Agenda and draft 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 Small.

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).

None.

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.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 15^th December 2025 were agreed as a correct record.

Additional slides – to follow.

The Panel received a set of slides which provide an update on a range of Key Performance Indicators in relation to the Housing Service. The slides were included in the agenda pack at pages 15-42 and there were additional slides included in the addendum report pack at pages 1-4, which gave an update on voids and damp and mould, as requested by the Panel at the previous meeting. The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

a.    The Panel sought clarification about whether the information pertaining to repairs completed first time, included appointments that the Council didn’t attend i.e. if there was a cancelation or the contractor was unable to attend. Officers advised that they believed it was only repairs that were completed, but that they would confirm this in writing. (Action: Scott Kay).

b.    The Chair noted that it would be useful to know information around the number of appointments that were upheld and conversely, cancelled. The Chair commented that he assumed that a repair wouldn’t be listed as completed first time, if it had been cancelled or rescheduled prior to being completed.

c.     The Panel queried how satisfaction with repairs was tracked, and whether a repair would be marked as completed if the resident wasn’t happy with the repairs that had been carried out. In response, officers advised that there was an indicator in the slide deck relating to satisfaction with previous repair. Officers set out that if a repair had been completed to the contractors satisfaction it would be listed as completed. If the resident wasn’t happy with the repair, then it would be followed up as either a complaint or a separate job would be raised.

d.    In response to a request for clarification, officers advised that tenancy activity related to the range of interactions the Tenancy team could have with tenants, covering thinks like a visit to a property, initial tenancy visits and a one year review. It was also clarified that the indicator on support plans, related to sheltered housing or good neighbour schemes and there is a one year review that takes place. The support planning is profiled 12 months ahead and a meeting is scheduled. All residents in these schemes have a support plan and this is what is being monitored and tracked.

e.    The Panel sought questioned what happened if the Council did not meet its target on tenancy audits, given current performance levels were quite far off. In response, officers advised that the aim was to cover 20% of all tenancies within social housing stock on an annual basis and that this figures was profiled and reported on through this indicator. Officers commented that they would be looking at how best to report on the management of stock going forwards. The Chair sought clarification about what Members could expect to see by the end of the year in relation to performance on tenancy audits. Officers agreed to provide a written response on this. (Action: Neehara).

f.      The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 293.

To follow

The Panel received a report which set out the overarching picture of how housing estates are managed and maintained across Housing Services. The report provided an overview of the service offer, what teams were responsible for, and how this linked to larger programmes of work. The report was introduced by Neehara Wijeyesekera, Assistant Director for Housing Management as set out in the addendum report pack at pages 5-16. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel commented that in the past there was one named person who was responsible for a particular estate. It was contended that this was no longer the case, and that this had resulted in a lack of accountability for the upkeep and management of estates. In response, officers advised that a model of having one person accountable was not seen to be effective, given the complexities involved. It was suggested that the likelihood of anyone person being able to understand where all of the budgets relating to all the different aspects of managing estates, including long-term agreements versus contractors, was less likely in modern environments. Officers advised that there weren’t a lot of neighbourhood managers in any case (four). 

b.    The Panel raised concerns around estate inspections, commenting that these tended to be under-resourced and underrepresented. Panel Members suggested that they rarely seemed to receive feedback on the outcomes of these inspections. The Chair gave an anecdotal account of having not received feedback from an inspection that was carried out five months ago. In response, officers advised that there was currently a reorganisation taking place in tenancy services, which would lead to the estate inspection process being led by the Housing Officer directly. It was commented that additional resources had gone in to reduce patch sizes, in addition to retaining the Neighbourhood Improvement Officer role as-is. It was also commented that through better digital tracking of jobs, it would be easier to disseminate information, but this would require a neighbourhood plan model. The Panel were advised that this would take time to establish.

c.    The Panel sought clarification about the difference between a Neighbourhood Improvement Officer and Neighbourhood Manager. The Panel queried who was responsible for the ownership of an estate. In response, officers advised that the Neighbourhood Manager was responsible for a particular location and all of the services in that location i.e. grounds maintenance, inspections, neighbourhood improvements, the ordering of works, and scheduling of inspections. Whereas the Neighbourhood Improvement Officers had the responsibility to track, report, and arrange with various service providers, including around who was able to provide what, and at what price, and whether that would move forward. In relation to communal items and repairs, officers advised that there would be so much investment over the coming ten years that it would be very difficult for one individual to track through all of the work being done.

d.    The Chair noted concerns with the capacity of housing officers to manage the estate inspection process, even  ...  view the full minutes text for item 294.

To follow

The Panel received a report which provided an update in Legal Disrepair cases. The report set out the current status of legal disrepair claims, as well as the work being undertaken to meet the strategic objective of reducing open case levels to a business-as-usual scenario. The report was introduced by Scott Kay, Assistant Director for Repairs and Compliance, as set out in the addendum report pack at pages 17-26. Richard Purvis, Senior Disrepair Manager was present for this item, along with the Interim Director for Housing and Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning.  The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

1. The Panel sought clarification around how long officers anticipated it would be before maintenance was of a standard that the number of claims would be significantly reduced. In response, officers stated that the report set out a trajectory of caseloads at paragraph 4.11. The Panel was advised that, in essence, the length of time would depend on how much the Major Works programme was scaled up, as well as the number of claims that the Council received.
2. The Panel queried the extent to which an increase in the number of damp and mould cases was anticipated following the introduction of Awaab’s Law. In response, officers advised that the organisation did see a bit of spike following the introduction of the legislation, but that the increase was not as large as it might have been. It was suggested that the change had been widely publicised in the media in the run up to it being enacted. Officers set out that they were comfortable that the Council had adequate resources in place to deal with claims at the level they are at present. The service was also working to increase supply chains in order to deal with any future spike in claims as-and-when that might happen.
3. The Panel raised concerns around a failure to deal with regular repairs and these ending up being escalated into legal disrepair claims. In response, officers acknowledged that there had been some issues with the volume of calls into the call centre and the ability to handle all of those calls. In response to this, additional routes for reporting repairs directly through to the repairs team had been established, to sit alongside the call centre. It was commented that improvements to customer satisfaction scores had started to happen. The Corporate Director advised that additional resources had been put into customer services and that there was ongoing transformation work to improve digital contact with the Council.
4. The Panel queried the report’s assertion that part of the solution was that sector reform was needed, in order to prevent the incentive for volume-based litigation firms. The Chair suggested that the claims were a problem only if they were legitimate claims. In response, officers agreed that claims needed to be valid, but cautioned that the legal standard was very low. The Panel was advised that even in cases that could be defended through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 295.

The Panel received a report on the Neighbourhood Moves Scheme. The report set out the background to the Neighbourhood Moves Scheme (NMS) including its introduction and the results of the scheme on the Council’s allocation and letting of homes. The report also set out the existing proposed changes as part of the Allocations Policy consultation that was authorised by Cabinet. The Consultation questions were appended to the report (Appendix 1). The report was introduced by Rachel Sharpe, Interim Director of Housing , as set out in the agenda pack at pages 43-51. Appendix 1 was included in the addendum report pack at pages 27-28. Maddie Watkins, AD for Housing Demand and Cherie Lee-Hemley, Neighbourhood Moves Scheme Manager were present for this agenda item. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was also present. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel sought clarification about whether the Council had any leverage over housing associations to make them deal with under-occupancy. Officers replied that, in general the Council did not have any powers with housing associations in this regard. Housing associations have a general duty to meet housing need and to cooperate with local councils. Housing associations have their own allocations policies and the authority does not have any control over that. Officers referred Members to paragraph 5.3 of the report which set out that one possible inclusion for a future Neighbourhood Moves scheme was to include housing association tenants that we nominated, as being eligible for the Neighbourhood Moves scheme.

b.    The Chair queried why the percentage of eligible residents who applied for NMS was quite low at 18% and what reason people gave for wanting to move. In response, officers advised that the most common reason was overcrowding, with under-occupiers next. Officers noted that there were other people who were adequately housed in terms of the number of bedrooms, but they had other problems such as disrepair or level access requirements. The Neighbourhood Moves Scheme Manager set out that she had been in the organisation since 2023 and that it was only now that the scheme was getting going, with the scheme being spread by word of mouth from residents who had used it.  Officers set out that under-occupiers tended to be difficult to relocate due to modern developments having smaller gardens and lack of available parking.

c.    The Cabinet Member advised the Panel that there was a report going to Cabinet on 10^th March on the Council’s downsizing policy. The Cabinet Member commented that there was more that the organisation could do to incentivise under-occupiers to downsize. The Chair noted that this was something that should be looked at in a future scrutiny meeting.

d.    The Panel queried whether there was any information available around the cost of overcrowding to the Council. In response, officers advised that it was not possible to accurately determine the cost due to the multiple variables involved, including the number of non-dependant adults living at home and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 296.

Noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

N/A

None.