Cllr Bevan, Cabinet Member for Environment, to attend.
Minutes:
Cabinet Member for Housing
The Cabinet Member for Housing attended to respond to panel questions on local housing policy and practice issues. Below is a summary of the main areas covered in this session.
Welfare Reform
It was noted that welfare reforms had presented a number of challenges for tenants and for local housing services. As of September 2013, 689 families had their Housing Benefit reduced under Benefit Cap proposals. Cumulatively, local households will lose over £3m as a result of this change. Of those affected households, 2/3 will lose up to £50 p.w. and 1/3 over £50p.w.
As a result of other welfare reforms social housing tenants will receive reduced Housing Benefit where they are deemed to be in under occupancy (Bedroom Tax or Spare Room Subsidy). Locally, these changes will affect over 2,500 households who rent accommodation from the Council or other local social landlords.
The panel noted that the above reforms have placed considerable pressure on local tenants and housing services. In particular, reforms have contributed to a rise in homelessness and increased demand for temporary accommodation. In addition, a general increase in demand for housing across the capital has led to higher rental values, which in turn has increased costs for the Council where it has placed households in the private rented sector.
The panel noted that the local Housing Advice Service Hub based at Apex House has provided information, advice and support to tenants affected by the welfare reforms. This service had been nationally recognised as performing well.
Decent Homes
It was noted that 945 homes would be improved through the Decent Homes programme in 2013/14. In addition, 4.600 homes will be improved over the period 2014/15 to 2015/16 from funding via the Decent Homes programme and the Council’s own contributions. There will be changes to the governance structure for Decent Homes programme to help bring greater clarity to planned home improvements.
The panel were unclear as to how the final Decent Homes programme of works was decided, when work was scheduled, and the timescales of when these decisions were communicated to local tenants, leaseholders and members. This was an acknowledged shortcoming, and the panel received a pledge that such communications would improve in the future.
The panel sought clarification on the issue of kitchen repairs when an upgrade was clearly needed although the property was not included within the Decent Homes improvement schedule. The panel noted that if repairs were needed, this should be included within general repairs and maintenance assessments.
The panel heard that for some estates the physical infrastructure was so poor that general repairs or improvements could not practically be encompassed within the Decent Homes programme. In this context, it was acknowledged that a regeneration approach would be needed to improve local housing and would require extensive community consultation and involvement. A policy paper outlining these proposals was expected at Cabinet in October 2013.
It was important that the Council was open and transparent about future social housing improvements, and to this end, the panel noted that all tenants and leaseholders would be informed at the end of October which homes were to be included within Decent Homes improvement programme and those estates which would need to be developed as part of a broader regeneration strategy. The panel noted that face to face meetings would be held with residents and leaseholders in excluded schemes and that 12 months notice would be given for regeneration plans.
Tenancy Strategy Consultation
The panel noted that the Council had recently concluded the consultation on new Tenancy Strategy and changes to Housing Allocation Policy. All 10,500 households on the housing register were consulted and notices placed in local publications journals and newsletters from which approximately 450-500 responses had been received. Final proposals developed from the consultation would result in significant changes to local social housing provision.
Members of the panel indicated that the consultation for such important developments in social housing provision was inadequate. In particular, the panel suggested that:
· Consultation proposals were too complex (seeking simultaneous responses on different strategies/policies);
· Supporting documentation was overwhelming;
· There was insufficient face to face engagement with local tenants;
· Homes for Haringey residents panel had not been consulted;
· There was limited equalities impact information available.
The panel noted that the consultation formed part of the Equalities Impact Assessment (e.g. determining what groups should be consulted) and that the formal EqIA would be published to support any final decision. It was requested that consultation responses, analysis and EqIA are submitted to the panel.
Agreed: that the consultation responses, analysis and EqIA for changes to the Tenancy Strategy would be submitted to the panel.
Affordable rent model
The panel noted that under new affordable rent model, new properties and existing tenancies becoming available could be let at up to 80% of the market rent. This model was expected to generate additional income for social landlords to assist in homebuilding programmes. It was estimated that this would result in a £100-140 increase per week for renting a 3-4 bedroom home in Haringey.
The panel noted that some registered housing providers had already begun to introduce tenancies under the affordable rent model, where 5 year fixed term tenancies had been offered. It was also noted that a number of registered providers had ‘flipped’ all housing stock from social rent to the affordable rent model.
The panel were concerned that the introduction of affordable rent model would mean a significant increase in rent for those properties included in this programme. It was suggested that the level of income needed to afford such homes may exclude many local residents on the social housing register and open up to other tenants in other areas of the housing market (e.g. those currently renting in the private sector where rental prices are high).
Homes for Haringey reintegration with the Council
The panel noted that under the recently published restructure plans, executive leads for both Homes for Haringey and the Council’s Community Housing Service would be merged in to a singular Chief Housing Officer post. There were concerns among the panel that this would herald the re-integration of Homes for Haringey within the council. The panel was concerned that such a reintegration would lead to a loss of accountability and focus for Homes for Haringey.
The panel noted that there were no plans to merge the two housing bodies. Proposals for the new Chief Housing Officer post were still being consulted upon, but if approved, it is hoped that the new unified role would be in a better position to identify:
· Local housing problems and solutions;
· Service areas where there is duplication and where efficiencies can be made;
· How both services can work in a more joined up way in the future.
Freeholds of council house sales
The panel sought to clarify whether the Council was seeking to dispose of the freeholds it held on those properties which had been sold under the right to buy scheme. It was noted that the council would look at overall objectives and policies for this area and undertake a cost benefit analysis of obligations involved in either retaining or selling freeholds. It was noted that without the freehold, the Council may find it difficult to complete necessary capital repairs.
Registered Housing Providers
The panel and other members present noted that whilst many registered housing providers were providing a good service to local tenants, a few had fallen below the standards expected. This was seen in a number of ways:
· Unresponsive repairs service;
· Communications sent to tenants;
· Poor engagement with local services;
· Failure to develop effective services (partnered working) on jointly managed estates.
The panel noted that it would be undertaking some further work with local registered providers during 2013/14. In addition, it was noted that the main Overview & Scrutiny Committee were scrutinising under occupation reforms in the social rented sector and would also be seeking to engage local providers. To these ends, it was noted that a singular survey would be developed and distributed to registered housing providers that owned/ managed stock in Haringey. The purpose of this survey is four fold:
· To ascertain how providers have communicated with tenants regarding welfare benefit changes and affordability of tenancies;
· To obtain information how tenants have been supported as a result of under occupancy changes (and other welfare changes);
· To identify arrangements for scrutinising local performance (such as repairs);
· To identify how EHSP can liaise with scrutiny structures (or tenant engagement organisations) within registered housing providers.
The Chair thanked the Cabinet member and officers for attending and responding to questions from the panel.
Cabinet Member for Environment
The Cabinet Member for Environment attended to answer questions on this portfolio. The following provides a summary of the key areas of panel discussion.
Waste and recycling
The panel noted a number of key developments for waste and recycling in the borough:
· The Borough wide recycling rate had increased significantly to 35.14% in 2012/13. It was acknowledged that further work would be required to reach 40% target by 2013/14.
· The introduction of food waste from flats had been piloted at a number of estates. Feedback from the pilot sites is now being evaluated with a view to a planned borough wide roll-out in June 2014.
· A new contamination policy has been developed to reduce the incidence of contamination and increase volume of waste eligible for recycling.
It was noted that there were approximately 6,000 calls to the Veolia customer contact centre each month. Of these contacts approximately 30-40% were operational enquires, 50% were service requests and the remainder were complaints. The panel were made aware that Veolia actively monitors and assesses the nature of all contacts to guide and inform work planning and to help target resources and activities effectively (e.g. hot spots for fly tipping).
The need for resident engagement and education to promote recycling was also underlined by the panel. This was a recommendation from a report in the panel’s work programme in 2012/13. The panel indicated that it would be following up this recommendation in 2014.
Coordinated monitoring and reporting - enforcement
The panel noted a number of key achievements in this area:
· 1,598 requests were received by noise enforcement team in Q1 2013/14, 70% of which were visited within 1 hour.
· A new highways contract, jointly procured with other authorities, has been agreed for street lighting. This new contract will lead to reduced unit costs for this service.
In respect of noise enforcement, the panel noted that the high volume of service requests but did question the suggested responsiveness of the service. It was suggested that some form of mystery shopping exercise is undertaken to assess this.
Agreed: the Cabinet member would undertake a mystery shopping exercise with noise enforcement to gauge service response.
Members of the panel noted that observed faults in neighbourhood street scene (e.g. potholes, street lighting, dumped rubbish, graffiti) were frequently not rectified unless members had reported the issue. Whilst many Council operatives (or contractors) were active in local neighbourhoods on a day to day basis, the panel questioned whether there was any coordinated system in place for identifying and reporting such problems when they were observed (e.g. street sweepers notification of fly tipping, parking enforcement of potholes etc).
In addition to the above, the panel was also concerned as to what internal monitoring systems were in place for individual contracts or issues (e.g. fly tipping, graffiti, street lights) to ensure effective reporting and rectification of problems where they occurred.
It was acknowledged that officer reporting for all areas could be improved and that there were a number of developments to assist. Firstly, it was noted that an APP had been developed which would allow reporting of problems via mobile phone. Users of the APP can report a wide range of street issues including waste, fly tipping, potholes and street lights. Reports are sent directly to Veolia and a response provided to the reporter. The council will be able to reconcile reports and actions taken by Veolia. The scheme is to be launched in October 2013.
Agreed: that a short 5 min demonstration of the new reporting APP is given at the next meeting of the EHSP.
The panel also noted that the Environmental Champions scheme, a network of environmental volunteers, was being reinstated. It was anticipated that this would help to build local intelligence and inform the work of council enforcement officers.
Agreed: that an outline of the Environmental Champions programme is brought to the next meeting of the EHSP.
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)
The panel noted ongoing concerns with HGVs and their use in prohibited areas. As HGVs continue to use roads within the Harringay Ladder, part of which they are excluded, there was uncertainty as to the agency that has overall responsibility for enforcement and the effectiveness of current enforcement methods.
The panel noted that Traffic Management does monitor local pinch points for HGVs and where collisions occur and it was confirmed that the Harringay Ladder and Wightman Road were two local hotspots for such incidences. If the panel were aware of any other local pinch points, these should be reported to the Head of Traffic Management.
It was confirmed to the panel that the council is responsible for enforcement for HGV restrictions on local roads, though this is difficult through mobile cameras (vehicles) as they could not provide necessary coverage. The Council is currently developing a business case for the installation of automatic number plate recognition system (AMPR) which it is hoped will deliver more effective enforcement. If there is a sound business case for this development, a new monitoring and enforcement process could be in place before the end of the year.
Agreed: the outcome of the business case for the introduction of ANPR enforcement for HGV enforcement to be presented to the panel at its next meeting.
The panel noted other significant developments within this portfolio area:
· Major street improvements have been agreed from Wood Green through to Turnpike Lane with work starting in 2013/14, and similar street improvements already taking place in Green Lanes will be completed by March 2014;
· All parks with Green Flag status were retained in the latest annual assessment.
The Chair thanked the Cabinet member for their attendance and response to panel questions.