Agenda item

To follow

The Panel received a report which set out the overarching picture of how housing estates are managed and maintained across Housing Services. The report provided an overview of the service offer, what teams were responsible for, and how this linked to larger programmes of work. The report was introduced by Neehara Wijeyesekera, Assistant Director for Housing Management as set out in the addendum report pack at pages 5-16. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel commented that in the past there was one named person who was responsible for a particular estate. It was contended that this was no longer the case, and that this had resulted in a lack of accountability for the upkeep and management of estates. In response, officers advised that a model of having one person accountable was not seen to be effective, given the complexities involved. It was suggested that the likelihood of anyone person being able to understand where all of the budgets relating to all the different aspects of managing estates, including long-term agreements versus contractors, was less likely in modern environments. Officers advised that there weren’t a lot of neighbourhood managers in any case (four). 

b.    The Panel raised concerns around estate inspections, commenting that these tended to be under-resourced and underrepresented. Panel Members suggested that they rarely seemed to receive feedback on the outcomes of these inspections. The Chair gave an anecdotal account of having not received feedback from an inspection that was carried out five months ago. In response, officers advised that there was currently a reorganisation taking place in tenancy services, which would lead to the estate inspection process being led by the Housing Officer directly. It was commented that additional resources had gone in to reduce patch sizes, in addition to retaining the Neighbourhood Improvement Officer role as-is. It was also commented that through better digital tracking of jobs, it would be easier to disseminate information, but this would require a neighbourhood plan model. The Panel were advised that this would take time to establish.

c.    The Panel sought clarification about the difference between a Neighbourhood Improvement Officer and Neighbourhood Manager. The Panel queried who was responsible for the ownership of an estate. In response, officers advised that the Neighbourhood Manager was responsible for a particular location and all of the services in that location i.e. grounds maintenance, inspections, neighbourhood improvements, the ordering of works, and scheduling of inspections. Whereas the Neighbourhood Improvement Officers had the responsibility to track, report, and arrange with various service providers, including around who was able to provide what, and at what price, and whether that would move forward. In relation to communal items and repairs, officers advised that there would be so much investment over the coming ten years that it would be very difficult for one individual to track through all of the work being done.

d.    The Chair noted concerns with the capacity of housing officers to manage the estate inspection process, even with smaller patch sizes. Officers noted that the patch size would be reduced from 700 to 500. The Chair queried whether, as part of the consultation process, Housing Officers had given an indication that the reduction in patch size, would allow them to carry out the estate inspection process. In response, officers advised that the consultation process had been looking at the role and duties of housing officers. It was stated that to some extent, it would depend on the experience levels of individual staff members. There would be a process of training and shadowing introduced to facilitate this change. Furthermore, there would be a review of the restructure after six and them twelve months.

e.    The Panel commented that the budget for neighbourhood works seemed quite small. The Panel raised concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance carried out by the Parks service, and suggested that this should be benchmarked against the grounds maintenance carried out by housing associations like Berkley Homes. In response, officers acknowledged that there were ongoing challenges around grounds maintenance performance. The Panel was advised that there was an improvement plan being developed and that the Parks service were meeting residents through a task and finish group. Officers set out that they were looking to have a new model of service delivery in place, and that there was a commitment that the service offer would be transparent and deliverable. Officers cautioned that this was a big piece of work and it would take some time to implement.

f.      The Panel sought clarification about transparency of grounds maintenance charges and whether residents could expect to see how many times the grass would be cut a year, for example. In response, officers advised that the charge was an annual figure at present, which is apportioned across tenants and leaseholders directly through a service charge. Officers advised that the transparency piece through the service provider is looking to model how many grass cuts and what the profile is across the year. In terms of timescales, officers commented that it would be six to eight weeks to conclude the task and finish group and the expectation of what residents/leaseholders could expect would become clearer after it had concluded. The service would then examine what the SLA would look like and what the monitoring arrangements would be.

g.    The Panel sought further details behind the £2m ground maintenance budget being ringfenced within Parks. Officers agreed to provide a written response. (Action: Neehara).

h.    The Panel cautioned about low turnout on estate walkabouts, given that those who attended got to set the rating for the estate inspection. The Panel suggested that that it would be useful to have a breakdown of the number of residents attending the inspections. In response, officers advised that they would provide a written answer to the Panel. (Action: Neehara).

i.      The Panel sought assurances that the additional demands on housing officers arising from the Housebuilding Programme had been factored into the plans for the department. In response, officers advised that it was expected that additional stock levels would be a benefit as it would provide economies of scale, and that rents and income levels should be proportionally higher for new builds compared to existing stock. The Panel was advised that these assumptions were built into long-term HRA planning.

j.      The Panel reiterated their belief that having a named officer who was responsible for a particular estate was something that the Council should be aspiring to. Concerns were raised about a level of duplication in the roles of Neighbourhood Manager and the Neighbourhood Engagement Officer, and the value for money considerations involved in having two different roles. The Panel set out that there were a range of different issues that often arose on estates, such as ASB, parking, disruption caused by major works. It was suggested that having one designated point of contact was essential to engaging with residents around these issues. The Panel also commented that a number of the notice boards across estates that stated who to contact, were out of date. The Chair emphasised the fact that there was a strong local identity on many estates and that it was important that the people responsible for managing that estate understood this.

k.     The Panel queried at what point a repair became major works, and questioned the extent to which priority was given to high impact, low cost repairs such as painting railings or mending fences. In response, officers advised that this fell under the category of a planned reactive maintenance programme and that discussions were underway within the service to look at how a reactive maintenance programme could be set up. Officers also advised that they were looking at whether some of these works could be done as part of Decent Homes.

l.      The Panel resolved to receive further information at a future meeting around a detailed breakdown of the estate management budget, and whether this was sufficient. (Action: Scrutiny Officer).

RESOLVED

      I.         That the report was noted.

     II.         The Panel welcomed the proposed adoption of a Neighbourhood Plan model and recommend that Cabinet consider adopting this model sooner, given the urgent need to improve the communal areas of the Council’s estates.

   III.         The Panel recommended that there should be a single person responsible for the management of a particular estate.

  IV.         The Panel recommended that Cabinet give further consideration to whether Housing Officers were the most appropriate person for undertaking inspections of estates, given their current workloads and expressed concern this was not the appropriate solution.

    V.         The Panel recommended that Cabinet consider undertaking a benchmarking exercise of its internal performance of grounds maintenance on estates with local Housing Associations.