Themes:
- Cabinet performance management
- Housing strategy
- Jobs and growth
- Strategic partnerships
Question:
Will the Leader abide by the awaited decision of the First Tier Tribunal on the Council/Lend Lease appeal against the Information Commissioner on the Elephant & Castle viability assessment?
Minutes:
6.1 The Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter John, attended the committee for his cabinet member interview. As an introduction, the Leader referred to the vision for the borough which he had set out at the previous week’s meeting of Council Assembly.
6.2 In terms of the council’s housing strategy, a member asked how better use could be made of empty privately-owned properties in the borough. The Leader acknowledged that this was a concern but stressed that a change in legislation would be needed before the council could forcibly take action. The council had tried to encourage landlords to house families needing urgent or temporary accommodation and steps had been taken to bring derelict properties back into use but the council had no powers to, for instance, tell landlords to let their properties to the local community. The Leader welcomed any suggestions in this area.
6.3 A member commented that the decision of Cabinet on 18 March in respect of the options available to leaseholders displaced from estates undergoing regeneration was a step forward. He asked whether there was any scope for bringing forward the new options and for going further. The Leader agreed that the options of shared ownership and shared equity would make a huge difference. He commented that the council was able to reach agreement with the vast majority of leaseholders affected by regeneration projects. He stressed the importance of sensitive negotiation, especially with older residents, and that it was absolutely crucial to ensure that there was an officer point of contact who fully understood the process and what was needed.
6.4 Another member put this in the context of the regeneration of the Aylesbury estate. There were still twenty-five to thirty years before the project was completed and it was important for the council to remain flexible in how it engaged with and supported tenants and leaseholders and to be prepared to change its policies. The Leader agreed with this point of view and emphasised that the council had to be mindful that it was making decisions that effected how people lived over a long period of time, families and individuals who were often extremely vulnerable. The Leader also pointed out the positive impact of regeneration on employment; in recent months over six hundred people had been brought into work on big regeneration projects, there hundred of whom had been unemployed.
6.5 A member asked for the Leader’s view on contracting out services, particularly in view of the success of bringing revenues and benefits and the call centre back in-house. The Leader stated that services should be constantly reviewed in order to see whether or not they could be run more efficiently in-house. At the same time he commented that facilities management was contracted out and was a well-run contract. It would be difficult to bring IT back in-house. The right solution needed to be found for each service.
6.6 The chair of the committee expressed concern at the council’s procurement procedures and its capacity to manage big value contracts, especially big major works contracts. The Leader was confident that the council was improving all the time. He referred to the Vangent contract. The key performance indicators were wrong by 2010/11 but the contract did not allow for these to be changed. There was always room for improvement in contract management, especially on a housing contract. The Leader gave the Capita contract as an example of a contract which was being very robustly managed on a weekly basis by a board chaired by the chief executive.
6.7 In response to questions, the Leader stated that the chief executive was due to review the spend of the local assistance fund. The council would not continue to receive funding in this area. In addition, universal credit had not been introduced at the expected rate. It was important to review the impact of changes in benefits and the spend of the fund.
6.8 Members were also concerned about the council’s void disposal strategy and how it impacted on different areas of the borough. The Leader responded that to date only seven properties had been disposed of. The council was selective and tended to dispose of properties needing a lot of investment. Capital received was directed towards funding of the warm, dry, safe programme. The Leader commented that, in view of rising property prices, it might be appropriate to review the current threshold of £300K. Some members remained concerned that one part of the council might be disposing of four and five bed properties while another part was trying to house large families. The Leader clarified that the process was much more discriminating. He stressed that the bigger challenge to the housing stock was the government raising the cap on right-to-buy. There were currently 1,026 applications being processed.
6.9 Members were interested to hear the Leader’s views on whether and how the borough’s housing issues could be resolved. The Leader felt that, given current population projections, it was unlikely that enough properties could be built to solve the council’s waiting list. Planning consent had been given to eleven thousand new homes over the last four years, including three thousand affordable homes. A member asked whether the Leader was in favour of getting rid of right-to-buy or any changes in the powers of local authorities. The Leader felt that the level of prescription by Westminster should be less across the whole of London. He also felt that local authorities should be able to suspend right-to-buy if it put too much pressure on the housing stock but was doubtful whether any government would support this. The Leader also hoped that a future government would invest in transport infrastructure into East London, opening up vast tracts of land for housing and other development.
6.10 In response to questions about ongoing risks for the council, the Leader identified continuing threats to the budget. The council was also arguing for the headroom in the Housing Revenue Account to be lifted as this would help local authorities to build housing. A member asked whether, in the Leader’s opinion, there was a role for scrutiny in respect of the Health & Wellbeing Board. The Leader reported that last week he had commissioned a governance review which would include consideration of the role of scrutiny in this area. He drew attention to the Southwark and Lambeth Integrated Care programme which did important work but was currently outside the structure of governance and to the Clinical Commissioning Groups which worked to NHS England.
6.11 The chair of the committee asked for an update on possible sites for the John Donne secondary school. The Leader expressed sympathy with parents at John Donne but stated that currently plans for a new secondary school were in abeyance in the area. He commented that one of the problems was parents’ confidence in schools already in the area, especially the Harris Academy in Peckham. The council needed to meet the aspiration of parents and ensure that places were available but a new school on a new site was not necessarily the solution.
6.12 A member asked for more information about the Leader’s pledge to bring high speed broadband to Rotherhithe. The Leader stated that the council needed to take the lead in procuring delivery. He hoped that a solution would be achieved as soon as possible.