Agenda item

6.1  Maurice Soden, Regeneration Initiatives Manager began his presentation by updating the sub-committee on what had been happening on Southwark’s housing estates.

6.2  There had been significant funding invested in medium and high rise blocks of flats.  On average 2 out of 3 blocks had been invested in.  Low rise buildings had not been a priority and the stock had been largely neglected, with such problems as windows looking shabby and left to deteriorate.  He said that the issues with low rise buildings were more complicated than the problems encountered with high rise blocks. 

6.3  The Hawkstone estate should have had investment around 5 years ago.  Some of the projections of costs had to be paused so that those projections were in line with a new investment strategy due in May 2011.  This meant that the residents on the Hawkstone were in limbo for a while which may have contributed to suspicion and speculation as to what was going on.  The subject of investment in works was a ‘trigger’ to high feelings and complaints.  The Council had a difficult working relationship with residents groups and TRAs. 

6.4  The lessons learned from the Hawkstone were that the Council didn’t do well at including residents in the planning and the process of the proposed work.  The Council needed to have understood the context of the work and should have drawn on people’s local knowledge whilst building consultation into the process. 

6.5  The work should have started and finished with the TRAs and residents and the Council should have worked out a timetable of works that was realistic.  Managing the residents’ expectations would have been helpful in relation to consultation exercises, where some residents had been unclear about what was consultation and what were actual deliverable works. 

6.6  Councillor Wingfield,  Cabinet Member for Housing said that there had been some difficult dynamics between some personalities and that:

·  There should have been much clearer communication between the Council and the residents with clear dates and timeframes for scheduled work.

·  There should have been more resident involvement before and during the process, although constitutionally the Council had to be cautious when including a body of people who were ‘representative’ of local voices.

·  There needed to be greater coordination with other Council services and departments.  The Housing and Regeneration department should have worked much more closely together on these matters of major works programmes.

6.7  Gerri Scott, Strategic Director for Housing said that there had been trust and confidence problems between residents and council officers who hadn’t been able to make a commitment to ensure that residents were fully informed of what had been going on.  It had not always been possible to tell residents what happening with the work.  Council officers should have conveyed that they had not been able to provide answers.  That trust had not been engendered and communication on the Council side, had been weak. 

6.8  Members felt that there should have been efforts to ensure that residents were getting as much data and information as possible, which might include information about contracts and contractors.  Problems such as finding asbestos in the buildings for instance, should have been imparted to residents. 

6.9  Officers said that the stock condition survey should have detailed where problems such as asbestos were present.  Officers had consulted residents on their knowledge and history of their buildings and took action by investigating problem areas highlighted by the residents.  Consulting with residents in this way had been very beneficial as often other matters/problems that wouldn’t have ordinarily come to light, had also be brought to the attention of the Council and had inform the workplan.

6.10  Members echoed the views of Officers by saying that there had been a lack of continuity and inconsistency with the work programme and information.  That residents should have been fully informed and brought on board wherever possible to add to their understanding of the situation and council officers should have kept residents in the picture, even when things had not been working well. 

6.11  It was felt that the methodology had been very important with such major works and the TRAs needed to have a balanced membership to ensure fair representation on the estates.  Members and Officers were aware that there were tensions between the leaseholders and the tenants groups.  Tenants groups tended to want the work completed as quickly as possible and leaseholders’ groups were more keen on obtaining value for money and to keep costs as low as possible.

6.12  Officers and Members discussed the idea that to impart the cost of such works to leaseholders as an actual cost, rather than giving them global figures for the works, would have helped to mitigate the impact of the prospect of such financial outlays. 

6.13  Gerri Scott acknowledged that the spirit of openness and honesty needed to be fostered and she felt that this had now started to be cultivated within the departments.