Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Rose Marie Macdonald and Councillor Mouna Hamitouche MBE (for lateness).

None.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d)      Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

None.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2015 be confirmed and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair advised that his press release about One Housing Group had appeared in the letters page of the Islington Tribune. The Committee noted the Chair’s intention to also contact the Homes and Communities Agency about the matter, expressing the Committee’s concerns with the conduct of the organisation and lack of engagement with the Committee.  It was noted that One Housing would be invited to a future meeting of the Committee.

The Chair provided an update on government housing strategy, noting the Chancellor’s announcement that social housing rents were to decrease by 1% per year for the next four years. The Chair commented on the financial impact this would have on local authorities and housing associations.

It was noted that the Responsive Repairs team was seeking to engage with members about their casework. Members wishing to discuss the repairs service were asked to liaise with the relevant officers.

The Chair advised that item B2, Capital Programming Witness Evidence, would be considered before item B1, RSL Scrutiny.

The Chair outlined the procedure for public questions and the filming and recording of meetings.

Ziggy Crawford, Chief Executive of Barnsbury Housing Association, provided a presentation to the Committee on the Association’s work in the Borough. A discussion was had during which the following main points were made –

·         Barnsbury was a small housing association, providing only 253 rented homes in the Borough. The organisation did not provide homes for sale or leasehold, and specialised in providing housing to tenants with low levels of household income.

·         It was thought that the organisation’s size made Barnsbury different to other housing providers. Although it did not have the same level of resources available to larger housing associations, Barnsbury was able to provide certain services that may not be effective at a larger scale, and was better placed to tailor its services to its residents. For example, Barnsbury organised regular trips for residents, held coffee mornings, and administered a food bank and a bursary for school uniform and other education costs.

·         Although Barnsbury was small, it was investing in property and had a number of homes either recently-purchased or in development.

·         It was reported that an independent survey of Barnsbury residents was carried out every three years. The last survey was conducted in 2014 and the organisation received an overall satisfaction rating of 89%. The Committee welcomed this figure; however Barnsbury considered that further work was required to improve satisfaction. 89% of respondents also expressed satisfaction with their neighbourhood which was considered positive. The organisation had benchmarked performance against other organisations and performed generally favourably.

·         Barnsbury charged social rents with an average service charge of £6.78 a week. It was explained that the organisation sought to keep service charges as low as possible, especially in light of the relatively high rents charged on London properties; however this was becoming increasingly difficult in newer properties. For example, it was advised that some of the organisation’s new homes acquired under Section 106 contributions came with a significant service charge for the maintenance of additional features, such as electronic security gates.

·         The organisation only offered lifetime tenancies, except for some key worker tenancies. This was expected to change with legislation being proposed to restrict the availability of lifetime tenancies. Similarly, the organisation had not sold any properties, however may be required to under pending Right to Buy legislation.

·         The organisation spent approximately £800,000 each year managing its assets. In the previous financial year Barnsbury achieved a surplus of £170,000; all surpluses were regularly used to fund investment and the acquisition of new properties.

·         It was anticipated that the organisation would need to borrow to finance any further development, as the organisation was only able to attract 30% grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency for development schemes.

·         The organisation benchmarked its wages against other housing associations and paid slightly above average, although it was noted that the Chief Executive was paid below average.

·         Barnsbury was concerned about the impact of welfare reform on its residents and had recently invested £10,000 per annum on money advice services.

·         The organisation did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Damian Dempsey, Group Leader – Quantity Surveyors, presented the report which provided an introduction to the scrutiny review topic, information about guarantees, and details of how the service monitors performance. A discussion was had during which the following main points were made –

·         The Committee was advised of the different types of works carried out. The Council’s cyclical improvement scheme assessed properties on a seven year cycle, and works were then carried out only when required. This applied to all estate properties, and the approximately 1,000 street properties managed by Partners for Islington.

·         It was confirmed that kitchens and bathrooms were replaced in accordance with the Decent Homes Standard, and other works were carried out as required. 

·         The Committee noted the capital works programme procurement arrangements, including how the current contracts were tendered. Due to the value of the Council’s capital works programme, the Council was required by legislation to advertise its contracts across Europe through the OJEU. All of the Council’s works contracts valued over £4,322,012 were subject to the regulations. It was commented that due to the high-value of the works contracts, smaller local firms were generally not in a position to apply, and such opportunities tended to attract larger multi-national companies.

·         The Council had sought to foster a ‘partner’ relationship with its contractors, through which the Council and the contractors maintained a close working relationship.

·         The Council’s capital works contracts were ‘design and build’ contracts, through which the contractor both designed and carried out capital works. This was intended to achieve value for money by both reducing the Council’s staffing costs and saving on professional consultancy fees. It was noted that the Contractor’s role as a designer was reflected in its rates.

·         Officers advised that the benefit of procuring two main contractors to provide the entire capital works programme was that there was no need to tender for each capital improvement individually. This was considered to provide significant savings over the duration of the contract. Under the current contractual arrangements the Council was only required to agree to works, whereas procuring works individually or on a smaller scale would require greater input from the Council and therefore increased resources.

·         The Committee was advised of the consultation work carried out by the Council’s capital works team, including statutory consultations with leaseholders carried out under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Through ‘scope of works’ consultative meetings tenants and leaseholders were able to help determine which works were carried out to their properties. The Council also held resident meetings prior to works starting to advise of the works programme, set up details, and other relevant information. Throughout the duration of the works the contractor then engaged residents through newsletters.

·         Officers emphasised that the rates set out in the Council’s capital works contacts were fixed and could not be amended during the contract, aside from an annual inflationary increase. Although leaseholders were able to challenge the extent of the works, they were not able to challenge the cost  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.