Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to item one on the agenda in respect of filming at the meeting and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Simmons-Safo due to illness.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

There were no declarations of interest

None.

To agree the minutes of the previous meeting on 13^th October as a correct record

A section from the minutes of the meeting on 13^th October was missing from the version contained in the published agenda pack. The Minutes of the previous meeting were deferred to 12^th January meeting.

To receive and note the minutes of the following Scrutiny Panels and to approve any recommendations contained within:

·         Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel – 15^th September 2022

·         Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel – 6^th September 2022

·         Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Panel – 5^th September 2022

·         Housing, Planning and Development Scrutiny Panel – 29^th September 2022

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the following Scrutiny Panels were agreed and noted and any recommendations contained within were agreed:

·         Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel – 15^th September 2022

·         Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel – 6^th September 2022

·         Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Panel – 5^th September 2022

·         Housing, Planning and Development Scrutiny Panel – 29^th September 2022

To put questions to the Cabinet Member regarding areas of her Portfolio that are the responsibility of the main Scrutiny Committee:

Local welfare programmes:

• Revenue and benefits;
• Council Tax Reduction Scheme;
• Welfare advice;
• Haringey Here to Help;
• Ethical debt policy

Your Council:

• Call centre

The Panel undertook a question and answer session with Cllr Chandwani, the Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality & Resident Services. The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Panel questioned waiting times and queried what strategic performance data was collected in regard to the call centre. In response, the Cabinet Member set out that the call centre was not the only place that dealt with people’s issues. The call centre was the front door for 15 key service areas but that the other 85 or so service areas were dealt with in a different way. It was noted that the time spent waiting on hold would therefore depend on what the issue or service involved was. The Committee was advised that call centre staff were trained to deal with 90% of the issues that would arise and that there would always be some complex multi-service issues that were perhaps not best responded to through a call centre setting. The Cabinet Member advised that the three service areas that received the greatest number of calls were housing repairs, council tax and parking.
2. The Panel also sought clarification about what the average time taken on a call was and whether comparative data was known about how well Haringey did in relation to call answering in comparison to neighbouring boroughs. The Cabinet Member set out that in order to make a meaningful comparison, it would be necessary to compare like for like and that, for example, most other authorities did not deal with housing enquiries directly through the ‘front door’ call centre. Officers advised that in relation to call answering times, the latest performance information up to 11^th November was that:

·         40% of calls were answered within 30 seconds

·         61% of calls were answered within 5 minutes

·         70% of calls were answered within 10 minutes

3. Officers commented that there was generally a single digit percentage of calls that hit an hour in terms of call waiting times. The call centre received around 8k calls a week and 70% of those were answered within 10 minutes. Officers advised that in general waiting times could vary significantly, particularly when dealing with complex multi-level issues that related to residents’ welfare. Staff were encouraged to engage with these difficult complex problems, as it was recognised that there were residents with a high level of need.
4. Officers advised that in relation to neighbouring boroughs, 92% of calls were answered and that this was broadly in line with other neighbouring local authorities.
5. The Committee sought clarification about whether, when people were on-hold, that they were waiting for a person with specialist knowledge to become free or whether calls were handled in a more generalised manner. In response, the Committee was advised that the customer service staff had a main specialist service area, along with two other smaller areas of knowledge. This meant that calls in relation to a particular service area were dealt with by specific staff and that there could be a high waiting time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To follow.

 The Committee received a report which provided and update on intrusive fire safety inspections. The report was introduced by Judith Page, Assistant Director for Property Services as set out in the second dispatch agenda pack at page 1. The following arose as part of the discussion on this report:

1. In response to a question, officers advised that the spandrel windows in question were in the stairwell rather than the domestic areas, so a stay put strategy was assessed as being safer. Officers emphasised that a stay put strategy was based on advice that residents should only stay put as long as they felt safe. Often when there was a fire in a block, the surrounding units did not realise there was a fire due to the fire being compartmentalised through the building’s design. One of the key differences between the two strategies in terms of the infrastructure works undertaken, was that there was no fire alarm alerting people to evacuate the building in a block with a stay put strategy. It was noted that Headcorn & Tenterdon had moved to an evacuation strategy and that a fire alarm system had been installed.
2. In relation to a query about the risk of fire spreading vertically up through stairwells, officers advised that the fire risk assessments were carried out by external fire engineers and qualified fire risk assessors, and they had re-evaluated each of the high risk blocks as part of the fire safety inspection process.
3. In response to a question about building safety, officers reassured members that there were no unsafe buildings in the borough. Stella House was deemed as being the highest risk block and work was underway to install a fire alarm system and a waking watch had been in place to ensure it was patrolled constantly by staff, since the building assessment was carried out. Officers acknowledged that there were a number of fire safety risk assessment actions that needed to be completed, as did all similar organisations, these actions were being worked through.
4. In response to a question about the recruitment of a number of fire safety managers, officers advised that these roles were going out to recruitment shortly and that this had been delayed slightly because of insourcing.
5. Officers advised that all blocks deemed high risk would need a building safety case in place by September 2023. These cases were incredibly detailed. Officers also advised that they had regular meetings with senior officers from the fire brigade, which took place every six weeks or so.
6. Members sought clarification around the fact that the report identified one block as being high risk and that a number of other blocks were identified as substantial and manageable risk. In response, officers advised that ‘high risk’ blocks were identified under the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Fire Safety Act 2021, as being above 18 meters tall. These would always be deemed as high risk due to the specialist equipment needed by the fire brigade to tackle a fire in buildings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Verbal update

The Committee received a verbal update from Judith Page in relation to the pilot building safety case. It was noted that:

• A pilot building safety case was underway in Kenneth Robbins House in Northumberland Park, however the implementation of this had been delayed from November to February due to IT issues.
• As part of this exercise, it has become apparent that a lot of the original plans were missing so a lot of survey work was being carried out to fill the gaps in information that was missing. The surveys were ongoing and would continue until the relevant information needed to meet the building safety case was available.
• The building safety case required a resident engagement strategy for each building and the Committee was advised that workshops had taken place with residents in Kenneth Robbins House. The building safety managers would act as champions for residents in each of the relevant blocks.

The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Committee requested a report on the residents’ engagement work that was taking place. In particular members were keen to understand what had changed following those resident workshops and what the building safety managers had done to improve resident engagement following the engagement work.  In response officers advised that they would bring an update on the building safety case to the March meeting and would include an update on resident engagement and how this changed the Council’s approach. (Action: Judith Page/Clerk).
2. The Committee noted concerns with fire safety assessments being done in the east of the borough and questioned what was happening at Edgecot Grove. In response, officers advised that they had reviewed the fire safety risk assessment for Edgecot Grove prior to the meeting and that this was up to date and did not highlight any major issues. In response to a follow up question, officers set out that just because many of the doors and windows were made of composite materials, this did not make the blocks unsafe. Similarly, fire extinguishers fire buckets had been removed as residents should call the fire brigade, rather than try to tackle any fires themselves.
3. Officers agreed to share the fire safety assessment for Edgecot Grove with the Committee and also agreed to send an officer to attend a future resident meeting to discuss fire safety. (Action: Judith Page).
4. The Committee noted concerns with the fact that the link for residents to report fire safety concerns was quite long and not easily accessed on the website. The Committee set out that the Council should be making it as easy as possible for residents to report concerns about fire safety, particularly given the learning from Grenfell. The Committee requested that the link was made shorter and more prominent on the website. In response, officers advised that they would pick this up during their next meeting with Comms and would also include the link in the resident newsletter that was due to go out before Christmas. (Action: Judith Page).

RESOLVED

Noted.

The Committee received a report which provided an update on the work plans for 2022-24 for the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the four Scrutiny Panels.

The Panel noted that there were two evidence sessions lined up for the Scrutiny Review into VAWG, one on the 9^th December and one on 21^st December. After a discussion Members agreed in principle to having one session in person (daytime) and one session online (evening), depending on the availability of both officers and members.

The Committee also noted that the Cabinet agenda had been published for 6^th December and on this agenda was the Cabinet response to the mini Scrutiny Review on Gambling. The Chair agreed to pick up who was best place to introduce this report with scrutiny officers outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED

1. The current work programmes for the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the four Scrutiny Panels were noted and any amendments, were agreed as appropriate.
2. The Committee gave consideration to the agenda items and reports required for its next meeting on 12th January 2023.
3. The scoping document for a Scrutiny Review by the Housing, Planning and Development Scrutiny Panel on Landlord Licensing and Renting in the Private Sector was agreed.

N/A

·         12 January 2023

·         19 January 2023

·         30 March 2023

·         12 January 2023

·         19 January 2023

·         30 March 2023