Agenda item

To receive an update on the Housing Asset Management Plan, including an update on the progress made to date with retrofitting.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the Housing Asset Management Plan. The report was introduced by Christian Carlisle, Interim AD Asset Management as set out in the agenda pack at pages 13-22. The item also contained a presentation on progress to date with retrofitting properties in Haringey to improve their energy efficiency. This presentation was provided by Alfie Peacock, Senior Project Manager – Energy and Sustainability as set out in the agenda pack at pages 23-29. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was present for this item, along with the Director of Placemaking and Housing. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought clarification around how the revised Asset Management Plan was a change from what had been in place previously. In response, officers advised that this should be seen as an expansion of the existing process. Officers set out that a stock condition survey had just been completed for the first time since 2015 and that having accurate data would allow the Council to better plan and prioritise works going forward.

b.    Members asked whether the Asset Management plan included the decoration of existing estate blocks. In response, it was advised that that this was not usually part of Major Works, and instead was carried by the communal decorations team.

c.    In response to comments about difficulties in spending capital money every year, officers acknowledged that this was always a challenge. The Council spent circa £27m last year and it was forecast to spend circa £35m in the current year. Officers commented that some of the delays were caused by the procurement process and supply chains, it was hoped that the implementation of 10-year partnering contracts would help mitigate some of those delays.

d.    In response to a query about aids and adaptations and progress with merging the two teams, officers advised that the two teams did slightly different things. It was noted that the team within Adult Social Services undertook assessments retrospectively following requests from a tenant, where as in Housing an occupational health assessor would be involved in major works programmes and would contribute to the design of a unit.

e.    In response to a question about the timetable for the implementation of the framework agreement, officers advised that the Council had decided to go through its own framework contract and that it was still on track; it was anticipated that this would be in place by quarter 2 of 2025/26.

f.     The Panel sought assurances around resident and leaseholder engagement in procurement panels for major works. In response, officers set out that there was a legal requirement for residents to be involved in the prioritisation and feedback on works and that the Cabinet report set out how that engagement process would work.

g.    Officers advised that stock condition surveys were being undertaken so that the Council would not have to be in a position whereby it lacked relevant data and that there was a commitment that these would be done on the basis of a minimum of 10% stock done year on year.

h.    In response to a question, officers advised that the stock viability model looked at what needed to be invested in the Council’s housing stock over the next thirty years against the anticipated levels of income. It was clarified that this was not about selling assets  if they were considered too expensive to renovate.

i.      The Panel sought assurances about the extent to which partnership contracts would be able to offset the risk of contractors going bust. In response, officers advised that nobody wanted to go through the pain of having contractors go bust, and that it was envisaged that the framework agreement would help mitigate this, particularly as the Council would be seeking to appoint large scale tier one contractors. It was also noted that the intention was to tender the contracts in such a way that there was no guarantee of work, in case the contractor did not perform up to expectation.

j.      In response to a question around Decent Homes standard and the timeframe for additional investments to go above that standard, officers advised that in general they would always seek to do works all together to minimise disruption and that it might be the case that some works were brought forward if other works were being done on site.

k.    The Chair requested that the table at paragraph 4.6 of the report be broken down to show the average investment per dwelling in a particular location. In response officers advised that they were not sure that it would be possible to present an average, but that they could provide additional information of how that figure was arrived at based on the stock condition survey data. (Action: Christian Carlisle).

l.      The Panel sought clarification about retrofitting and the aspiration to achieve an average of EPC-C, rather than EPC-B. In response, officers advised that the Housing Energy Action Plan (HEAP) set out a target for an EPC-C average by 2030, EPC-B by 2035, and carbon neutral by 2041. Officers acknowledged that the basis for this was the timelines for government grants. Officers were confident that Haringey would meet those targets.

m.  In response to a question about external insulation versus cavity wall insulation on the Coldfall estate, officers advised that external insulation had been chosen because of the design of those buildings and the fact there were no cavities in the internal walls.

n.    Officers acknowledged the need to communicate with leaseholders in the buildings were retrofitting was taking place and suggested that they envisaged the contractors giving leaflets out to those properties and engaging with residents directly. Officers advised that engaging with leaseholders was part of the action plan.

o.    In response to a question, the Director advised that he would be discussing the possibility of adopting a retrofitting first approach in relation to enabling planning policy to support retro-fitting, at the upcoming meeting of the Local Plan working group. It was cautioned that there was quite strict primary legislation in place around conservation areas.

p.    Officers agreed to come back with an explanation of how an average of EPC-B was calculated and whether it was calculated as a mean or mode average. (Alfie Peacock)

q.    Officers also agreed to come back with an explanation of how fuel poverty was calculated in England and what the definition was. (Alfie Peacock).

r.     The Panel commented that the figures in the presentation were quite small and questioned how this could be scaled up to meet Haringey’s ambitious climate targets. In response, officers advised that there were other workstreams that contributed to improved carbon efficiencies, such as major works programme replacement of doors, windows and boilers. The Mayor’s Office established several retrofitting programmes. Officers acknowledged that there was a general shortage of funding from government for retro-fitting.

s.    The Panel queried about what could be done if leaseholders didn’t want to go through the disruption of having retrofitting works done. In response, officers advised that part of the job of the team would be to try and persuade them of the benefits of retrofitting and explain some of the disruption involved. A surveyor would be sent round to talk to the homeowners. The Council would be seeking to bring as many people along with them as they could at each stage of the process, but ultimately three would be a point in which the project had to move on.

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the report.