To receive a draft scoping report for the review.
To discuss the terms of reference for the planned review.
Minutes:
A draft of the scoping report for this review was presented to the panel for discussion. A summary of the key points from this presentation and subsequent discussion are highlighted below.
The panel noted that there were over 28,000 social housing units in Haringey. Although a majority of these (16,000) were managed by the Arms Length Management Organisation (Homes for Haringey) the remainder were managed by as many as 60 different housing providers:
§ Only 6 providers managed more than 500 properties
§ 47 manage fewer than 100 properties.
As a consequence of a large number of housing providers operating in the borough, the panel heard that this presented a number of issues:
§ Neighbourhoods / estates may have multiple landlords
§ Differences in the way housing stock is managed
§ Opportunities to improve the effectiveness of service provision
The panel heard that in the context of the above, the council’s relationship with local housing providers was important because for a number of reasons, these being:
§ The central role of housing providers in providing new social housing development within the borough
§ It may provide opportunities to assist those residents most in need in the borough (as social housing tenants)
§ May help to develop common housing standards across providers in the locality
§ May help to facilitate greater partnership work among local housing providers which may help in the provision of more efficient and integrated services for local residents
§ Ensuring that the Council can apply its place shaping role through better communication of council priorities and objectives
The panel discussed the aims and objectives of the review. These were divided in to three overall themes:
§ the council’s relationship with housing providers,
§ the development of common standards among local housing providers and,
§ facilitating partnership work among local providers to help improve the integration and efficiency and of local services.
There was some concern about the breadth of the scope and whether this was achievable in the planned timeframe for the review. It was noted that the many of the objectives of the review would be achieved through the planned consultation with local housing providers. This event would be planned in late February or early March and would focus on what structures can be put in place to facilitate greater partnership work in the sector.
It was noted that the scope would be distributed to key registered housing providers in the locality for comments and suggestions particularly in relation to the objectives of the review and the most appropriate process through which to consul local providers.
Agreed: The feedback from local housing providers would be presented at the next panel meeting.
The panel noted that they would like to invite the Executive Member for Housing (Cllr Bevan) to attend a future panel meeting. At this stage, the panel did not identify any further informants that should be invited to give evidence, but this would reassessed as the review progressed.
Agreed: That Cllr Bevan to be invited to a future panel meeting.