Agenda item

6.1  The committee discussed the way the planned repairs and that here had been eight million pounds in total, allocated for the work.  Four blocks of flats were expected to cost six million but the repairs had still not been completed.  The Chair read from the committee’s draft report:

6.2  “On 30^th November 2005 Southwark’s Investment Programme Group (IPG) agreed to fund security works on the estate.  Since that time, until March 2010, there has been a general expectation that Southwark Council would carry out security works on all four squares.  The total estimated cost of the scheme agreed in 2005 was £8,025,514.  This was allocated funding through £2.34 million from the London Housing Board and £5,685,514 allocated from Southwark.  

6.3  To date the Council has spent £6,606,788 on the security works on New Place and Lockwood Squares with a further £130,000 committed to these projects in for retention payments, giving a grand total of 6,736,788 committed and spent.  The completion of the security works in these two blocks has lead to a significant reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour to the benefit of all residents living there.”

6.4  The committee felt that the likelihood of repairs being completed was an unrealistic expectation because it appeared that there wasn’t sufficient money from the outset.  There was overspending as a result of poor calculations at management level. 

6.5  The Chair went over some of the information contained in the committee’s report for the benefit of officers: 

6.6  ‘The sub-committee also feels that it is a matter for concern that the scale of this overspend in the early stages of the project was not more widely communicated.  It is very surprising that the Executive Member(s) either at the time or subsequently did not take action to either:

-  ensure a ring-fenced allocation of funds was made to cover the additional costs; or

-  instruct officers to communicate with residents and ward councillors to alert them to the fact that there was a significant overspend and which may lead to a reduction in the security works which had originally been planned.’

6.7  Point 7.2 ‘delegated decisions of Southwark Council:’

No formal decision was ever made by the previous Executive to allocate money specifically to the Four Squares Security Works. Instead, the original allocation was made by the Investment Programme Group (IPG) which operates under the delegated authority of the Executive Director for Housing.  The decision to re-allocate the money to other projects was taken in 2009 as part of the “Investment Delivery Strategy Major Works Commitments 2010-12.”  This decision was also made by the Executive Director for Environment and Housing.

6.8  The Chair said that money was then taken away because no formal decision had taken place.  The committee felt that there had been very poor communication between the Council and residents overall with re-allocated money not being passed on. 

6.9  “The sub-committee understands the severe financial restraints under which the current Cabinet is working and the huge amount of investment which is needed in Southwark’s housing stock. However, the sub-committee feels that residents of the Four Squares have been treated extremely poorly during this long-running saga.  The sub-committee also recognises the commitment already given by the Cabinet Member for Housing to look at this issue very closely once the stock condition survey is complete and an assessment of the priority of works needed across the whole borough is complete”. 

6.10  The chair asked committee Members and residents for comments:

6.11  Residents were most concerned that decisions should not be made behind closed doors and that this matter should be referred to the standards committee.  It was important that Council protocols should be maintained when making decisions and planning work of this kind.

6.12  There had been no consultants to oversee the continuity of the project work.  This lack of continuity had been a problem from budgeting to the delivery of the work and residents felt that the Council must acknowledge that this had been a large mistake.  It was also felt that a freedom of information request should now be sought as a matter of course.

6.13  The Members of the committee said that the report on the Four Squares issue was excellent and contained unbiased facts which highlighted the need for greater transparency, communication and identified areas where apologies were needed. 

6.14  Members added that they felt the lines of accountability should have been made clearer with both Officers and Councillors understanding their respective roles.

6.15  Residents felt that the budget had been miscalculated from the beginning and that Council officers should have shown more restraint when planning and executing the work.  It was felt that problems on the estate could have been easily foreseen, had there not been considerable mismanagement.  It was recognised that managing contractors is a very difficult thing and it was suggested that perhaps Members should receive training in issues such as contract management.  However, the committee felt that Members should feel confident and trust in their officers, with the expectation that they are being provided with comprehensive and good quality information without, necessarily, the need for training themselves.  General awareness training regarding the various portfolios might assist with some clarity of roles, which could be helpful for both Members and Officers.

6.17  TheVice-Chair thought that the report covered the situation well and that there were no spurious accusations made.  The report covered issues of considerable underinvestment in properties in across Southwark, and this was now becoming more apparent.  Member’s felt that this was a factual report highlighting bad management, inadequate funding and bad planning.  For instance, there was work carried out to update security doors which did not need oing and there was the opportunity to make savings there.  The lack of management resulted in work taking place that was unnecessary and work that was more vital, overlooked.

6.18  Residents had felt that this type of incident was a consistent problem across planning work within Southwark.  At the time of the works, there had been concern around there being no forum for tenants to be heard.  There were also concerns around officers involved in the major investment programme not being adequately qualified.  Anecdotally, one resident had overheard an officer saying that they did not want to upset the contractors.  Then tenants point was that the contractors are employees of the Council and are working to the councils’ specifications, not the other way around.

6.19  The sub-committee wanted to add an extra recommendation to the report which promoted the idea of tenants being included onto project boards for each work programme.  It was thought this could be a useful forum for both disseminating information to residents and to make suggestions to the council as to where work was absolutely necessary and where savings might be made.

6.20  The sub-committee agreed the report with the extra recommendation.