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 agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein’.

Apologies for absence were recorded for Cllr Harrison Mullane.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business (late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with as noted below).

The Chair informed Members of a change to the order of the agenda. Agenda Item 8 would be brought forward so that it was considered immediately after the minutes. The minutes reflect the order in which items were discussed, rather than the order of the published agenda.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Panel received a deputation on behalf of Haringey Defend Council Housing. The deputation was in relation to Agenda Item 9, Fire Safety Action Plan. The deputation was introduced by Paul Burnham and Michael Hodges. The key points put forward in the deputation are summarised below:

·         The deputation party set out that they were shocked that all 80 council housing blocks above 5 stories had life critical fire safety defects. This was broken down to 46 blocks with combustible external panels and 80 blocks with defective fire safety doors and compartmentation defects.

·         The deputation party contended that this had not been reported candidly to residents or councillors.

·         Mr Burnham advised that he resided in Newbury House, which had 15 floors, a single staircase, and defective fire doors. The block has a tolerable risk of fire, which effectively meant that no expenditure was necessary. The building also had six vertical ribbons of combustible composite panelling on the exterior walls. In an email exchange with Mr Burnham, officers had advised that the cladding on Haringey buildings was not comparable with the whole façade cladding at Grenfell. Mr Burnham referred to press article that the officer had sent to him that suggested that limited cladding was safe.

·         In an email exchange with Mr Burnham, officers had advised that Council policy was that combustible panels should be replaced on the normal timescales for window replacement programmes. The industry standard for this, it was suggested, was 30 years. The deputation party commented that they believed that this was completely wrong.

·         The deputation party drew Members attention to the window safety test for Newbury House, which said that; a fire could spread over the balconies of any of the 85 properties to ignite window panels. It was alleged that the report also highlighted that the vertical panels could aid the rapid spread of fire internally and externally. Mr Burnham suggested that therefore, the design did not need to be exactly the same as Grenfell to be a serious fire hazard.

·         It was suggested that the tower block was already a high risk building, with multiple sources of ignition and with complex and highly fallible management systems.

·         Mr Burnham set out that in addition to the risk of fire spreading through the external panelling, he would characterise the Council as having; cost-cutting policies in place, having defective fire risk assessments, outsourcing inspections, and having complacent management. He suggested that these were all the elements required for a major fire disaster.

·         The deputation party advised that the government policy was that all combustible materials should be removed urgently from the external walls of tall buildings.

·         The deputation party recommended that the Panel should refer back the Fire Safety Action Plan report on the agenda, as it did not mention life critical safety faults.

The following arose in discussion of the deputation:

a.    The Panel sought clarification from the deputation party about what they were asking the Council to do. In response, Mr Burnham commented that he would like  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 13^th March were agreed as a correct record.

To receive an update on the progress to date in implementing Haringey’s Fire Safety action plan.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the progress to date in implementing Haringey’s Fire Safety action plan. The report was introduced by Scott Kay, Head of Residential Building Services, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 39-48. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was also present for this agenda Item. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Cabinet Member set out making sure residents were safe was of paramount importance to the administration. The Panel was advised that the Council had spent £11m on electrical surveys, £20m on fire door replacement, and £4m on smaller fire actions. The Cabinet Member also set out that the Council had completed a programme of high risk structural surveys and had begun undertaking other appraisals, such as in walls.

b.    The Chair sought assurances from officers about the deputation party’s assertion that nearly all of Haringey’s high rise blocks had combustible cladding and questioned why that information had not been presented to the panel in the report. In response, officers set out that the authority was required to provide all of the information on our buildings to Social Housing Regulator, particularly in regard to building safety. Assurances were given that the Council was developing a new asset management programme, one strand of which was around fire safety. Officers advised that information on the fire spandrel panels had been shared with the regulator and the fire brigade. Monthly meetings with the Borough Fire Commander also took place to review serious fire incidents and to look at emerging areas of risk.

c.    The Panel noted that Stellar House had an evacuation plan and questioned how it was determined that a building should have an evacuation plan versus and stay put plan. In response, officers advised that all high-rise blocks had a stay-put plan, unless there were specific circumstances that required an evacuation plan. The rational behind an evacuation versus and stay-put plan was determined by the building’s characteristics. In most cases a stay-put plan was considered more appropriate in order to allow the fire brigade to access the building, without having to deal with hundreds of people trying to evacuate the building via the staircase. Instead, each compartment of a high-rise building should be fire resistant for 30 minutes to allow the fire brigade time to attend and deal with the fire. Stellar House had been changed from a stay-put strategy to an evacuation policy, following a fire risk assessment due to the design of the building and the number of external panels.

d.    In relation to a follow-up question, officers advised that they were happy that a stay-put policy was appropriate, and that this was determined by the fire risk assessor and the risk identity was determined for each individual building at the time of the assessment. All high-rise buildings had been assessed and had a current up-to-date fire risk assessment.

e.    In response to a further follow-up question, officers advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

To receive an update on the Housing Asset Management Plan, including an update on the progress made to date with retrofitting.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the Housing Asset Management Plan. The report was introduced by Christian Carlisle, Interim AD Asset Management as set out in the agenda pack at pages 13-22. The item also contained a presentation on progress to date with retrofitting properties in Haringey to improve their energy efficiency. This presentation was provided by Alfie Peacock, Senior Project Manager – Energy and Sustainability as set out in the agenda pack at pages 23-29. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was present for this item, along with the Director of Placemaking and Housing. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought clarification around how the revised Asset Management Plan was a change from what had been in place previously. In response, officers advised that this should be seen as an expansion of the existing process. Officers set out that a stock condition survey had just been completed for the first time since 2015 and that having accurate data would allow the Council to better plan and prioritise works going forward.

b.    Members asked whether the Asset Management plan included the decoration of existing estate blocks. In response, it was advised that that this was not usually part of Major Works, and instead was carried by the communal decorations team.

c.    In response to comments about difficulties in spending capital money every year, officers acknowledged that this was always a challenge. The Council spent circa £27m last year and it was forecast to spend circa £35m in the current year. Officers commented that some of the delays were caused by the procurement process and supply chains, it was hoped that the implementation of 10-year partnering contracts would help mitigate some of those delays.

d.    In response to a query about aids and adaptations and progress with merging the two teams, officers advised that the two teams did slightly different things. It was noted that the team within Adult Social Services undertook assessments retrospectively following requests from a tenant, where as in Housing an occupational health assessor would be involved in major works programmes and would contribute to the design of a unit.

e.    In response to a question about the timetable for the implementation of the framework agreement, officers advised that the Council had decided to go through its own framework contract and that it was still on track; it was anticipated that this would be in place by quarter 2 of 2025/26.

f.     The Panel sought assurances around resident and leaseholder engagement in procurement panels for major works. In response, officers set out that there was a legal requirement for residents to be involved in the prioritisation and feedback on works and that the Cabinet report set out how that engagement process would work.

g.    Officers advised that stock condition surveys were being undertaken so that the Council would not have to be in a position whereby it lacked relevant data and that there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

To receive an update on the improvements being made for leaseholders in the Council’s Homeownership Services.  

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the improvements being made for leaseholders in the Homeownership Services, as part of the Housing Improvement Plan. The report was introduced by Suzanne Prothero, Head of Ownership Services as set out in the agenda pack at pages 31 to 47. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was present for this item, along with the Director of Placemaking and Housing. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around the extent to which the Council provided a clear set of expectations to leaseholders, in terms of what they could expect in return for service charges. In response, officers advised that the individual leases would set out what services the Council provided as the free-holder, and that details of, say, the cleaning schedule would be put up on communal notice boards. There were FAQs up on the website in relation to leaseholders and there was also a dedicated phone line and email inbox in place.

b.    The Chair asked for further information around key areas of improvement that were raised by the leaseholder continuous improvement group. In response, officers advised that in relation to service charges, it was about modernising the approach and being much more transparent. In relation to repairs, it was about these not being completed on time. In relation to policies and procedures, it was about a lack of consistency in the approach, a feeling that the rules were not standardised, and the need to professionalise the service.

c.    In response to a question about how much input leaseholders got into the development of new policies and procedures, officers advised that each policy would be signed off by the continuous improvement group (CIG).

d.    In response to a follow-up, it was noted that the CIG met quarterly and that Haringey Leaseholder AGM still happened annually. It was confirmed that an officer was present at the AGM meetings. Officers advised that a Member of the Haringey Leaseholders Association sat on the CIG, but that the two bodies were separate.

e.    The Panel sought assurances about how disputes about leaseholder charges were recorded and monitored. In response, officers advised that the service still operated a manual system, but that processes had been put in place to resolve previous issues around leaseholders being billed for repairs that were not carried out. Officers also set out that regular estate inspections were carried out and that issues of repairs not being done would be picked up then.

f.     In response to question about a sinking fund, which would allow leaseholders to pre-pay for costs towards major works, officers acknowledged that they had the ability to do it, and that they were looking at bringing something like this in, subject to the need for consultation.

g.    The Panel sought assurances that leaseholders were made aware of the permissions needed to do work on their properties, and also requested confirmation that the Council had withdrawn permission for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

To discuss the Panel’s work programme for the current municipal year.

In relation to possible future agenda items, the panel put forward the below suggestions:

·         Parks service undertaking maintenance on new estate buildings

·         The out-of-hours housing service and concerns that it was operating as well as it should

·         A follow up around PRS licensing and the monitoring of HHRS inspections and the number of CPNs issued etc. The Chair advised that she was discussing this with relevant officers outside of the meeting.

·         The Panel requested that the Cabinet Member be asked for a response to the 3 main asks set out in the presentation. Namely; the need for more transparency, the need to lobby government for additional funding; the need to carry our remedial works and to set out what remedial work had been done since Grenfell. (Action: Philip).

RESOLVED

That the work programme was noted

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·         26^th September 2024

·         5^th November 2024

·         16^th December 2024

·         6^th March 2025

·         26^th September 2024

·         5^th November 2024

·         16^th December 2024

·         6^th March 2025