mandatory, it's really just best practice.

So some years ago the previous electrical manager said we really should be including

the common areas, but they're generally safe because they're, well they're communal, they

can't be interfered with, they fail safe and we're quite happy with the position now.

We're obviously, we need to do a bit more catch up on the tented units, but we've got

access issues that we don't have with the communal.

Now although we said the end of the calendar year, I'm hoping by the end of the summer

we'll have broken the back of this.

So yeah, I'm happy with the progress we've made.

We caught up very quickly.

Can I ask an additional question to that as well?

I mean, progress, I mean there's been a lot of work since Grenfell and with the regulators

report as well.

How would you assess our stock at the moment? Do you think it's as safe as it's ever been?

I don't think it's ever been safer. I think the issue now is that you have, if you're a private tenant in our block,

there's various protections that govern you. The same with our tenants, but a resident leaseholder doesn't have to do any of these checks.

They don't have to have the boiler service, they don't have to do asbestos checks, they don't have to have a smoke alarm, or a CO alarm.

So I think the government is starting to realize that you have this disparity between the sectors

and really we should be looking at safety of everybody in the bloc and not have this

tension between tenures.

But as far as our tenders are concerned, the blocs have never been safer.

That's rather reassuring in context of this report, isn't it?

So, Councillor McLeod.

Hello, and first off, apologies for lateness. Because I wasn't here at the beginning,

I didn't get to declare that I'm a council tenant, which I normally declare at the beginning

of the meeting, but I think that's particularly relevant with this. This report, I mean, like

I'm sure everyone around the table, is really worrying as soon as it came out. This is why

I became a councillor, you know, to speak up for people that live where I live and have

grown up, how I've grown up. So I think you've, this has already been said a number of times,

but I think it's really worth first off asking officers just to really reiterate that people

are safe in their homes, that, you know, the horror of Grenfell, all that sort of stuff

isn't, that's not what this report is saying. So that's first off. And then secondly, on

just a more minor point is that looking at the stock surveys, is it right that we only

looked at 6 % of the homes that we're responsible for? I get that that's what, you know, that

might well be the methodology that we've used, but it does seem a bit shocking, to be honest.

Can I add a little bit to that as well? I mean, did we previously do 20 % a year, or

or was it always a small sample?

No, so we had previously done, I think I did mention it,

we did a 1 % sample in 2003, 5 % in 2012,

and in 2022 we aimed to do 10%, but only got into 6 .5%.

So we've always done a small sample,

but that has increased over the years.

We did a very small sample in 2003,

And we were proposing to do a 20 % sample of tenants anyway, so we were going to go to a higher sample.

But as I've said now, we're going to 100 % over five years.

And Tom can give a bit more understanding about going into properties.

because of course for a complete stock condition survey, we did only go into 6 .5 % of properties.

But that isn't the only time that we're going into properties.

We're going into properties all the time with occupancy checks, voids, repairs.

and Tom can give you a better idea of what those numbers are.

So yeah, I mean in terms of inspections other than the stock condition survey, we access

and inspect about 15 ,000, well do 15 ,000 repair inspections a year, 2 ,000 occupancy checks

at least every single year, and then in addition to that we also have 1 ,200 properties that

we obviously process as vacant properties, so prepare them to be re -lit.

So yeah, there's obviously the stock condition survey, but separate to that our officers are going into properties all the time

Checking the condition of them and responding to residents concerns

Yeah, thank you, it's just just on that sorry um is there no way of just for efficiencies

There's no way of rolling these all into one

Thing you know when we go into a home. We do this we do week and

Was that just fanciful I?

I wouldn't go as far as to say fanciful, but the stock condition survey follows the health

and housing rate safety rating system.

So they're trained officers who undertake those inspections.

I think we have all been thinking about how can we be more efficient in our visits and

whilst I'm not sure that an estate manager could quite carry out a stock condition survey,

we definitely think in some of the visits they do there's more opportunities to do a

more comprehensive inspection or ask more questions.

So we have been looking at that.

I don't know if you want to add anything in.

Yeah, I think we do need to get smarter with our interaction with the tenants.

I mean, just as an example, we do gas safety checks every year.

And as part of that check, we ask the engineer to check the door closer.

So it's nothing to do with gas, but obviously they're in the property already.

So if there's a working door closer, we tick off that door check at the same time.

So I think as part of the post -mortem for this is that we need to look at being smarter

when we get into the people's properties so that we're picking up other issues once we're

in, such as some of the major hazards when we're doing occupancy check, or we check with

the resident if there's any disrepair in the property.

So it's a work in progress and we're alive to the fact we need to be smarter in our approach.

Councilor Mr Graham.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to go back to when we were talking about leaseholders, how the tenants have to

have, they feel safe in their homes and yet leaseholders are, you know, don't have, although

they have the safety, they don't have the commitment to that. I think this really comes

into being when you have TSM, I think it's the time to have an LSM because with a group

of leaseholders in discussion, you'll be able to work towards your commitment and what's

the word responsibility to their safety as well, even though you know it's safe.

And it's a kind of an education and a reality of, I think, a best practice going forward.

I think your wishes have just come true.

Yeah, we do measure leaseholder satisfaction as part of our normal work.

I think it would be good to help these holders to have control of it and a voice.

I'm glad you do.

It is very important because it's best practice, but to actually have 50 % of these holders

of tenants.

I'm just thinking it would be also easy for council officers as well.

This is a real conundrum though, because we've got statutory levers, statutory duties, obligations,

et cetera, around our tenants.

And as Mr. Stewart said, if you're a private tenant in one of, say, a leaseholder's property,

you're covered by that regime as well.

If you're a leaseholder, it's entirely your decision whether you get your gas boiler serviced

each year and signed off or whether you leave it a year or two.

And there's nothing really, as far as I'm aware, that as the freeholder of those properties,

we've got any levers to push that at the moment.

it's really a matter for central government to legislate, I would suggest.

I think I just want to come in on this particular point.

And you know, I want to state everything I say is that the last thing we want is a kind

of tension between the solder and tenant.

And I think we work really hard to try and stop that.

And that's why we use the term residents, because these are people who live on our states,

right?

We want to break down any of that.

But genuinely, even the fact that it's come up

quite a lot at this committee,

when this paper is specifically about tenants,

does show the challenge in Wandsworth

because of the number of leaseholders that we have.

And our participation structures as they exist currently

are the majority leaseholders.

And so I think it is just interesting,

and I think it's something we should all reflect on

in terms of the culture of this council is how we do try and change that.

I think it's right that the report brought that up.

And I, I see some of that in the discussions that come every cycle around,

you know, what is I think our estates will be better and safer

if we get to a better balance. I think we're not quite there yet.

And I think we can get there.

And, you know, Mr.

Glockner has already come forward with loads of ideas.

You know, we're going to a specific participation conference in May

that Mr. Goughan will be attending. I think leaseholders also really want more tenant

engagement in our structures and it isn't this kind of zero sum game. But we do have

to be mindful that the report is very specifically pointing out that tenant engagement is weaker.

And I think that all of us should take that on board and that should be something that

we are acting on as representatives.

And we've brought specific papers

around leaseholder reform.

I do actually think, as administration,

we have done quite a lot.

We do personal visits now, particularly

on democratizing major work, so giving people

more forward access on schemes when they're coming forward.

But I think actually what I think, in my mind,

the focus at the moment now is to try and get much more of our tenants into that policy

making space, because I think there is rightly a criticism from the regulator on that. And

that is part of the, you know, Wandsworth is the home of Right to Buy. It's a place

with a very high lease holder density. And so some of those ghosts are catching up with

us. And I think I think it's incumbent of us to try and try and get the balance right.

Councillor Gichain.

Thank you chair. I'd like to go back to the stock surveys. It was mentioned that the council

was following an industry standard which has perhaps become obsolete. I'm aware that in

April 2024 that new consumer standards were introduced by the regulator of social housing.

I think they came into being around about April 2024, but notice of those changes were

made prior to that particular point.

First question is, the new practice that the Council is following, is that based on the

updated consumer standards that were introduced in April 2024?

And if that's the case, why haven't they been introduced from that point? Because

it sounds like the council was following the old model up to the point where the

regulatory judgment came out and because of the regulatory judgment it's updating

its procedures. So I wanted a bit of clarity around that. At what point did

the council become aware of new practice and at what point did the council start

following that new practice.

So the consumer standards don't quite specifically say,

you must have done an HHS -OS assessment of 100 %

of your stock.

What they say is, you must have an understanding

of the quality of your stock.

And I think what we've learned through the inspection

is that the only valid answer to that, as far as they're

concerned is through an HHSRS assessment, which we didn't think was clear before that.

And what we argued is the points that Tom's raised around the number of inspections we

do anyway, voids, repairs, occupancy checks, and all the different types of inspections

we do that do, for the different reasons we go in, they also assess the quality of the

stock.

But they're, unfortunately, we didn't win that argument.

and their view was no, you can only fully assess

the quality of the stock if you do that

through an HHS -RS assessment.

So that's why we have now moved to that position.

So I think it was a valid argument,

the RICS model that we followed.

And also, I think we could give examples

of going into our stock,

but it just wasn't sufficient for them.

And I think we've realized now that there,

I think it wasn't really clear,

but we've realized now that their view

is that that isn't fit for purpose and we must move to the new methodology.

So that's why it was a bit of a grey area.

And that will mean that 100 % of the stock will be seen after five years?

And then that will be a rolling programme so it will continue.

20 % every year for five years.

Councillor Covington.

Sorry, just a question on the RICs.

I mean, I always understood that they set the industry standard on sampling, but that

industry standard was changed by RICS themselves and increased from the previous 1%.

Am I wrong in that?

Quite apart from what this report says.

But that's, you know, it's a factual thing whether yes or no.

But can I just go back to two things?

Firstly, I welcome the point about the tenant -leaseholder

relationship being, in a sense, even -handed relationship.

This council's worked very hard in making sure

that it's an even -handed relationship between the two.

It's not in the council's interest

or whoever is in charge of this council politically.

It's not in the council's interest

to have divisions on our estates, frankly.

and we have largely maintained that kind of divide -free state regime.

So that's welcome your own commitment to it and Council's continued commitment to it.

So that's very good.

But also, Mr. Stewart talked about almost using every inspection to build up an incrementally

complete picture or as complete a picture as possible, which kind of leads me to the

challenge of skilled observation.

Not everyone is going to be skilled in observing whatever they observe.

I mean, that's one of the problems with inspections, that you are – there is a shortage of people

who are qualified to do it.

people move around, people don't have the same eye

and the same knowledge.

So there is a cost to that.

Which then brings me to the $130 ,000.

I think it was the assumed cost of this particular additional

burden on the council.

So two questions about that.

One is, was the 130, which is the regulator's assessment,

And is that a fair and correct one?

He talked about seven to eight pounds per inspection

or something like that.

I mean, it seemed to me not necessarily good.

And so was the $130 ,000 based on sample inspection,

or was it based on 100 % inspection?

So I just want to understand that $130 ,000 figure

and whether that's been covered in the new burdens funding.

Sorry, I'm not sure where that 130 ,000 figure.

I think it's in your previous papers on this issue.

I think it's not in this paper, but I think in one of the earlier papers.

Was that where we had the cost of carrying out the stock condition surveys?

I think that, yeah, so I don't remember per property, but when we originally came with

our last proposal for the stock condition survey.

That was when we were going to do 100 % of communals over two

years and 20 % of tenants in its entirety.

So that figure has gone up.

I've got the paper here.

So what that says is that the recent consultation next to this

is the comments of the director of finance.

The recent consultation exercise on the proposed regulator

of social housing's fee structure

indicated the cost for the council

based on an estimate of seven to eight pounds per unit per annum is likely to be in the region of

130 ,000 pounds per year and then she then goes on to talk about a new burdens funding.

That's sorry that's the fee that's the fee that the regulator charges so if you add the social

housing regulator the building safety regulator and the ombudsman together we pay about three

of a million a year in fees. So that's for the pleasure of being regulated.

It's not the cost of the stock.

So, well, I think that's where I'm probably heading.

Given this inspection, clearly putting things right is one thing,

and then keeping it right for forever is another thing,

and there is inevitably a cost to that.

And the paper here is silent on the cost

of either putting it right or continuing

to maintaining it to be right.

And that's something that hopefully the June paper

will pick up.

But are you able to make a stab at that figure,

and what sort of cost we're talking about and how would that translate in perhaps additional pressures on the HRA and perhaps on the rent roll?

I think the stock condition is 190 ,000 a year for five years but I will have to double check that.

But I would say yes, that more of that will need to be in the June paper because the other

expense that we're only still grappling really is everything around fire safety.

So I didn't mention that.

It's not specifically in the regulatory inspection.

They didn't ask us that much around fire safety.

But obviously at the same time, we've submitted 23 building safety cases.

And depending on what information is coming back on that and what surveys we need to carry

out, that could be a huge cost.

And they've also got an hourly rate for reviewing our safety cases.

I think 151 is our hourly rate.

And we've got estimates that it takes 200 hours, is it?

The early ones have taken about 200 hours to review.

120, we've exaggerated there, sorry, 120 hours.

So we haven't been billed for a single one of those yet.

So they're supposed to invoice us monthly on their expenses.

So I think there are lots of expenses coming, a lot of which are still unknown, but certainly

on StopCon I can confirm those figures because I'm trying to remember off the top of my head,

but I do have those.

What I'm really heading is that saying that the June paper hopefully will have that full

financial burden paragraph, but also hopefully it will distinguish between putting things

right and keeping them right.

I mean, in a sense, that's the way I see it.

And I think it's important for building trust with our residents that yes, we've been found wanting.

We have addressed it seriously. We have put this much effort and cash into that.

And we are putting this much in making sure that we remain ticketed for the future.

I think that's the kind of clear message that we need to give to our residents.

And I hopefully that June paper will do that.

I have one further thought about this and I drew on the experience of the children's

services inspection where being found wanting became a challenge of putting things right,

which also meant that putting things right was a bipartisan approach and it was an approach

or a single council approach.

And that was the way to build faith with parents and school leaders.

And I'm, the paper is not talking about this,

and I really want you to consider, and perhaps amend our recommendation to that effect,

that once the action plan is agreed, the progress of the action plan

should not just simply rely on a committee discussion and committee paper where there

are no further pressures, but to borrow the model from that children's inspection.

To say, well, there are small groups, perhaps two majority side and one minority side with

officers to actually go line by line with the action plan and to have tenants representative

on it.

So in a sense, it's an exercise to say, well, OK,

this is a challenge, and we are going to grab it and get it

right.

Because otherwise, what it'll look like is we've ticked

our boxes, and we've gone from C3 to C2 or whatever.

I mean, I think our ambition should

be that we're going to get it right,

so we are a C1 next time.

There are two things in that I just want to come in on.

So the first, you know, in the many nights after this, you know, that I lay awake thinking, you know, what could we have done differently?

I, I always come back, you know, I think it was hard for us to have immediately gone.

I know we're going to change the methodology through which we do our stock condition as our primary function, because we as elected officials and I think, you know, particularly on this side, our main priority when we took control of the council was the repairs.

and mold and damp and the kind of casework issues that ended up not being the main focus

of the report. And so, you know, and the financial burden that you raise is it was was relevant

to the methodology. You know, if we are inspecting 15 ,000 properties through repair services,

you know, councils are strapped for cash. Are we going to immediately commit to 100 %

stock condition? That's the that's the direction the wind are going. This report is basically

saying that is where we want you to go, we're going to do it. Now, the thing I don't want

to happen is in order for us to meet the requirements of the report, we do kind of forget the things

that our tenants continuously are raising with us that affects them. Because of the

1800 FRAs, I don't think those are the things at the front of the tenants' mind. It's a

scary headline when they read it, but when they realize it's no smoking signs in the

communal corridor, that isn't the thing that is frustrating them. It's these core parts

of the service which we still have to focus on. So I take it, I'm actually very happy,

and I think the governance review will probably mean that there is some form of structure

through which we can do this bipartisan. I would very much like to be able to give you

regular updates. They're there to be a tenant representative, for a member of your side

to sit in on that with me and Kay sounds like a very good idea. But the only kind of addendum

I have is that the key function of our role as a landlord, the bits that I still think

need lots of work, the fact they aren't mentioned in the report doesn't mean we kind of drop

those and we only now focus on Stockholm or we only now focus on EICSs. I think we use

it as an opportunity, particularly in the tenant

participation structures, to really kind of revolutionize

some of those structures, get tenant voice in,

and use this as a launchpad, like you say,

to get to that C1, to not just tick boxes on, OK, we, you

know, because frankly, by the date

of the publication of the report,

we had actually caught up with the things

that were highlighted.

But we have to use the seriousness of this report

to really challenge the council to bring all the standard up.

And so basically my answer is yes,

but also I don't want to go down a purely report focused

response to this.

We keep the repairs and mold and damp and lifts and fly

tipping and antisocial behavior, even though the report thinks

we're good on that, our tenants definitely

want more action on that too.

To this, I mean, I entirely agree.

I mean, in a sense, we can't put hold

on all our other responsibilities, which is one reason why I'm saying take this out and

put it on one side and report more formally to committee and get ownership of that report,

which is what, and I'm sure officers and children's services will assist in saying how that, the

schools carried on teaching and people carried on setting exams and that debate carried on,

But the committee that it sucked with to try and get back to an outstanding standard for

children's services was a much more detailed, sleeves rolled up job.

And I think this is what it requires here, and we should do that.

And perhaps the action plan gives us almost a sub -KPI for getting this going.

I'm up for the seriousness of that.

It comes with some, you know, there's a bit of give and take.

No scary leaflets delivered to residents that have misinformation.

I'm up for it.

I'm up for it, Revi.

So we can do it.

And I'm not talking necessarily about your political party.

The close issue, which we'll come on to later, is a prime example of politics scaring residents

unnecessarily.

I'm hoping that we, you know, the Democracy Review and the kind of thing you're talking

about here will actually make it a more kind of serious and rigorous process.

Yeah.

Be on the eye and say this really.

But in a way, I don't think I'm not really concerned very much about what Democracy Review

says.

I'm almost focused on this to a very set number of people to whom we have much more intimate

responsibilities.

We are their landlord.

I mean, these are people who rely on us for shelter

and all of those things.

And I think that the way to overcome

the kind of politicization is for the council

to be muscular in his approach of putting it right

and getting that message out saying the council is putting

it right.

And I think that if you've got that through,

then the other leaflets don't cut ice with people.

And of course, politics is always

going to be full of challenge and debate.

But I think there is a way of cooperating and getting through to solving this particular dilemma

that's been thrown in our lap. Ms. Graham.

Thank you. On another action point, which actually came in the paper 2407.

That's a long way away, wasn't it?

It's as regards to the appointment of the health and safety lead, which is very important

with the efficiency and authority.

As regards to failure, you will get enforcement.

And also it does tie in with the Arabs law in a way, as regards – because as what Mr.

you had a long discussion with the regulators about Arabs law and it actually comes within

health and safety so I just would very much like, I mean you may be putting it in the

June paper but we're asking the question and I'd like to maybe.

Is that a paper that specifies a role, sorry? Yes, yes it was 2407 and I've brought it

into this as you didn't mention it.

I think that's probably the role of the building safety lead.

So his role, Jonathan, he's in my team.

He's really involved in writing the building safety case

reports for the high rise buildings.

And he was quite heavily involved in dealing with the FRAs

and helping guide us on what decisions to make

about some of those actions.

But his involvement is really fire safety,

but it's some of those areas.

but our health and safety responsibilities are split into different areas.

So here at the moment is just a one man band really.

But those building safety case reports are reports setting out to the building safety regulator,

not the social housing regulator, why we believe our buildings to be safe.

So he's doing that and we've done it on 23 so far of the 148.

It's just that health and safety is health as well as safety in the Arabs laws and I

just put the two together then.

Thank you, Chair.

We're all obviously disappointed by the outcome of this inspection and it seems to have caught

people on the hop and I was just wondering whether there was an opportunity for the council

to ask of the regulator of social housing what they expected to see on inspection and

whether that was done and if it was done whether an answer was forthcoming.

Yes, well there were opportunities to ask them but they didn't really answer the question.

So we went on lots of, so we're part of London Councils obviously and also ARCH, the Association

for Retained Council Housing, so we had lots of opportunities to have discussions and seminars

with people from the regulator, they weren't really forthcoming with exactly what they wanted.

We also had a few housing providers who had been inspected, but

I think the issue with us is because we've been inspected so early in the process,

because the process started in April, there weren't that many people to ask about what they found.

So I think if we'd have been inspected in a year's time, we'd be in a better position where we'd have said,

well X number have already been inspected, and they've said to look out for all these different things.

So I think because we've been inspected relatively early, we're in the early days of knowing

exactly what they expect.

So I think that is a bit why we've been caught on the hop.

And how many London councils have been inspected?

So far, today, six London boroughs have been inspected in the formal inspection.

If you look on the regulator's website, you'll see other boroughs who've had what's called

regulatory notice, which is where either the borough is self -referred or, for example,

the housing ombudsman has referred a wider concern than just one case to the regulator.

But only six have been inspected under these terms, and it's pretty much the figure that

was mentioned earlier.

Three have come out, C3, one C4, one C2, one C1.

So, you know, if in two years' time it may turn out that C3 is kind of the initial default

judgment, we don't know yet.

It's too early to say.

Okay.

Are we happy to receive this information?

I mean, I think we've got to a point where we can move on.

But just one thing.

on my front page action set up a task and finish group specifically for so I'll send an email around.

Yeah, and so if Mr. Kelly could reflect that in the minutes of this meeting then that would be helpful.

And I think that we can make sure that it's as broadly participatory in terms of politics as possible.

One other question is kind of coming through the inspectors report is about I

think it's kind of implied comment maybe a criticism. I think it sort of talks

about more tenants and it's almost like saying that when we are consulting and

engaging we are not engaging with as broad and as wide a range of tenants. I

know what they mean and perhaps the action plan discussion could address it

Because I think that we probably need

to look at ourselves in the mirror

and ask whether our current structure

and our representation on the current structures

is reflective of both our resident profile.

And I don't mean in terms of how many people

are minority in all that.

I mean in terms of people with both an interest

in the state and longstanding residency

and actually aptitude for getting messy with decision making.

One could become quite a cozy club after a while in some places,

and particularly RAs can become much like this.

I just think we need to be quite brutal in fairly assessing how, you know,

challenging our engagement is from in terms of empowering them to make the point about

their satisfaction standards.

I think that's one of the actions from here.

We discussed that and that's definitely going to be one of the things that we'll be looking

at.

Can we receive a question?

And can I just ask for a brief comfort break before we move on?

Is that okay?

Cheers.

Thank you.

Okay.

So part two.

Okay.

So this is around the planning.

No blood was spilled.

So yeah, this is the planning part of the paper.

Mr. Goodman, would you like to just give us a brief outline of this, please?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, so good evening, Councillors.

I know I'm not often here, but just to introduce myself, my name is Daniel Goodman.

I'm a principal planner in the council's spatial planning team.

So I'm here just to really introduce, because I know there's some interest in it,

the GLA's recent response to the council's Regulation 19 consultation on its local plan.

So just to give a little bit of a quick refresher, the council consulted on the Regulation 19's

version of its local plan partial review from January to February of this year.

So that was a version of some draft policy updates that were approved by the cabinet

following scrutiny from the transport committee.

So that consultation is effectively the last stage in the process before the council submits

its draft local plan policies to the Secretary of State to be examined.

And as part of that process, the council attracted around 115 consultation responses.

One of those consultation responses is from the GLA.

I think there's a printed copy of that response should Councillors be interested in it.

Just to kind of briefly outline the GLA response, I mean, I think the point I'd like to stress

is that it is routine for the GLA to respond to local plan consultations in London, and

it is fairly routine for them to raise some concerns about local plan policies, but there's

very much a proper process in place through that examination, which is led by a planning

inspector for those considerations to be explored in the context of the council's evidence and

also any evidence provided by other representatives, including, of course, the GLA.

So very much the council will have an opportunity to respond to all responses through that proper

process, and that's very much an evidence -led discussion led by the inspector.

Just to kind of summarize the GLA response as briefly as I can, I mean, I think it's

It's probably fair to say that across the policy changes the council's looking at,

there's probably 40 to 50 different components that you could identify.

So the vast majority of those components haven't attracted any kind of negative comment from the GLA,

but there are four or five in the GLA's response that they've highlighted.

So it's very much the expectation of offices that will work with the GLA and

the inspector through that examination process to explore that further.

Clearly, the council is confident in its policy position.

We feel that it's justified and we've prepared evidence to that effect.

So very much, I suspect that that will be the position that will be maintained, but

will very much be led by the planning inspector appointed.

And obviously, we will take their lead in terms of any further evidence they might require

or any moving deep into the later part of this year, any potential modifications that

they may want us to consider.

So just in terms of a little bit about timings, so the spatial planning team that I sit within

is very much focusing on processing and analyzing the responses at the time being.

So as I said, they're around 115 received.

Once that process is concluded and we're able to take stock of the responses, we will be

looking to submit the local plan along with a copy of all of the responses received and

all of the evidence that we will be relying upon to the Secretary of State.

So we're hoping to do that by the end of this month.

Following that process, there will be a planning inspector appointed and we'll expect examination

in public hearings to take place later this year.

I think our best guess is probably around the autumn time or perhaps late summer if

we're lucky.

Following that process, we will participate in the hearings.

We'll obviously make our case for the policies we put forward and participate in that process

as you'd expect, and then we'd expect to be in a position we hope to adopt the policies

in the early part of next year.

So I'm very happy, Chair, to take any questions on that.

I know typically local plan items go to Transport Committee, not Housing Committee, so I'm very

happy to answer any questions about the past process or the GLA's response, whatever would

help the councillors.

Thank you.

And thank you for coming to the committee tonight, Mr. Goodman.

Any questions?

Thank you chair.

The GLA has criticized the council's decision to set the affordable housing target at 45 %

rather than 35 % and it seems that 35 % has a proven record of success, I think an 84 %

success rate with applications and is deemed to be more achievable.

So I'm wondering what specific evidence that this council is using to stick by the higher threshold

particularly given the warning from the GLA that actually it could lead to a

reduction in affordable housing provision

The 45 % is the fast track it's not actually the level of affordable housing so we mean

I'm just going to come in because I think it is. It's important we don't litigate the

inspector at this committee. I'm happy for Daniel Goodman to come back by just just so

we're all on the same page as to how this gets discussed here because the kind of politics

of why this decision is being made was transport committee. I'm happy to take political questions

on it, but what I just really don't want us to do is to try and, anything that will prejudice

the actual inspectorate that is a public inspectorate that will go through the evidence.

That's not my intention, but this is a public document and it has direct relevance to this

committee because it's about affordable housing targets and this council has sort of built

its reputation. Arguably its flagship policy is to build more social housing and the GLA

response is saying that actually, I mean it's an opinion and the council may have a counter

opinion, but it's an evidence based opinion that actually the council's targets are unachievable.

So I think it is something that's definitely relevant to this committee and is worth discussing.

Go on Daniel, you get your turn.

Thank you.

I mean, what I definitely can offer, which I think would probably resolve some of these

questions, albeit not right this second, is we produced alongside the consultation a housing

background paper, and that very much played out all of the evidence that we have prepared

and that we have collated and that's been prepared by others and gave our interpretation

of that in the context justifying the policies.

So that's quite a long document.

Obviously, there's lots of different strands

to the argument around relationship

with national policy, relationship with housing

supply, viability, and so on.

So it's far too detailed, really, to summarize.

But I'm very happy to share that.

I think the only other thing that I think

would be also relevant to consider

is the fact that there are a number of other London

Local plans which have set thresholds higher than the London plan level

So there is a precedent for thresholds in excess of 35 %

including Islington and Suffolk

and so I

Think it's probably fair to say in summary that obviously some of the concerns raised by the GLA are pan London concerns and

It remains very much an active part of plan making that policies need to be locally justified as well

So there is a judgment to be made for the inspector and one that we hope you know

He will obviously side with us on around the fact that where it's possible to identify that there is local justification to do to do something

different, you know ie

Because some of the concerns raised by the GLA when weighted against our own evidence

You know or not to be given as much weight then that's for the inspector to decide

So very much happy to share that background paper with all counselors. I think it would be interesting

to them.

And also very happy, I should have said at the start, to keep councillors informed of

the progress of that local plan and any kind of key milestones in that so that they can

stay engaged in that process.

But I very much just want to say that there is precedent for evidence overcoming that

kind of broad point made by the GLA on the threshold in particular.

Sorry, could I just very quickly ask, am I right in thinking that this council's own

viability assessments have raised questions about that threshold?

So just as a general point, I mean that the purpose of a whole plan viability assessment

is to consider, which is the evidence base practically that the council has prepared

on this, is to consider the likely viability of the types of site that the council is expecting

to come forward.

And there's a very broad range of different types of sites tested in different value areas

of the borough and things like that.

It's a very comprehensive assessment.

It's not the role of the whole plan viability assessment to conclude that every single conceivable site would be viable at the level.

Otherwise, we'd end up having to set 0 % affordable housing policies.

So very much our interpretation, which is set out in that housing background paper,

is that a majority of the likely development sites that come forward in the borough over the next 15 years would be viable at a 45 % threshold.

And therefore, the policy is deliverable.

and that there's mechanisms within the policy to deal with,

effectively deal with sites that could not afford

that 45 % threshold.

So that's a general position that's been made on that.

And we, there are, we have past plans

that have reached 50 % affordability,

and also 70 % of that being social rent homes as well.

Is that a yes?

Yes, sorry.

Yes, sorry, Chair.

Yes, I think that's also relevant evidence that the fact that there are proven sites

where it's been possible to achieve that, you know, is also a demonstration that the

market has an ability to meet those proposed high requirements.

And the point that Councillor Gichain made earlier on about 45%, that's 45 % for fast

track, isn't it?

So that you don't have to go for a viability report.

Yes, Chair.

So the construction of the policy is fairly complex

at first reading, but hopefully kind of makes sense

as you go through it, but essentially, yes,

there would be a 45 % threshold,

which if private sites, so sites in private ownership met,

they would not have to provide viability evidence.

However, there are various review mechanisms

and other mechanisms in the policy

which would encourage them and incentivize them

to reach the 50 % target.

But it is a 50 % threshold for all public land and also any land coming forward that's presently

in a protected industrial use in the rare instances where that would be appropriate

for residential development.

So those latter two thresholds, the two 50 % examples are derived from the existing London

plan.

So it's very much only that private site threshold that's changed.

Thank you.

Councillor Givinha.

Thank you, Mr. Goodman.

I just want to go back to the timelines in this.

So the local plan was agreed by the council in 23 June, I think, or July, whatever.

But because of the Regulation 19 review, in effect, that's in abandons

until the Regulation 19 review has gone through.

You said the Regulation 19 process come to a kind of conclusion in spring next year.

that's your expectation. Do we have any indication of from pins as to what is the period of time

the inspector will need to sit and then write his report for?

Thank you, Councillor. I think just to address the point around pins timings, so our published

which is our kind of best estimate of these things,

assumes a late summer, early autumn examination hearing.

We're only anticipating one week of hearings because it's quite a narrow review.

And we're hoping the narrow nature of the review means it will be, not to overuse that phrase, but

effectively fast -tracked relative to full local plan reviews which require several weeks of hearings.

So really our best evidenced guess, if you like, for

the timetable would be that we would have those hearing sessions in late summer, early autumn.

Look to undertake any additional consultation required in autumn and hopefully receive the inspector's letter before the end of the year.

That's the intention.

We are slightly beholden to pins in terms of their level of resourcing and other things.

But we will obviously be doing our best to progress it as soon as possible.

If I may just return to the other point around the existing adopted local plan.

Very much the existing adopted local plan remains in force.

I think the relevant point for me to make is just around the weight that can be given

to the emerging policies in advance of those examination hearings.

So we have given some advice and worked with development management colleagues in terms

of the weight that can be given to those policies in terms of the Planning Applications Committee

and how decisions are made.

And very much the kind of guidance in the MPPF or the national planning is around looking

at the policies in the context of the level of unresolved objection, is the wording in

the MPPF.

So we will kind of continuously issue new advice to development management and work

with members on the planning applications committee.

But it's certainly the case for the time being that there are elements of the policies which

are capable of being applied at this stage.

And there's probably elements of the policies which it is better to wait until those hearings

have taken place and that we're able to work with the inspector on those.

So just as an example, there's mechanisms in the policy to require contributions from

sites smaller than 10 dwellings.

I think our current advice has been that it's better not to seek to apply that until those hearings have taken place.

Partly because the construction of that part of the policy could change.

There's different ways of achieving it and it seems it would be unfortunate for

us to implement one mechanism only to find the inspector prefers a different mechanism and that everything needs to change.

We will continue to give that advice and we are happy to advise and inform officers and

members alike on the kind of status of those policies as they progress.

I guess the more general point is that we can always encourage applicants and developers

to voluntarily meet the requirements of those policies soon as there is nothing forbidding

us from doing that.

As I said, we will continue to give advice on the status of the policies for decision

making in the run up to the hearings.

You mentioned Islington and Southwark.

Any more apart from those two?

So yeah, sorry.

Yes so Hackney is also an example.

I think the construction of Hackney's policies is slightly different.

So Hackney doesn't have a fast track route at all.

But they have a 50 percent requirement.

So there are definitely precedents out there.

I think I'm right in saying that Tower Hamlets are looking to advance a 40 % threshold.

They're also looking to introduce a 10 -year split, which is a slight difference to what

the London Plan sets out.

So there's definitely a world -traddling path and a path that's continuing to be trodden

around these issues.

Yeah, I think we've got – I made a list.

I had nothing to do on the first night.

But Brent, Talhamlet, Merton, Basilden, Ealing, Basilden, not London Borough particularly, but Ealing as well.

I think in a sense the issue of course is in the Merrill letter kind of makes it clear,

it's about the relationship between the London plan and the Borough plan. That's the issue.

That's why Basilden's not a relevancy.

I think the reason why I was grumpy about this is because, you know, it's a letter in

which the GLA goes, don't do the thing different to what we want you to do. And obviously lots

of people with an interest in reducing the amount of affordable housing are going to

try and play a divide on that letter. But from a political point of view, that's frustrating.

But I think we have a phenomenal officer team, a very strong evidence base. Councilor Galindya

sits on the Planning Applications Committee. You've seen schemes come forward above 35%.

it is doable and viable.

So I basically don't want to do anything

that prejudices our ability to get more affordable housing

for residents in Wandsworth.

So we can be.

Hi.

The specialist and older persons housing,

I mean, sometimes this lesson is worded

and you go like, you've got to read it five times,

What are they actually saying here in this paragraph?

It's a paragraph.

Specialist and older person's housing.

So what do they - It's not numbered.

It's not got a number.

It says it's got a heading, specialist and older person's housing.

If I may try and shine a light on that.

I think essentially what the GLA are saying on that point is that within the London plan,

There are above a level targets for specialist and older persons housing.

Now that's quite a broad category of housing that encapsulates different forms of housing with care.

And there's very many different types, extra care, sheltered housing, and so on that would fall into that category.

So it is quite a broad policy, but nevertheless there are annual borough level targets in that London plan.

And what this paragraph is essentially asking the council to do is to acknowledge that our level target in the drafting of our policy.

I think in terms of how we respond to that, that will need to come through the examination process.

But there's probably no inherent issue with that, but

it's just obviously making sure that it's a target that we recognize because the London plan is now four and

a bit years old and prepared on evidence that's a little bit older than that.

They are in the process of developing a new London plan which I should have said we are

expecting a first consultation on next month or perhaps this month now.

So it is really just a case of adding a reference to that level target which would in their

view tie it in better with the London plan policy.

Councillor Kishane.

Thank you.

I was wondering when this committee will see comparative evidence across boroughs, because

as I mentioned earlier, there's a high success rate for the 35 percent threshold.

I was wondering, for example, is there any data that shows success rate for those boroughs

that have a higher 50 percent threshold, for example, and how that compares and sort of

What evidence is being used to justify that higher threshold?

And if that evidence isn't available, will it be made available to this committee?

So thank you, Councillor.

I think some of that will likely be in the housing background paper that I can share

with you.

I think as the Council develops more evidence as part of the examination process, that will

all be public.

So we'll definitely be able to share that with you.

So it may be that we can provide kind of interim updates to counselors too on the progress.

I think local plan processes are a bit strange in that we can have two or three months without

really much material progress in a public sense.

And then a flurry of incredibly intense activity where you're almost involved in quasi -judicial

processes for weeks on end.

So very happy to share that.

I suppose it would just be a case of probably sharing what we have and

then being open to sharing kind of through a process what's developed.

But very much I think, just to echo Councilor Dickertum's point earlier,

my only kind of word of warning is that I would probably want to avoid any kind of

debate of that evidence outside of that examination process because it could end

up being partly prejudicial to the arguments put forward, but perhaps we can have a discussion

after the sharing of that evidence about what process is appropriate at that time.

Is everyone happy?

Okay.

So, we've already received the paper.

So, we'll move on to item three, which was brought in as an update on…

Quasi -constitutionally strange grey area for us because it's…

But we can just introduce it.

AOB.

So, shall I…

I'll give a summary of the positions.

Just to say, I had an email exchange with Councillor Austin yesterday where I provided

some information in confidence, which Mr. Stewart will now try and summarise in public.

Thank you, Dave.

So on the 27th of March, a fencing contractor working in a three -hulled house in Burke Close

on the Manex Estate hit a high -powered electrical main serving two blocks of houses, terraced

houses but built in the 1980s I'd suggest, predominantly freehold with some tenants in

there.

Now I don't know how this happened but the incident commander who I spoke to when I went

down to site said that the main being hit caused a gas boiler to explode among the properties

and caused two fires in other properties.

They tried to isolate the gas but the gas mains had somehow been lit up by the electricity

so that wasn't possible.

So they managed to get all the electricity off, all the gas off, there were gas leaks

in the area.

Fortunately nobody was hurt even though it was a serious incident.

We had staff there within minutes after the fire brigade, we opened a rest centre and

And we've been working since with the emergency services and the statutory providers, Cadent

and Power UK, UK Power.

And we're nearly at the end now.

We've got one tenant who needs a replacement boiler.

Another one's having their boiler placed tomorrow.

So hopefully everybody will be back in shortly.

But having attended a lot of emergency incidents, you know, I think our response, you know,

from the lay low down to the area team, we're on site immediately and we stayed on site

until a rear beam looked after.

So I think our handling was exemplary and it's disappointing to see some people have

tried to make capital out of this as if it's something to do with the Council when it's

purely an accident that's hit the gas and electrical infrastructure serving those two

blocks.

So that's where we are.

Just a question, Mr. Stewart.

Of the properties damaged, were there any of those tenanted, the council tenants, and

if so, what's the situation for them?

So the three fires were in three whole properties.

The explosion was in one which then caught fire.

And there are some photos circulating which showed quite a devastating damage to that

property.

However, because the infrastructure of the gas and electricity was badly hit, everybody

was affected.

So we had to, people made their arrangements, we sorted out temporary accommodation for

some people who required it.

Obviously, the freeholders would have gone through their insurers and been sorted out.

So, but we were there to provide advice and assistance to anybody who needed it.

But there's been an awful lot of work to renew those services going into those two terraces.

Councillor Wrigley.

Thank you.

So it was a private contractor hit a pipe and then caused all this damage.

Is the council able to claim against their insurance to cover the costs of replacing

this stuff for the tenants?

Well the bulk of the expense is going to be in the freehold houses, in restoring those,

and the statute of the undertakers, Cadent, Friday and the Gas and UK Power, will have

picked up the cost of all the works renewing those services to those properties.

I hadn't really got any thoughts as to whether or not we've incurred any costs, but Tom,

did you want to say anything?

I think the main costs that would have incurred would be temporary accommodation for our tenants.

I mean, we've already started conversations with obviously our bills insurers, but with

an eye on thinking, well, okay, perhaps we can also make the claim off UKP and or Caden,

but it's just not clear yet as to who we would be claiming against and how that would

work.

But we will claim if we can, essentially.

I mean it was an accident so it was a I'm not sure if it was a contractor or the actual

individual laying a new fence who did this so it's not it's nobody's at fault really.

Sure and you can still make insurance claims for things that are accidents so if the so

it was the person put in a fence and hit the pipe they will have insurance so if it's if

there's been any cost to the council then we should claim. We will do.

Councillor Taylor. Thank you chair. Yes I'm very very

concerned about this because it's my constituency and it's been a huge

worry and disruption for the tenants affected and also tenants in the wider

area sadly that that worry has been exacerbated by political materials but I

won't go into that right now. Yes there's a lot of concern about finding an explanation

as to what happened here and getting to the bottom of it and finding a definitive

version of events. Could you say something about the organizations that are investigating

this event and when we might have an idea of what exactly happened?

Well it is a complex matter and the Fire Brigade will issue a report, that's what we're waiting

on and presumably they will talk to the providers, the gas and electricity companies. I can't

work out what happened.

I don't know if anybody's got better grasp of physics than me, but how hitting a high

voltage power cable can cause a gasploid to explode is beyond my understanding.

So we will await the report, but we've had enough information from the site to be able

to reassure people.

Councillor Dickerson?

Yeah, I mean, I'd say that I think the team has been exemplary, and I can't put on record

about political materials. It's not your side. It's Yeah, I mean, there's a website that

is claimed to be a news site that is just putting out misinformation that is really

damaging and that is very frustrating when our when our council officers did an incredible

job and have been doing everything that is within their power to try and ease the burden

on residents. I think the quicker we can get some clarity from both the gas network and

electricity will hopefully go some way to clearing things up.

But, you know, it's the business we're in.

It's people, people like scandal when when things happen.

But when it's to do with safety in people's lives, I think I think it's inappropriate.

But that's my kind of my final comment on it.

And I think I think it was good that we talked about it, though, because in the context of.

This kind of special meeting is probably likely that there will be you know, there will be more

anxiety when it comes to maintenance, disrepair, and I think as elected members it's important

that we put out the facts and try and communicate the facts as clearly as possible to residents.

Because otherwise, fear mongering is detrimental to the communities that we're here to represent.

Okay, thank you. Is that no more any other business? Okay, that is the end of the meeting.

Thank you very, very much. Thank you.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 8 April 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Housing Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeTuesday, 8th April 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 Declarations of Interests

2 Interim Update on the Regulatory Inspection (Paper No. 25-133)

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 8th April 2025 at 7:30pm