Agenda item
Executive Member Question Time
Interview with the Executive Member for Housing: Councillor Kim Humphreys.
Minutes:
6.1 Question One: What assessment has he made of the opportunity for creative use of open spaces on council estates? For example: Open space related activates such as community gardens, orchard planting, allotments etc.
6.2 Answer: The use of open spaces in Council estates has been the subject of a number of initiatives, mainly the focus and work of the Council’s Cleaner, Greener and Safer schemes that exists across the eight Community Council areas. A number of schemes have been delivered over the years and they include a community allotment in East Dulwich Grove Estate and a community garden at Lytcott Grove, the installation of planters, rose beds and flower boxes in the Rotherhithe area, a play ground at Salisbury Row in Walworth, a ball court in Kinglake Estate and hanging baskets in Elizabeth Estate, allotments at the Tabard Estate and Styles Estate in Borough and Bankside and the installation of a green oasis on the Gilesmead Estate in Camberwell. Details of all the schemes are on the Council’s website and in the eight Community Council areas.
6.3 In addition to this, the Housing Management division have been in contact with the Edible estates project and soon the thirteen Area Housing Forums will be considering how to use their open spaces to promote the food growth on estates and a healthy diet. We also promote the work of the BARGES project (Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Green enthusiasts) and support a number of community gardens in and around our estates.
6.4 In addition the executive Member said that there was a long waiting list for allotments which are very popular with local residents. Community Councils have a large part to play when listening to community requests for orchards and the use of land around them.
6.5 Engagement between the Community Councils and the community could mean more opportunity for local people to become involved in growing their own food. Involving communities in projects such as these have been shown to reduce cases of anti-social behaviour.
6.6 The Executive Member said that the Council were always open to new ideas and if residents were to come forward with new initiatives they would definitely be considered albeit subject to planning rules.
6.7 Members asked if it would be possible to plant orchards on areas that were not for building. The Executive Member said that there wasn’t really the budget for orchards even if there were space, however, money might be found from third party organisations such as the GLA.
6.8 Question two: What is his response to the recent review of leaseholder services?
6.9 The DL&EMH welcomes the independent audit of service charges as an example of joint working and commends the process to all other London authorities with large leaseholder portfolios. The DL&EMH was instrumental in proposing the audit would like to repeat his thanks, given at the recent Home Ownership Council, to all involved especially the leaseholder representatives who gave their time voluntarily, for the resultant report which contained useful recommendations. Those recommendations will to be acted upon to continue the improvements made in service charges over the past few years since 2005/6, the subject year of the audit. The DL&EMH also notes that the audit found no actual errors in any of the sample service charges and consequently the audit recommendations concentrate on improving processes and information explaining the service charges.
6.10 In addition the executive Member said that he was pleased with the independent audit which showed how far things had come since 2005 and the recommendations from the audit were now in place. The audit had shown that there was room for improvement in the areas of information technology and cross departmental working. A timetable for improvements had now been agreed.
6.11 Question three: Does the council aspire to meet the decent homes standard?
In April 2008, Executive agreed to deliver ‘Southwark’s Decent Homes Standard’ (SDHS), which is higher than the government’s Decent Homes (DH) standard. This standard includes the renewal of all old and poor condition kitchens and bathrooms when a refurbishment contract is taking place, a higher level of sustainable works and a consideration of the wider investment needs of an estate such as security, environmental works and non-residential buildings such as tenant halls.
6.12 In making this decision it was recognised that this standard would cost more and take longer to deliver. The council’s aspiration is for all tenanted homes to meet this standard, however to do this additional resources will need to be identified. Part of the funding strategy is to look at the best use of our assets in relation to the sale of some stock and also under-utilised land and non residential buildings on our estates; this will go some way in funding the SDHS.
6.13 Currently, government grant and supported borrowing equates to approximately £50 million per annum (to reduce to £38 million from 2011/12) and Southwark’s contribution via way of capital receipts and support from the revenue account is in excess of £30 million per annum - this figure will increase when major schemes realise significant receipts. This is a sizeable contribution to the refurbishment of our stock, but is still not enough to deliver both the aspirations of residents and the council.
6.14 A full review of our investment requirements and resource assumptions will take place when we have the results from the stock condition survey.
6.15 The executive Member said that Southwark is going out to consultation on a 2 year plan. The report had gone to the tenants and residents which set out the works of the existing incomplete programmes. There are currently ½ dozen contracts ongoing with additional schemes in development. Fire safety has been a substantial consideration when planning work and this has needed a bid for outside capital funding. The 15 million pounds will be going into fire safety works which has now become the major issue for the borough’s homes and because of this the capital money has been insufficient. The committee was told that residents have been comparing their completed repairs and renovations with those on other estates and some dissatisfaction has arisen. Southwark has decided to have a sensible asset management approach, higher than the base line prescribed by national government. However, as a result of raising the expectations regarding the quality of the work, has meant that the repairs and renovations will take longer to deliver.
6.16 Over the last year or so, the capital receipts are expected to be moving upwards although the Council was not being complacent and was taking a very cautious view of the situation. Minor void sales are continuing.
6.17 The Executive Member went on to inform the committee that Southwark had a great of housing stock which had been built around the time of the 1960s. Buildings from this era were now in need of attention, effectively becoming the flipside of the decent homes standard. This means that a considerable wave of improvements needed scheduling, with major works currently running at a cost of approximately £80 million per year.
6.18 Because of the unique challenges Southwark face - aging 60’s stock and £80 million not having a substantial impact, Southwark will not reach its government targets by 2010. This has already been made explicit to the government. When asked by Members how much the Executive Member felt was needed to meet the targets, he replied that between £300 – £700 million but the actual figure would have to be verified. Fire safety now came first. The £80 million allocated to Southwark was only enabling the borough to stand still.
6.19 The Executive Member went on to tell the committee that the housing department were consulting residents and tenants to ask them how Southwark should be investing in its housing stock. Specifically, the Executive Member wanted to know if the community felt that Southwark should be spreading work across all properties, slowly increasing the standard of repair overall or if the Council should be working in targeted areas until all repairs and maintenance were complete, enabling Southwark to meet targets.
6.20 Question Four: Can the Executive Member set out the programme of insulation on C.H.P and council estates?
6.21 We do not currently have a programme of installation of combined heat and power plants. Our policy is to update district heating systems where we can and look for opportunities arising from regeneration schemes to install CHP or indeed decentralised energy reserves. Working with sustainable services we are seeking to connect five of our estates in Bermondsey to SELCHP as part of the SI06 agreement for the OKR waste facility. In addition we are working with the E & C regeneration team on the E&C Musco which will similarly create a decentralised energy reserve for that area.
6.22 Between October 2009 and 2012 the council will roll out a £1.8m programme to insulate lofts of around 10,000 street properties, and blocks below 4 storeys. The council has also secured £4.36m of funding from the Homes & Communities Agency to insulate all cavity walls in council estate blocks of 5 stories and above (around 5,800 dwellings). This programme will be completed by 2011.
6.23 Members also wanted to know how much would be needed to ensure that there was enough finance to manage repairs. The Executive Member reiterated that it would be between £300 - £700 million but this was yet to be validated. The cost of the fire prevention works were the most challenging part of financing the repairs and renovations.
6.24 The current spend is 80 million per year which enables the Council to ‘stand still’ in terms of their work plans. As mentioned earlier, consultations with tenants on how they wish the work to be carried out will be taking place shortly and this will ascertain if they wish the repairs to take place bit by bit across all estates or by focusing on individual estates from the start of the work to completion.
6.25 Question Five: Does The Executive Member believe that selling street properties is an appropriate way of raising money for the decent homes programme?
6.26 The sale of stock is not something the council would wish to do, however with an investment gap to meet both DH and SDHS and no additional government support, funding for the programme has to be found from our assets.
6.27 The strategy of limited stock disposal does not specifically mean the sale of street properties. (Executive decision - March 2009). Disposal only takes place where the sale of the unit results in the ability to also sell the freehold, namely when an ‘A or B’ flat has already been sold; when the property has a high value or where investment costs are exceptionally high. Generally the sale of stock is of smaller units on estates and at higher floor levels – prioritising bedsits and 1 bedroom units.
6.28 Due to pressure for larger homes linked to the void disposal strategy is our major void strategy, to retain larger units and where possible de-convert flats in street properties into family homes, where possible using grants. Between 2008-10, 36 large homes will have been created with approximately £3.7 million grant support from the Greater London Council.
6.29 The Executive Member added that there was no policy to sell street properties at the current time but there were policies to sell sail voids and minor voids (mainly bedsits over the 3rd story). The Council does not intend to sell off any larger properties. Members wanted to know what constituted a high value larger property. The Executive Member responded that £500,000 would be classed as high value. Members were concerned that if Southwark were attempting to create mixed communities, setting the bar at £500,000 would exclude certain sections of the community. The Executive Member responded by saying that this is a phased process with approximately 100 properties, mainly bedsits, that were being sold and that these sales are balanced with other market factors. If the Council felt that this amount was having an impact on the community they would be looking at it. The Executive Member said that he could provide the precise numbers of properties being sold and Members agreed that those figures would be helpful.
6.30 Question six: How many direct offers of housing and how many offers are made through Homesearch for the last three years; could we have the percentage and actual figures please?
· Figures are shown for those types of property typically advertised via Homesearch – e.g. General Purpose and Sheltered, but not Disability-adapted dwellings. Nominations include those made to HA and TMO
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6.31 Question seven: Can he set out the programme of insulation on C.H.P and council estates?
6.32 We do not currently have a programme of installation of combined heat and power plants. Our policy is to update district heating systems where we can and look for opportunities arising from regeneration schemes to install CHP or indeed decentralised energy reserves. Working with sustainable services we are seeking to connect five of our estates in Bermondsey to SELCHP as part of the SI06 agreement for the OKR waste facility. In addition we are working with the E & C regeneration team on the E&C Musco which will similarly create a decentralised energy reserve for that area.
6.33 Between October 2009 and 2012 the council will roll out a £1.8m programme to insulate lofts of around 10,000 street properties, and blocks below 4 storeys. The council has also secured £4.36m of funding from the Homes & Communities Agency to insulate all cavity walls in council estate blocks of 5 stories and above (around 5,800 dwellings). This programme will be completed by 2011.
6.34 Question eight: For a considerable period of time you were engaged in auditing community halls in the borough. What is the current position on that?
6.35 Following the transfer of the management of TRA halls back to housing management from property in January 2009, the TRA Hall Estate is being managed as a discrete portfolio to ensure compliance with health and safety requirements and to scope the investment requirements to inform future strategic planning of the portfolio (but linked to any opportunities that may arise for co-location arising from the voluntary and community sector (VCS) review led by Regeneration and Neighbourhoods).
6.36 An audit of the TRA Halls has provided baseline data for an accurate asset register with property descriptions and an initial assessment of each hall’s physical suitability for community use and current levels of usage.
6.37 A more detailed stock condition survey has been programmed to build on this baseline data and to firm up indicative costs so that investment needs can be profiled and strategic decisions about the size of the portfolio and where investment should be targeted given the on-going pressures on capital expenditure.
6.38 A compliance action plan has been progresses with Property to ensure that the existing portfolio of TRA halls meet health and safety requirements in regard to water management, electrical testing, gas inspections, asbestos surveys and fire safety.
6.39 Future compliance has been planned by engineering services with handover arrangements in place for each of the identified elements supported by planned preventative maintenance programmes to mitigate the risks and reduce the level of responsive repairs.
6.40 The Executive Member went on to say that there were examples of good quality TRA facilities on some estates but there are facilities on others where facilities are not being adequately managed and run. The Council needs to ensure there is more of a level playing field across the Council’s estates and this work with be part of the audit to ascertain whether a particular facility is being well used or if there are duplications of facilities close by. It is important to ensure that there is good investment in community halls, that they are safe and accessible and are regularly used; some are not being used frequently and this was thought to be a waste of resources. Also, there was an example of space being used for TA meetings in terrace house. This was not deemed a good use of public funds, and alternatives needed to be found with similar cases going into the hidden homes process.
Supporting documents:
PDF 64 KB