Agenda item

7.1  The Head of Major Works, David Markham, introduced the report.  The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Richard Livingstone, apologised to residents for delays in the major works to Draper House and stated that he would be attending the next Tenants’ & Residents’ Association meeting and its general meeting in September.  He also highlighted the independent investigation by Claer Lloyd-Jones into the delivery of the works and that the council would be considering her report.  The cabinet member also thanked the committee for its observations which had helped to shape the council’s thinking about Draper House.  He hoped that the update adequately addressed the committee’s earlier recommendations.

7.2  Councillor Anood Al-Samerai asked the process for consideration of the independent report.  She also asked about the extent of communication between the project team and residents, commenting that ward councillors were not adequately informed about work on the Four Squares Estate.  Councillor Al-Samerai stressed the need to clarify technical information and for a clear schedule of the ongoing works.  The Strategic Director Housing & Community Services, Gerri Scott, explained that the independent report would be openly available and communicated widely, including to residents of Draper House.  The cabinet and cabinet member for housing would consider its recommendations.  The Head of Major Works stated that the council always tried to update ward councillors but agreed that the council needed to get better at communicating technical information to residents.  He emphasised however that there was a range of officers that residents could contact for information.  Councillor Livingstone added that on projects such as Draper House, the Four Squares and Lakanal House, the use of an independent tenants’ friend had proved very useful.  Councillor Al-Samerai commented that many residents did not have the time to contact officers or a tenants’ friend and that clear and regular communication was essential.

7.3  Councillor Tom Flynn referred to the response to the committee’s earlier recommendation that all major works contracts should contain termination at will clauses which stated that this would be considered on a case by case basis.  He asked whether the possible costs of getting out of contracts was factored in to this.  The Head of Major Works clarified that this approach allowed the possibility of imposing such a clause if it was needed.  He also explained that the council was moving towards the position of appointing one contractor for one scheme.  The Strategic Director added that different types of contract were needed for different types of work but that the current contract arrangements for major works were partnering contracts.

7.4  Councillor David Noakes returned to concerns about the quality of the council’s communication with residents.  He wondered how good practice was embedded in the work of project teams and whether street properties were treated differently to estates.  The Head of Major Works replied that street properties were a challenge as they were not always clustered in clear geographical areas but could be scattered over a wide area.  The responses to initial consultation on street properties could be quite low and the council was trying to address this.  The Strategic Director indicated that the issue of communication was a main theme being explored in the independent investigation.  The council needed to look beyond its normal practices at how to involve residents without their needing to, for instance, attend meetings.

7.5  Councillor Catherine Dale highlighted the recommendation of the committee’s earlier scrutiny review in respect of appointing project management teams.  She asked how the council could be confident that the team now in place was effective and was picking up the right issues.  The Head of Major Works clarified that an additional manager was now in place to pick up and respond to issues.  A clear reporting mechanism was in place that included the design and delivery manager, investment manager and regular meetings with project teams and allowed any training needs to be identified.  Councillor Dale also asked for an explanation as to the difference between the issues and complaints logs.  The Investment Manager, Ferenc Morath, explained that the complaints log was for specific residents’ issues while the issues log related to larger issues on contracts.  He confirmed that nothing was removed from the logs without agreement by residents.  The Strategic Director added that, as part of her preliminary investigation, Claer Lloyd-Jones had suggested that the issues log was insufficient and, as a result of this, meetings were also now minuted.

7.6  Councillor Jasmine Ali asked whether the scale of intervention in the Draper House contract was sustainable.  The Head of Major Works replied that the standard of contract monitoring had not been adequate and residents’ feedback had not been taken up but that these issues had been addressed within the new project team.  Early learning from residents on an estate was essential and future contracts would take account of this and the scheme of management put in place at Draper House.  The Strategic Director agreed that there had been a number of failings in management practice in respect of Draper House.  She acknowledged that a real issue of trust and confidence now existed in respect of Draper House but that the independent investigation should provide a clear perspective on what the council needed to do differently in the future.

7.7  The chair invited the chair and vice-chair of Draper House Tenants’ & Residents’ Association, Luisa Pretolani and Julian Adamoli, to address the committee.  Luisa Pretolani emphasised that there was a lot of disappointment amongst residents about being informed late in the day about the committee’s meeting this evening.  Several other residents apart from the vice-chair and herself were keen to speak.

7.8  Ms Pretolani reported that communication was still not good.  She stated that many of the points listed on page 10 of the report had already been in place but had not improved the situation for Draper House residents.  This was confirmed by Mr Adamoli.  Effective communication was essential and needed to be revised.  Ms Pretolani stated that residents were still not clear about funding, for instance it had been understood that the council did not have funding for the concierge but then the local contractor had stepped in to fund.  Residents were also no longer clear about the schedule for works – a newsletter received that morning had stated that the scaffolding would be down by the end of the month but it did not provide information about other works.  The project had already taken three years.  Ms Pretolani stressed that in the view of residents there had not been sufficient monitoring of the contract with the result that residents had to invest a lot of their own time in reporting problems.  The vice-chair and herself had spent whatever time they could on-site and were on call twenty-four/seven in an effort to mediate problems.  She felt that the council gave different responses to similar problems in different flats.

7.9  The chair invited officers to respond to the issues raised by the Tenants’ & Residents’ Association.  The Strategic Director explained that she had met several times with Claer Lloyd-Jones who had fed back on action which could be taken quite quickly, for instance minuting meetings.  The Investment Manager clarified that there was a specific amount in the contract relating to the concierge but that this had been less than the costs identified.  As part of the community commitment the contractor had contributed at their own cost to this and also to work to the TRA hall.  In terms of communication, he explained that a number of changes had been made including increasing the number of meetings of the project team.  Weekly updates had been put on the notice board and the council had recently appointed an independent residents’ advisor.  The Investment Manager explained that, once the council began to consider terminating the contract with Breyer, communication with residents became restricted for legal and contractual reasons.  He acknowledged, with the benefit of hindsight, that it may have been helpful if the council had been able to be more open about the contractual issues and that it may have been helpful to have appointed the independent residents’ advisor at that stage.  The Investment Manager confirmed that the report of the independent investigation into the major works at Draper House would be discussed with residents, alongside the scrutiny report, and would be considered by the cabinet.  In response to a further question from Councillor Al-Samerai, he also confirmed that the initial points of contact for residents were the project manager and clerk of works.

7.10  In concluding consideration of the update, the chair asked that the report of the independent investigation be submitted to the committee for its consideration.