Agenda item

Note from the Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered an update on the implementation of the recommendations of its review on Fire Safety in High Rise Blocks at its meeting on 15 October 2020.   It resolved to recommend to Cabinet that at least two apprentice Building Control Officers be recruited to the Council’s Building Control team.

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny introduced the report on fire safety in high rise blocks. The Committee had met on the 15^th of October to consider an update on the implementations of the Fire Safety Review which had been ratified by Overview and Scrutiny in March 2019 and responses to the recommendations agreed by Cabinet in July 2019. The Committee noted that efforts to recruit additional fire safety officers had not been successful, and concern was raised at the speed of progress. Therefore, there was a recommendation made to recruit at least two apprentice building control officers.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal responded and recommended that Cabinet accept the recommendation to recruit at least two apprentices in the Building Control service who would be recruited to start working with the Council in the 2021/22 financial year. This course of action was also agreed with by Cabinet.

It was noted that an officer working group had been set up to act on new building and fire safety requirements and its remit specifically included staffing issues to do with recruitment, retention, expertise, and training.

[Councillor Bull and Cllr Chandwani left the meeting at 6.42pm]

The Leader invited Cllr Ahmet to introduce the Scrutiny call in report on the Alterations Policy for Leaseholders and to outline the recommendations.

Cllr Ahmet outlined the outcome of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of the Cabinet’s decision at a special meeting on 1st of December. The Committee heard representations from Michael Hardy and Barbara Tierney from the Haringey Leaseholders Association and the call in signatories as well as the Cabinet Member and senior housing officers.

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny highlighted the key themes of the representations considered, the resulting concerns which were listed at the report at paragraph 3, informing the recommendations at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5.

The Leader thanked the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny for her presentation and invited the Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal to respond.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal thanked the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee for presenting the concerns of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and referred to the detailed call - in meeting which had helped address a lot of the issues that had been raised in the report.

Responding to the concerns and subsequent recommendations raised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the following information was provided:

• The recommended policy was based on the fundamental fact that the Council, as freeholder, was liable for resident safety and for the structure of the building, which under the terms of the lease included windows and external doors. The findings of the Hackitt Review, the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry and the Government’s proposed Building Safety Bill, all provided firm evidence that the existing Alterations Policy was out of step with the direction of building safety regulations whereas the proposed policy reduced risk and clarified the Council’s primary accountability for building safety.
• Both the Council and Homes for Haringey were monitoring any developments and outcomes from the second phase of the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry and the need for this to inform the Council’s approach to building safety within the Council’s housing stock. The Council were aware that this phase would not conclude until 2021 and, in the meantime, the updated policy would ensure adherence to any new government guidance to maximise residents’ safety within the Council’s homes.
• Homes for Haringey worked in close partnership with the Council’s procurement and housing teams to ensure a robust, open, and transparent procurement and delivery process. There were sufficient existing checks and balances, including regular internal audits, cost and quality assurance processes, scrutiny of contractor method statements and inspection of works during and after completion. Homes for Haringey was strengthening its internal project management and contract compliance teams. The Council was strengthening its housing client management team to focus further on building safety. [ Recommendation 3.2a Not Agreed]
• The Council and Homes for Haringey were keen for leaseholders and tenants to participate in a meaningful way in procurement processes. HfH will strengthen its resident liaison team to support delivery of the HRA capital programme through wider opportunities to participate in procurement stages. [Recommendation 3.3 – Agreed]
• Homes for Haringey had undertaken additional safety tests and had a programme of safety checks for windows and doors, in line with industry best practice. [ Recommendation 3.2a – Not Agreed]
• Oversight of the procurement arrangement to achieve high quality process for windows and doors fittings. The Cabinet Member referred to her earlier comment on the procurement and the oversight by the Council client management team and the HfH project management team. [Recommendation 3.2b - Not Agreed]
• The existing complaints process enabled any concerns to be raised initially with HfH and if the leaseholder was not satisfied with any part of the response it could be escalated to stage 2 (which was reviewed by the Council). If they were still dissatisfied, they could  then go to the Ombudsman unless it was to do with the quality or cost of the works, then it would need to be referred to the first-tier tribunal. The process was clear and HfH staff could explain in more detail, if needed, to ensure full accessibility. [ Recommendation 3.4 - Agreed but the challenge on this was that there was already a robust complaints process in place]
• The Council and Homes for Haringey were equally disappointed with the low number of responses to the consultation pack sent to over 5000 leaseholders and the three follow up online meetings. The Council and Homes for Haringey were always looking for new ways to broaden and deepen consultation processes and would work with colleagues across the Council to learn what new forms of engagement have been most successful during the pandemic[Recommendation 3.5 Agreed]
• Pausing the decisions on the Alterations policy to allow for a time limited scrutiny to be completed by March 2021 was not agreed with and the Cabinet member recommended that decisions proceed as agreed by Cabinet at their meeting on 10 November 2020.[ Recommendation 3.1]

The Leader invited questions on the scrutiny report and response. Following questions from Cllr Amin, Cllr Dennison, and Cllr Ahmet the following information was provided:

• In relation to performance management of Homes for Haringey, there was the Homes for Haringey Board which had performance responsibility. There was an awareness of performance challenges with Homes for Haringey and the Cabinet Member was working closely with them on this issue.
• With regards to the Council or Homes for Haringey contributing to the £300 fee which was typical of putting forward a case to the first-tier tribunal, this was not possible.
• The specific causes of the spread of the Lakanell House fire were not known by the Cabinet Member. However, the Cabinet Member underlined that, following research she could not find another Council that would allow leaseholders to fit their own windows and doors.
• At the call- in meeting it was advised that poorly installed windows can have an impact on the spread of fire. An important part of ensuring fire safety was accountability, and this was met when the ALMO/Council was responsible for installing the windows and doors. They provided a level of oversight as an organisation which was safer than an individual person/ contractor being responsible.
• The 2005 legislation outlined the clear responsibility of the freeholder and this called into the question the need for the existing policy to have been agreed in 2008. The proposed decision was based on the regulatory framework and should be taken seriously.
• It was accepted that this was not the only area where the Council saw low response rates from residents, especially those that the Council wanted to engage with in the Council processes. The Cabinet Member committed to continue to highlight the issues of consultation in her regular meetings with Homes for Haringey. This would be discussed when considering the consultations that were forthcoming, the processes to be used for engagement, the number of contacts to be made and the level of feedback to be sought. An example of a current consultation conversation was highlighted. The Council and Homes for Haringey would need to be fully aware of the best methods to engage with people. There was a change in the way consultations were taken forward over time, in particular the use of online platforms whose success could be argued. Therefore, there was a need to make sure a full suite of options was available for consultation.

The Leader thanked the Councillors for the discussion and moved to reconsideration of key decision CAB 348 on the Alterations Policy for Leaseholders.

In accordance with the Call-in procedure, having heard the responses to the scrutiny recommendations, he referred Cabinet to the key decision resolutions which were included in the supplementary pack at pages 37 to 38.

After re-considering the matter, the Leader asked Cabinet Members, individually, to indicate that they were happy to agree to confirm its original decisions made on the 10th of November and to the commitments made by Cllr Ibrahim to scrutiny recommendations 3.2b, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 as outlined above,

RESOLVED

1. To approve the revised ‘Alterations Policy for Leaseholders’ regarding the improvement works that leaseholders are permitted to make to their property as set out in appendix 1 of the policy.
2. To approve the introduction of a requirement that, where a leaseholder’s external windows and doors need to be changed, all such installations are to be carried out by the Council and its approved contractors.
3. To approve the fee structure detailed in paragraphs 6.13, 6.16 and appendix 1 of the policy which will be subject to an annual review.
4. To note the process for deciding whether landlord consent can be granted as detailed in paragraphs 6.6 to 6.12 and appendix 1 of the policy.

Reason for decision

The recommendations in section 3 are being proposed to ensure there is a clear and transparent process in place for allowing leaseholders to improve their properties. In providing consent, the Council will consider the effect works may have on the structural integrity of Council owned buildings and the possible impact of these works on other tenants and leaseholders.

The recommendations also seek to ensure that all external installations have been manufactured and fitted correctly, in accordance with current regulatory standards and do not compromise fire safety. This is because the Council, as landlord, is ultimately responsible for the health and safety of all residents within Council owned buildings.

The recommendation also seeks to provide leaseholders with clarity on the fees payable for obtaining landlord’s permission for alterations to their home.

Alternative options considered

The only alternative option was to continue with the existing ’Alterations Policy for Leaseholders’ which was not feasible due to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System Regulations 2005 conferring powers on local authorities to ensure fire safety in occupied buildings. It is ultimately the Council’s responsibility to have robust processes in place to ensure doors and windows are installed to current regulatory standards in the event of a fire.