Agenda item

To Follow

The Committee considered a Scrutiny Review carried out by the Housing and Regeneration Panel on proposed Noel Park Major Works. The report was introduced by Cllr Gordon - Chair of the Scrutiny Panel, as set out in the supplementary agenda pack at page 7. The following was raised in discussion of the report:

1. The Committee commended the thoroughness of the report and the amount of work that had gone into it. The Committee thanked officers for their support in compiling it.
2. The Committee raised concerns around the administration missing the 30 day deadline for the truncated process of the Section 20 notices and sought assurances around this and the potential for future legal action. In particular, it was noted that these notices would remove the rights of residents to appoint their own contractors. Cllr Gordon responded that the Panel were particularly concerned about this point and were also wary about having a truncated consultation period in the first place. It was commented that this was not how the Council should be engaging with residents. In regard to the possibility of further legal challenge, the legal advisor to the Committee suggested that he would have to come back to Committee with a comment on this as he was not involved with the issue. It was suggested that the leaseholders would have their own legal representation and it would be up to them to take any claims forward. (Action: Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense).
3. The Committee also raised concerns about a general lack of consultation and engagement with leaseholders throughout the process. In response, Cllr Gordon suggested that she thought that there was a lack of engagement and was concerned that it was only in response to the campaign by leaseholders and subsequent press coverage that had jolted the administration into action and had elicited further engagement.
4. The Committee queried the role and efficacy of the first tier tribunal for resolving disputes. Cllr Gordon commented that the first tier tribunals seemed to be quite a bureaucratic process and that in her opinion, the Council didn’t need to have a third party tribunal;  it just needed to listen to residents and engage properly.

*Clerk’s note 21:50 hrs – Under Committee Standing Order 63, the Committee agreed to suspend Committee Standing Order 18, thereby extending the meeting past the 22:00 cut-off point.*

5. The Committee raised concerns about the high cost of the estimates for leaseholders and suggested that the reason for this was because repairs had been left for long and the decision to do the work had been delayed by different administrations. It was commented that it seemed fundamentally unfair to charge the leaseholders so much for a problem that was not of their making.  It was commented that the Housing Panel should continue to pursue this point.
6. The Committee also noted concerns with delays in responding to questions and FOI request from leaseholders throughout this process. In response, Cllr Gordon advised that the panel also shared these concerns and advised that it was the role of scrutiny to provide a constructive challenge to the administration and to raise concerns when things went wrong.
7. The Chair also commented that the leaseholders had made it very clear that they did not want to delay the pod replacements for the tenants but the cost implications for leaseholders were potentially ruinous.

RESOLVED

That the Committee approved the report and its recommendations and approved its submission to Cabinet for response.