Agenda and minutes

Housing Scrutiny Commission - Tuesday 14 October 2025 7.00 pm

Venue: Ground Floor Meeting Room G01, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH

Contact: Adam Wood, Scrutiny Officer  Email: adam.wood@southwark.gov.uk

Note: Please note, this meeting has been rescheduled from 21 October 2025. 

Items
No. Item

1.

APOLOGIES

    • Share this item

    To receive any apologies for absence.

    Minutes:

    Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tester, Councillor Hargrove, Councillor Harper and Councillor Livingstone.

2.

NOTIFICATION OF ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMS URGENT

    • Share this item

    In special circumstances, an item of business may be added to an agenda within five clear working days of the meeting.

    Minutes:

    There were no late items of business.

3.

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS

    • Share this item

    Members to declare any interests and dispensations in respect of any item of business to be considered at this meeting.

    Minutes:

    Ina Negoita declared an interest in item 4 (the Minutes) as they contained information relating to an estate where Ms Negoita was a resident leaseholder.

4.

MINUTES

5.

GOOD LANDLORD PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE

    • Share this item

    To receive a report, Good Landlord Plan Progress Update, noting the progress and status of the Good Landlord Plan.

    Supporting documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chair invited officers and the Cabinet Member, Councillor Michael Situ, to relay progress on the Good Landlord Plan.

     

    Councillor Situ started by outlining the background to the Good Landlord Plan, from the Council’s self-referral to the Regulator for Social Housing in June 2024 to a planned inspection by the Regulator and announcement of a C3 judgement in November 2024. The Plan was developed as the Council’s response to the Regulator’s concerns and to wider issues raised by residents and Councillors.

     

    Ryan Collymore, Director of Repairs and Maintenance, then updated the Commission on the Plan’s progress within his areas of responsibility, reporting that:

     

    • good progress had been made on electrical testing compliance and smoke alarm compliance
    • the stock condition survey started at the end of September and was progressing well
    • Plentific – a system for sub-contractor procurement and management was expected to go live later in October or in early November – helping with managing resource externally and in-house

     

     

    Abi Oguntokun, Director of Landlord Services (Acting), provided the Commission with developments on:

     

    • estate surgeries and particularly regarding increasing the visibility of officers on estates
    • moves to broaden the location of surgeries, using libraries and leisure centres in addition to estates
    • revised Anti-Social Behaviour procedures in response to resident feedback
    • work and training to improve relationships with residents
    • the backlog on housing complaints, now cleared, and reduction in number of complaints
    • Bournemouth Road in-person assistance being behind schedule but with alternative arrangements in place
    • providing online breakdowns of service charges for leaseholders
    • increased information-provision including the annual report on Housing performance and tenant satisfaction measures
    • the resident engagement strategy which has been revised and scheduled for Cabinet review in December

     

     

    Stuart Davis, Director of New Homes, reported:

     

    • the Council’s ongoing commitment to delivering new council homes
    • the first tranche of new homes (2,500) would be nearing completion by April 2026
    • work had started on 700 of the 1,000 homes in the second tranche

     

     

    The Chair then invited Commission members to ask questions. These included:

     

    • understanding how the Council intended to help leaseholders and others blocked from selling or buying because the compliance documentation (e.g. EWS1 and “letters of comfort”) for properties in buildings over 5 stories was not available
    • what percentage of the backlog of complaints had been dealt with
    • how residents and leaseholders would receive training without the training officers previously provided
    • the availability of alternatives to Bournemouth Road for housing enquiry appointments
    • when every home would have up-to-date electrical certification and fire alarms
    • how much of the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) has been used to fund compliance work
    • how the new IT systems would deliver better outcomes and not just more bureaucracy
    • how residents could trust the Good Landlord Plan while the Council’s performance as a landlord was judged to be poor
    • how and when resident surgeries would take place and fit with wider engagement activities
    • whether TRA groups and residents could create their own surgeries with ward councillors and with officer support
    • the assistance available for staff to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

THE REVISED RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

    • Share this item

    To receive and comment on the revised Resident Engagement Strategy which responds to engagement with residents, the recommendations of the Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission and an independent review of resident consultation.

    Supporting documents:

    Minutes:

    Abi Oguntokun, Director of Landlord Services (Acting), introduced the revised Resident Engagement Strategy which responded to feedback provided by the Regulator, by residents and by recommendations from the Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission in the previous year.

     

    Abi reported on the opportunities, formal structures and funding in place to support the Council’s engagement with residents whilst also noting the lack of evidence linking these to service outcomes.  Abi explained that from January, four new Boards aimed to change that by establishing clearer links between resident-supported structures and desired outcomes.

     

    Further developments included increased publishing of performance data, developing a remuneration policy to pay residents for their time and travel, a Digital Engagement Strategy and a shift in approach to working with residents more collaboratively. It was hoped the revised Resident Engagement Strategy could come before Cabinet in December.

     

    Councillor Situ stated that the new system allowed for residents to contribute to more specialist areas of the Council’s landlord services by sitting on one of the focused Boards. By increasing the use of digital engagement and through involving more residents, the strategy would also be more agile. In Councillor Situ’s view, the Strategy would provide a shift in role for residents, from one of providing feedback to one of taking part in decision-making.

     

    Councillor Situ acknowledged that more discussion around the Strategy’s later development with the Homeowners’ Forum and the Tenants’ Forum would have been better. However, meetings with residents had been helpful and Appendix 4 of the engagement report provided improvements based on their suggestions.

     

    The Strategic Director of Housing, Hakeem Osinaike, also noted that the Regulator of Social Housing and the tenant engagement organisation, Tpas, had provided positive feedback on the strategy.

     

    Before opening to questions from Commission members, the Chair commented on feelings among some residents that there had not been enough time to view the revised strategy. Councillor Situ explained that drafting of the strategy had been late because of a late report from Social Life and that additional meetings he had since held with residents had registered some of their concerns. He was also willing to meet again before the finalised strategy going to Cabinet in December.

     

    The Chair then invited questions from the Commission. These included:

     

    • whether Social Life had provided a fuller report of which the published version was only a summary and, if so, whether the full version could be published
    • why a Leaseholder Board was being reconstituted when the previous iteration had failed, as had been predicted by those residents involved
    • how, as a longer-term aim, a shared sense of community might be rebuilt so that the differences which the Social Life report recorded between leaseholders and tenants in tenure type might become less significant relative to fact that they were neighbours
    • how the Strategy might use the Boards to create a sense of place and, in its documentation, illustrate what the user journey would be like from a resident’s perspective around questions such as how someone  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

TENDA ROAD (NEW BUILD HOMES)

    • Share this item

    To receive a report, Tenda Road (New Build Homes) – Overview and Next Steps, noting the project’s complex history and the action plan in place to address concerns and resolve the matter as well as the appointment of an independent investigator.

    Supporting documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chair proposed that the Commission note the contents of the report but wait until the independent report on Tenda Road becomes available in the new year for a full discussion on the matter. In this way, the Commission could use the information available then to make more meaningful recommendations.

     

    The Commission agreed that consideration of the item be deferred.

8.

POST-GRENFELL COMPLIANCE AND FUTURE FIRE SAFETY INVESTMENT

    • Share this item

    To receive a report, Response to Housing Scrutiny Commission on Post Grenfell Compliance & Future Fire Safety Investment, noting how the Council currently stands in relation to updated fire safety legislation and the implementation of fire safety-specific modifications to housing stock as well as its plans for future fire safety investment.

    Supporting documents:

    Minutes:

    This item was considered in conjunction with Item 9. Marie Curie – Recommendation to demolish subject to Cabinet decision.

     

    Before inviting Officers and the Cabinet Members for New Homes & Sustainable Development (Councillor Helen Dennis) and Council Homes (Councillor Michael Situ) to come before the Commission, the Chair briefly noted that having Items 8 and 9 allowed Members to understand the key issues of fire safety as well as the investment needed.

     

    Councillor Helen Dennis informed the commission that the Marie Curie block on Sceaux Gardens Estate straddled both Cabinet Members’ portfolios. Its recent history was provided – having breached compartmentation guidance regarding Fire Safety, residents were moved out before investigations carried out. Requirements of the Fire Safety Act (2022) and the work needed as revealed through further surveys and investigations meant that the Council was proposing its demolition since even with substantial investment, the block would carry significant risks. As proposed, the site would then join the new build programme already planned for Sceaux Gardens’ Florian and Racine blocks.

     

    The Commission then asked questions including:

     

    • if, regarding Marie Curie House, other options were available between demolition and investment of £23million+ for fire safety
    • how residents were being supported and if they could return to properties in a rebuilt block
    • the length of time needed for demolition and rebuild
    • whether other estates faced similarly complex fire safety issues
    • what had been learned from Marie Curie or could have been improved in the process

     

     

    Officers, with Councillors Dennis and Situ, responded:

     

    • that other options, judged unfeasible, had been considered including, initially, works to make the block safe with residents in place and works to increase fire safety although the option here would require additional monitoring of risks
    • that changing legislation since 2022 imposed increasing levels of intervention
    • that, although alternatives were explored, all options involving the retention of the building required accepting risks to resident safety which were too high for the Council to agree to
    • that the 3 tenant households remaining in Marie Curie had been offered alternative accommodation and the Council continued to seek appropriate accommodation for them
    • that the Council continued to negotiate with the 3 non-resident leaseholder households
    • that those previously offered the right to return were communicated with including through in-person meetings with officers
    • that the intention was for the cleared site, if demolition was agreed by Cabinet, to become part of the Florian and Racine development where planning permission has been received
    • that development would seek to maximise the delivery of social rent homes whilst needing to raise funds to contribute to that development
    • that the Ledbury estate, for different structural and fire safety pressures, had 4 blocks with demolition agreed (including one already demolished with rebuilding underway)
    • that – for Marie Curie – the pace of decision-making had been slow although this was set against changing legal requirements for building and fire safety, and with significant uncertainty regarding central government funding for development, and for retrofitting and fire safety

9.

MARIE CURIE - RECOMMENDATION TO DEMOLISH SUBJECT TO CABINET DECISION

10.

WORK PROGRAMME 2025-2026

11.

CABINET RESPONSES TO THE HOUSING, COMMUNITY SAFETY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SCRUTINY COMMISSION'S: "SCRUTINY REVIEW OF TENANT STRUCTURES (DRAFT RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY)" INTERIM REPORT