Skip to content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 5, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD. View directions

Contact: Jonathan Moore  020 7527 3308

Items
No. Item

139.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alex Diner and Mouna Hamitouche. Councillor Dave Poyser offered apologies for lateness.

140.

Declaration of Substitute Members

Minutes:

Councillor Jenny Kay for Councillor Alex Diner.

Councillor Gary Doolan for Councillor Mouna Hamitouche.

141.

Declarations of Interests

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.

 

Minutes:

None.

142.

Minutes of Previous meeting pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

143.

Chair's Report

Minutes:

The Chair advised of the proposal to hold an additional meeting in March 2016.

 

The Committee noted that One Housing had accepted an invitation to attend the April 2016 meeting of the Committee.

 

The Chair provided an update on the progress of the Housing and Planning Bill and advised of the announcement that the government would be supporting the redevelopment of housing estates. The Committee considered the implications of this policy for tenants, leaseholders and local authorities. It was queried if the redeveloped estates would stay in the ownership of local authorities.   

144.

Order of Business

Minutes:

No changes were proposed to the order of business.  

145.

Public Questions

Minutes:

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

146.

Capital Programming: Witness Evidence and Draft Recommendations pdf icon PDF 146 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(a)  Witness Evidence submitted by Mears Islington

 

The Committee received evidence from Theo Petrou, General Manager of Mears Islington, and Damian Dempsey, Group Leader – Quantity Surveyors.

 

A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

 

·         Mears appreciated Islington’s commitment to the use of local labour and sought to employ local people as far as possible.

·         A priority of Mears was to achieve social value through its work. Mears had worked with the council to provide employment opportunities for those with learning difficulties and offered flexible working hours to staff where appropriate.

·         It was reported that the partnership between Mears and the council had developed over the course of the contract and the contractor had continually sought to make improvements to its service. In particular, Mears considered that it had made significant improvements to how it engaged with residents. Representatives of Mears attended pre-start consultation meetings and would seek to tailor capital works schemes to resident needs as far as possible.

·         It was confirmed that Mears was a living wage employer.

·         The Committee was pleased that Mears had employed six apprentices and queried if this number could be increased. In response, it was reported that there were a limited number of opportunities given the nature of the contract. The contract with Mears was for planned works only, with the building works on site carried out by sub-contractors. This meant that opportunities were limited to positions such as administration, resident liaison, site management and surveying. It was suggested that, in general, more apprenticeship opportunities were available under direct works and reactive maintenance contracts, as the contractor would be required to directly employ tradespeople.

·         It was advised that Mears had a 5% retention clause with some of its sub-contractors; however the council did not have a similar arrangement with its capital works contractors. A retention clause would allow the council to retain a proportion of the cost of the works for a given period in order to rectify any problems arising at a later date. In response, officers confirmed that the capital works contract was a term partnering agreement which did not contain retention or penalty clauses; however this could be reviewed for future capital works contracts.

·         Members commented on casework arising from capital works, noting instances of delayed works, breakages and incomplete works. It was suggested that chasing contractors to rectify such problems after work had finished could be a time consuming process and it was queried how such issues could be mitigated or minimised. In response, it was advised that this did not match Mears’ experience of capital works and Mears consistently received a resident satisfaction rating of over 93%. It was thought that this discrepancy could be partially attributable to sign-off processes; as although it may appear that works were completed when contractors left the site, works were not formally completed until sign-off had been received from the council and this could take up to two months. It was advised that clerk of works officers worked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

147.

Responsive Repairs: Witness Evidence pdf icon PDF 305 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Matt West, Head of Repairs and Maintenance, and Paul Lightfoot, Group Leader – Direct Works, made a presentation to the Committee, copy interleaved, on the performance of the responsive repairs service and planned service improvements.

 

A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

 

·         The service employed 105 trade staff and carried out approximately 55,000 repairs each year. Repairs were grouped into one of three categories, two hour emergency repair work, 24 hour urgent work, and 20 calendar day non-urgent work. Approximately one third of repairs were classified as urgent.

·         The service was in the process of making improvements and welcomed the scrutiny review and feedback from residents. The service sought feedback at tenant and resident meetings, from councillor casework, and had also established repairs reference groups.

·         Satisfaction with the service was independently evaluated by Kwest. Kwest surveyed 300 residents each month and indicated a satisfaction rating of approximately 73%. Feedback from the surveys was communicated to staff and was used to identify service improvements.

·         The service was aware of complaints arising frequently in councillor casework. It was explained that the service was seeking to make improvements following a period of the new in-house service ‘bedding in’. As the service had operated for a full year officers considered that they had identified the main strengths and weaknesses of the service. 

·         The key areas for improvement included notifying residents of when their repair would take place and completing repairs on the first visit. This was known as a ‘first time fix’. Increasing the number of repairs completed on the first visit was considered essential to improving resident satisfaction.

·         Officers commented on the challenges faced when bringing the service in-house. Staff had been required to adapt to new ways of working and a re-organisation was expected to be completed in February 2016. There had also been a need to change the previous client/contractor working culture to a more team-focused atmosphere.

·         The service had inherited a number of specialist trade staff through TUPE arrangements, however was seeking to train staff in multiple trades in order to increase the number of repairs able to be completed on the first visit.

·         The service used specialist contractors to support the in-house team during peak periods. For reasons of efficiency, the contractors used to repair lifts were procured through the same contract which serviced the council’s public buildings.

·         Management regularly communicated with trade staff through ‘toolbox talks’ which focused on performance and health and safety matters.

·         The service had positive working relationships with the capital works team, the gas team, and the estate maintenance team.

·         The service monitored performance on a daily basis and displayed performance in a prominent location in the office accessible to all staff.

·         Work was underway to increase the diversity of the service, in particular the number of women employed as tradespeople. Workshop sessions had been arranged for female residents and pupils at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson girls’ school. The service intended to recruit ten apprentices in 2016 and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

148.

Executive Member Presentation pdf icon PDF 920 KB

Minutes:

Councillor James Murray, Executive Member for Housing and Development, made a presentation to the Committee, copy interleaved, on the latest issues affecting the council’s housing services.

 

The following main points were noted during the discussion:

 

·         Islington had around 19,000 households on the housing register. It was noted that not all of the households were in housing need and households needed 120 points or more to bid for properties.

·         The Executive Member expressed concern at the decreasing number of lettings in recent years. The number of lettings was expected to decrease by around a third in 2015/16; it was thought that fewer people were moving home due to uncertainty surrounding changes to social housing tenancies and rents.

·         As demand for housing was far outstripping supply, the number of points required to successfully bid for a property was increasing. It was commented that, on average, 150 points were needed for a studio flat.

·         There were over 50,000 households in temporary accommodation in London. Whilst this was a significant issue, the number of Islington households in temporary accommodation was decreasing. Providing temporary accommodation was a major cost to the council, contributing to a temporary accommodation budget deficit of £1.3million. The council was seeking to reduce this cost by using council stock earmarked for regeneration as temporary accommodation.

·         It was confirmed that those in temporary accommodation were not housed in properties which would otherwise be allocated to those on the housing register.

·         Around two thirds of households in temporary accommodation were able to be housed in the borough.

·         Islington Lettings had been operating for almost a full year. The agency had a target of letting 100 properties in its first year. This was intended to be comprised of 50 properties let at market rent and 50 properties let at sub-market guaranteed rent. Although targets for properties at market rent were being met, it had proved difficult to attract landlords to the guaranteed rent scheme. The service was to be reviewed; it was suggested that the level of sub-market rent could be increased and re-focused on key workers. The council was considering marketing the scheme to leaseholders who wished to sub-let their property.

·         It was noted that Partners for Improvement in Islington had made significant progress in reducing its repairs backlog and had centralised its complaints team.

·         The rent collection rate was 99.9%, higher than expected. The average re-let time was 19 days which was considered satisfactory.

·         The Committee was advised of the council’s recently completed new build properties and members were invited to the official unveiling of new build properties at Lyon Street.

·         Following a query, it was advised that council communications were emphasising the increasing number of points required to successfully bid for properties. The Executive Member considered it important to be honest with those on the housing register about the likelihood of them being housed.

·         It was advised that children of current council tenants on the housing register received an additional ten points through the ‘next generation’ scheme, however due to points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

149.

2015 Resident Satisfaction Survey Results pdf icon PDF 368 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Maxine Holdsworth, Service Director of Housing Needs and Strategy, introduced the report which presented the results of the 2015 resident satisfaction survey.

 

The following main points were noted during the discussion:

 

·         The full results of the survey were available on the council’s website at: http://www.islington.gov.uk/involved/consultation-engagement/tenant-homeowner-involvement/what-you-told-us/Pages/default.aspx

·         Overall there had been little change in resident satisfaction since the 2013 survey.

·         It was reported that the survey had received an increased number of responses from leaseholders in comparison to previous years. Around half of responses had been received from leaseholders, whereas only around a third of council properties were occupied by leaseholders. Officers recognised the need to increase tenant engagement for future surveys.

·         The council had an overall satisfaction rating of 74%, a 2% increase on the previous survey. This placed Islington in the lower quartile of social housing providers surveyed. The Committee noted the comparable ratings of other London boroughs; Camden had a rating of 76%, Southwark had a rating of 65%, and Lambeth had a rating of 67%.

·         The Committee noted the disparity between tenant and leaseholder views of the housing service. 74% of tenants were satisfied with the service, as opposed to 43% of leaseholders. It was noted that 73% of leaseholders identified value for money as an area in need of improvement.

·         There had been an improvement in satisfaction with repairs and maintenance, although this area was identified as an area in need of improvement by around half of respondents. 

·         The Committee noted the age profile of respondents and that older people were generally more satisfied with the council’s service.

·         The Committee queried the differing levels of service received on estates and suggested that satisfaction could be evaluated on an estate-by-estate basis.

·         Following a query, it was advised that officers would separately review the responses of residents in shared ownership schemes.

 

The Committee thanked Maxine Holdsworth for her attendance.