HOUSING
SCRUTINY
PANEL
MINUTES 11th October 2004 PRESENTCouncillor Melanie Smallman (Chair) Councillor Adronie Alford (Vice Chair) Councillor Dominic Church
Councillor Charles Boyle
Councillor Andrew Jones (from 7.28pm) Councillor Jolyon Neubert
CO-OPTEES
Charlotte Graves, HA Forum Mollie McCartney, SHF
Mohamed Mohamed, BFHAT
IN ATTENDANCE
Graeme Bennett, Audit Commission Hugh Boatswain, Audit Commission
Councillor Stephen Cowan, Deputy for Housing Jim Davies, Fordham Research
OFFICERS
Paul Bennett, Head of Technical & Support Services Unit, H&FHMS
David Ireland, Service Development Manager (Community Services Department) David Offord, Head of Private Housing Services (Community Services Department)
Billy Rae, Chief Executive, H&FHMS
James Reilly, Director Of Community Services
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Charlie Napier and Jafar Khaled and co-optees Doreen Beddowes and Brenda McLean. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Andrew Jones.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations were made.
3. MINUTES AND ACTION SHEET
RESOLVED
-1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 8th September 2004
be agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to the addition of apologies for absence from Councillor Adronie Alford.
2. That the updated actions be noted.
ACTION: SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATOR
4. PREPARING FOR INSPECTION
Prior to consideration of the report, Councillor Stephen Cowan, Deputy for Housing, informed the Panel that the government had just confirmed an initial allocation of £78.4M for funding the Arms Length Management Organisation’s (ALMO) Decent Homes Programme for the next two years. This was the highest allocation from the fourth round of ALMO bidding and he believed the ALMO would receive the full bid of £192M to complete the programme by 2010. Councillor Cowan thanked the ALMO Board, staff and stakeholders for their hard work and successful achievement.
The Panel then considered a report from Billy Rae, Chief Executive, Hammersmith & Fulham Housing Management Services (H&FHMS), on the preparations being made for the forthcoming Audit Commission Inspection. Billy Rae advised the Panel that the Audit Commission inspection of the
Housing Management Service was due to commence on the 29th November
2004. In preparation for the inspection, the ALMO Board and the Council had monitored the implementation of the Best Value Improvement Plan
following the last Audit Commission inspection report in November 2002. All services provided by HFHMS had recently been subject to a rigorous examination by Housing Action Teams which would result in improvement plans and service standards. In addition, a Peer review had been conducted with Brent Housing Partnership and a tenants’ conference would shortly take place to examine the recommendations of the Housing Action Teams. Graeme Bennett, Audit Commission Housing Inspector, informed the Panel that ALMOs were permitted by the government to manage, repair and improve housing stock and were able to bid for funding to achieve the government’s Decent Homes Standard. ALMOs required a two star rating from the Audit Commission inspection to receive agreed government funding.
The Panel was advised that a typical ALMO inspection took 67 days from initial set up to finalisation and this included 28 days on-site. The key stages of the inspection were briefing the Council / ALMO Board prior to the inspection, gathering evidence on-site, preparing and presenting a draft report and providing a detailed feedback on the scoring and recommendations. Upon receipt of comments from the Council and HFHMS the report may be amended prior to formal public publication. The cost of undertaking the inspection was approximately £50K.
Graeme Bennett advised the Panel that as the Council’s Housing Management Service had previously received a three star rating the ALMO inspection would be less intensive for the service areas covered in the previous inspection. The ALMO would be expected to review all its support services within 12 months of commencement and this could have implications for services currently provided by the Council.
The inspection would make two main judgements. How good is the service in relation to meeting user’s needs and delivering value for money and what were the prospects for improvement. The inspection would also consider the ALMOs governance arrangements. This will include an assessment of how ‘arms length’ the ALMO is to ensure that it is not being ‘micro-managed’ by the Council. Checks would be made to ensure the ALMO is working within its agreed delegated powers and risk management would be assessed in relation to financial viability, health and safety issues, property assets and internal and external audit arrangements.
Councillor Adronie Alford asked if the Council and HFHMS were now expecting a two star rating despite previously achieving a three star rating. Councillor Stephen Cowan, Deputy for Housing, responded that HFHMS were aiming for a three star rating but it was essential to obtain a two star rating to secure the allocated government funding. Graeme Bennett added that the previous Audit Commission inspection had not included Housing Repairs which would be considered as part of the ALMO inspection.
Councillor Melanie Smallman enquired whether there were any trends for ALMOs that had already been inspected. Graeme Bennett replied that some of the round two ALMOs had tried to achieve too much too soon and more realism had been needed. Councillor Smallman asked how the less intensive inspection varied from the standard one. Graeme Bennett advised that the less intensive inspection spent half the time looking at the previously inspected aspects of the housing management service.
Councillor Jolyon Neubert referred to the Audit Commission’s view that ALMO’s should not be ‘micro-managed’ and contended that this should be obvious if they were arms length organisations. Graeme Bennett responded that some local authorities had been reluctant to let go of their housing management service and there was a specific need to loosen the ties between the Council and the ALMO. Councillor Neubert asked whether it was possible for the Panel to assess the ‘arms length’ between the Council and HFHMS. Graeme Bennett replied that there was no simple formula to make this assessment. The inspectors would look at the ALMO’s constitution and the powers devolved in its Management Agreement with the Council. Consideration would also be given to the decisions made at Board Meetings and whether these were reliant on Council approval and the relationship with the Council’s Scrutiny Panel. The inspectors would then form an overall balanced assessment in accordance with the Commission’s Key Lines of Enquiry for ALMO governance.
Councillor Charles Boyle asked what percentage of ALMO Board Members were currently paid. Graeme Bennett advised that new guidelines allowing payments to Board Members would not come into affect until April 2005. Councillor Boyle enquired whether the fee for the inspection would be paid for from the government’s ALMO funding. Councillor Stephen Cowan, Deputy for Housing, responded that all of the ALMO funding secured would go towards achieving the Decent Homes Standard and the cost of the inspection would be paid for from other budgets.
RESOLVED –
That the Panel notes the preparations being made for the forthcoming inspection of the Housing Management Service.
5. PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY 2004
The Panel considered a report from David Ireland, Service Development Manager, on the results of the 2004 Private Sector House Condition Survey. The Panel was informed that most private housing stock in the borough consisted of turn of the century terraced houses and flats and these properties had adapted well to people’s changing needs with facilities that were now taken for granted such as electricity, inside WCs and bathrooms. Expensive investment in the stock in the 1970s and 1980s had left a legacy of relatively good quality housing.
David Ireland advised the Panel that the last five years had seen a dramatic change in the private housing market with properties being used as an investment vehicle as a result of the substantial rise in property values. Hammersmith & Fulham’s private rented sector now accounted for 23% of the total stock in the borough which was considerably higher than the national average.
The Panel was informed that there had been substantial improvements to the quality of the stock in recent years and much of this was directly attributable to the Council’s intervention in the sector. Unfit properties now accounted for less than 5% of the total private stock. Empty homes had reduced from 1500 units to 700 units in the last five years and almost half of high risk Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) had been improved to a safe standard.
Despite the considerable progress made there were still approximately 15,000 private properties that did not reach the decent homes standard and a third of these were occupied by vulnerable households. However, the average cost of rectifying was only £2169 per unit and often only required the installation of central heating systems.
The main challenges ahead would be to make private sector housing more accessible and improve supply. This would require cross borough working, greater targeting to vulnerable residents and encouraging inward investment and new supply.
Councillor Adronie Alford welcomed the improvements made to the private housing market but questioned why the Council was falling short of its targets for improving HMOs. David Offord, Head of Private Housing Services, replied that there had been a Best Value Review in 2001 which had resulted in substantially increased targets. This had necessitated changes to the allocation of resources to improve HMOs but had also had a detrimental effect on the number of properties made fit. The targets for
HMO improvement had yet to be reached but the number of properties improved each year had nearly doubled since 1998/99.
Councillor Adronie Alford referred to the proposed introduction of empty dwellings management orders and expressed concern that owners of empty properties could be subject to compulsory possession by the Council even if their properties had only been empty for a relatively short period of time. Councillor Stephen Cowan, Deputy for Housing, responded that this was a difference of political opinion. There was currently a large number of empty properties that could be made available to house the homeless and the government were committed to increase the supply of properties wherever possible, however the proposed new powers for Councils would only be used as a last resort.
Councillor Adronie Alford contended that there were not any new brownfield or green sites available within the borough available for development and questioned how the Council could encourage the supply of new properties. Councillor Stephen Cowan responded that the Council would always face a problem with high land values within a small borough. However, over 70% of new planning applications were for affordable housing and it was essential to secure additional properties both from new build and the private sector.
Councillor Melanie Smallman asked whether there was a breakdown available of the tenure of private housing which currently failed to reach the Decent Homes standard. David Ireland replied that 44% were owner occupied, 26% were private rented and 30% were owned by Registered Social Landlords. Councillor Smallman enquired whether there were any provisions available to help private owners in high value homes improve their properties through equity release schemes. David Offord advised that the Council did provide small grants to assist with heating but large grants for substantial improvements were no longer available and inward investment was encouraged. James Reilly, Director of Community Services, added that the Council would need to look further at the issue of owners who were equity rich but cash poor. Equity release schemes had experienced a chequered history, however, new standards had just been published and this option would be considered as part of the elderly people’s housing strategy.
Councillor Adronie Alford asked whether the Council intended to use discretionary powers to license small landlords. David Offord replied that the Housing Bill would introduce licensing for HMOs however licensing of small landlords would be difficult to enforce and an expensive way to raise standards. The Council would continue to promote its landlord accreditation scheme which recognised and rewarded good practice and this should help create a ‘critical mass’ with improved standards becoming the accepted norm.
RESOLVED –
1. That the Panel notes the findings of the Private Sector House Condition Survey.
2. The Panel will consider a report on current Housing Strategy priorities at it’s January 2005 meeting and this will include the impact of the survey’s findings.
ACTION: HEAD OF PRIVATE HOUSING SERVICE
6. BEST VALUE REVIEW OF PARKING – HOUSING UPDATE
Further to the report considered by the Panel in March 2003, Paul Bennett, Head of Technical & Support Services Unit, H&FHMS, provided an update on the progress to-date on the implementation of a pilot ‘Off Street Car Park’ scheme to the White City Estate.
The Panel was informed that the recent Best Value Review of Parking had recommended that Parking Attendants should be the main method of controlling parking on estates and the north of the borough should be prioritised for implementation. These recommendations were subsequently agreed by Leader’s Committee and the White City Estate was chosen for the pilot scheme.
In March 2004 extensive informal consultation commenced on the proposal to introduce both a Controlled Parking Zone O (CPZ O) and the White City Estate ‘Off Street Car Park’ (OSCP). 210 residents responded to the consultation of whom 69% were in favour of the proposals. The formal consultation process did result in some objections and a petition was received. Due consideration was given to the objections raised and Leader’s Committee approved the formal introduction of the scheme in July 2004.
Paul Bennett advised the Panel that the scheme was implemented on the
6th September 2004 and has already made a dramatic improvement to
parking stress levels on both the adjoining roads and the estate. In addition a number of abandoned vehicles had been removed. The levels of Parking Control Notices issued had reduced substantially from an initial average of 70 per week to a current average of 17 which would enable enforcement activity to be scaled down. The scheme would be formally reviewed in March 2005.
Councillor Jolyon Neubert asked whether visitors permits were discouraged. Paul Bennett replied that the scheme allowed residents to apply for one visitor parking permit per household although the visitor had to purchase a parking ticket to be displayed in tandem with the visitors permit. To date nearly 400 visitors permits had been issued.
Co-optee Mohamed Mohamed believed that there would be occasions when residents required more than one visitor’s permit. Paul Bennett responded that currently only one visitor’s permit was issued per household however visitors could also park on the public highway surrounding the estate which was not restricted to residents. He added that the pilot scheme would be reviewed next year and this would consider the extent and demand for visitor parking.
RESOLVED –
1. The Panel is pleased to note the successful implementation of the pilot White City Off Street Car Park Scheme.
2. That the Panel receives a further progress report in six months time.
ACTION: HEAD OF TECHNICAL & SUPPORT SERVICES UNIT, HFHMS
7. WORK PROGRAMME
The Panel considered a report that detailed a draft work programme that had been drawn up, in consultation with the Chair, from items in the Forward Plan and from action arising from previous meetings of the Panel. The Panel was requested to consider the items within the proposed work programme and suggest any amendments or additional topics to be included in the future.
RESOLVED –
1. That the Work Programme be noted.
2. That a report on Housing Benefit Direct Payments be considered at the November 2004 meeting.
3. That a report on illegal sub-letting be considered at the January 2005 meeting.
ACTION: SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATOR
8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The Panel noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 17th November
2004.
THE MEETING COMMENCED AT 7.09 PM AND CLOSED AT 9.09 PM
………..
CHAIR
Contact: Adam Shepherd Scrutiny Co-ordinator Scrutiny & Research Team
East Wing, Hammersmith Town Hall King Street, London, W6 9JU Tel: 020 8753 2094
