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 lateness were received from Cllr Moyeed.

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).

There were no items of urgent business.

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.

None.

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

There were no deputations, petitions, presentations or questions received.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

The Panel requested that a further update be provide to a future meeting around the costs to the Council arising from legal disrepair claims. (Action: Philip).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 18^th December 2023 were agreed as a correct record.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the work being done following the Council’s self-referral to the social housing regulator, and the subsequent notice issued by the regulator in relation to breaches of two parts of the Home Standard; for non-compliance with the Decent Homes

Standard, and the Council’s identification of over one hundred Category 1

hazards within its own housing stock. The report was presented by Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director of Housing Services and Building Safety as set out in the report pack at pages 9-16. The Director Placemaking and Housing, as well as the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning were also present for this item. The Panel noted that nine of the ten actions agreed with the regulator as part of the short-term plan had been completed. The following arose from the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel queried the statement in the report that 323 properties had returned back to Haringey and questioned whether this related to 323 illegal tenancies. In response, officers advised that this related to cases of properties without a valid electrical/gas safety certificate, and that due to problems with no access to these properties, the tenancy management team could do no more and so they were ‘handed back’ to the Council’s legal department to take legal action.

b.    The Panel sought clarification around the term the ‘big 6’ indictors of compliance, and queried whether there were other compliance indictors that were relevant. In response, officers advised that these were the six statutory areas of compliance that the authority was assessed against by the regulator. It was commented that from a legal perspective these were the six areas that the Council had to focus its efforts upon.

c.    In relation to a question, officers confirmed that the report’s allusions to new systems was the move to a new dedicated compliance system, so that the Council was no longer recording cases on spreadsheets.

*Clerk’s note at 18:47 – Cllr Moyeed joined the meeting at this point*

d.    The Panel commended officers on the amount of work that had been done to undertake outstanding actions. The Panel noted that the regulator found that there were around 5k homes that did not meet the decent homes standard and that there were around 100 properties with category one defects. The Panel enquired whether any targets had been set for improving these outcomes. In response, officers advised that the Council had undertaken a stock condition survey and so had an up-to-date stock condition programme, which allowed it to have an accurate picture of the number of properties with category one defects. Officers advised that whilst surveyors had undertaken a robust survey regime and were prioritising category one hazards, it was the case that one of the category one hazards identified in HHRS legislation was overcrowding. In these cases, there was no repair that the Council could carry out to rectify the problem. Where the problem was repair based, the Council would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the Council’s preparedness for the Regulator of Social Housing’s new Consumer Standards. The report was presented by Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director of Housing Services and Building Safety and Nimisha Patel, AD for Housing Management, as set out in the report pack at pages 17-26. The Director Placemaking and Housing, as well as the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning were also present for this item. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel queried what kind of weighting was given to the new consumer standards and what the repercussions would be for non-compliance. In response, officers set out that the governance arrangements would vary from authority to authority. In response to a follow-up question, officers advised that they were confident that, if the authority was inspected today, it would meet the standards on safety and quality due to the work done in the past 12 months. Compliance with some of the other standards still required some more work.
2. The Panel sought clarification on whether the new approach would give the Council more teeth in terms of enforcing against cases of poor quality housing. A Panel member gave examples from their casework of CPNs not being actioned and cases taking a very long time to progress. In response, officers acknowledged that the Housing Enforcement Team had been very reliant on issuing CPNs, and that one of the things the AD for Housing Management would like to see is use of other powers, such as injunctions which carried more weight. It was noted that discussions were taking place to ensure that the Council was using all of the remedies available to it through housing legislation.
3. The Panel sought assurances about whether the Council received sufficient support from police colleagues to deal with significant breaches. In response, officers acknowledged that there was a case for needing stronger liaison with police. The Panel were advised that there was an internal partnership problem solving group where high level cases were discussed and where officers tried to get a commitment from police colleagues at a senior level. 
4. The Panel set out that it was very difficult to tackle ASB cases that involved drugs without police support, but that the police didn’t always have the resources to help. They queried what enforcement measures could the Council put in place to tackle identified cases of ASB. In response, officers advised that they recognised that the way the authority exercised its landlord function could improve, and that there was a number of powers available to the authority to enforce against tenants who were causing ASB. It was commented that the Housing Service was working with colleagues to ensure that the authority maximised the use of the enforcement tools that were available to it.
5. The Panel sought assurances, that following the roll-out of the safer estates programme in 2018, that all of the estates had adequate CCTV in place. In response, officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

The Panel received a report which provide an update on the Haringey Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), including both the Strategic CIL and Neighbourhood CIL. The report was introduced by Bryce Tudball, Interim Head of Planning Policy, Transport and Infrastructure, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 27 to 34. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

1. The Panel queried why there were differing CIL rates across different areas of the borough and questioned whether these were due to be updated to reflect appreciating land values. In response, officers advised that the CIL rates were set based on viability evidence and that evidence showed that viability was higher in the west and central parts of the borough. The CIL rates were relooked at in 2017 and an increase in CIL rates in the east of the borough was subsequently introduced. Officers advised that the CIL rates across the borough were at around the maximum level without putting future development at risk.
2. In response to a question, officers advised that legislation permitted an area that had adopted a neighbourhood plan to retain 25% of the CIL receipts generated in that area. This was in contrast to around 15% of Neighbourhood CIL being redistributed to areas that did not have an adopted plan.
3. The Panel sort clarification about the amount of money generated in the east versus the west of the borough, given differing CIL rates and a general lack of development in the west of the borough. In response, officers acknowledged that the levels of development differed across the borough and that the majority of CIL generated came from the east and centre of the borough. Officers contended that it was fair that the majority of CIL revenue should be spent in those areas. Officers advised that NCIL had a redistributive element to ensure that areas that had the most development received a higher proportion of CIL funding.
4. In response to a follow-up question, officers set out that the evidence base showed that CIL rates were about right in the west of the borough and that it shouldn’t be the CIL rates that detracted from development. Instead, the relative lack of development was ascribed to the fact that there were very few development opportunities in the west of the borough. The Neighbourhood Plan would be looking at how to increase these development opportunities.
5. The Panel sought clarification around Schools Streets and whether these could be implemented anywhere across the borough. In response, officers advised that Strategic CIL could be spend anywhere in the borough and that this included School Streets, along with a number of other walking and cycling projects and road danger reduction projects that were being developed across different parts of the borough.
6. In relation to the proposed Crouch End Neighbourhood Plan, officers advised that some funding to support this was allocated in 2022, however the neighbourhood forum were not quite ready at that point. Officers advised that the Council recognised that the money  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

The Panel considered a report which presented findings from council held census data on under-occupation in council and other social housing, set out the Council’s policies to support under-occupying council tenants to move to smaller homes and set out the Council’s ambition to develop a new rightsizing strategy. The report was presented by Robbie Erbmann, AD for Housing, as set out in the published agenda papers at pages 35-37. Denise Gandy, AD of Housing Demand was also present for this item, along with the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel noted 46% of four-bed council properties were under-occupied and 61% of five-bed council properties were under-occupied. Officers set out that the data showed that Haringey was slightly more under-occupied, that it was overcrowded. Better use of the Council’s housing stock could, therefore, improve the demand pressures that the Council faced in relation to housing needs.
2. The Panel commented that they recalled a previous update on this issue and the fact that the incentives offered weren’t enough to tempt people to leave their family homes. The Panel queries the extent to which the Council was able proactively engage with tenants on this issue, without pressuring them. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that in many ways this was the key question, and that having a robust offer of incentives was crucial to rightsizing the council’s housing stock. The Cabinet Member suggested that the authority was at the beginning of this process and that she did not have all of the answers at present. However, it was envisaged that directing additional staffing resources at this would help move it along. It was suggested that a key incentive for some people could be an offer to move into a new home that had much lower running costs.
3. The Panel sought clarification about whether there were any examples of good practice from other local authorities that had implemented a successful incentive scheme, that could be considered. In response, officers advised that, broadly speaking, it was about having a range of options in place. One example given was a transferable discount scheme, whereby those who were under occupying could be given a discount to buy a shared ownership property, in the same way that people got discounts under Right to Buy. There were also seaside and country home schemes that facilitated tenants swapping tenancies for a home in the country or by the sea.
4. The Panel commented that one solution could be around having different tiers of incentives, as some people would be incentivised by money but others may have different motivations. The Panel also commented that engaging with residents was key in order to find out where the under-occupations were and to gauge interest. In response, the Cabinet Member noted that offering different rates to different residents would probably result in the Council being taken to court.
5. The Panel sought clarification about whether adult children who still  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

The Panel requested a further update on under-occupation and work to increase staff resources beyond the one officer currently assigned to it.

The Panel also commented that they should meet informally to learn lessons on recommendation setting that arose from the recent scrutiny review on PRS housing.

RESOLVED

That the work programme was noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

None.

TBA