Items
No. |
Item |
26. |
Election of Chair for the Meeting
Minutes:
As Councillors Rice and
Spillman had sent their apologies, it was agreed that a stand-in
chair would be elected for the duration of the meeting. Councillor
Redsell was nominated by Councillor Pothecary, and Councillor
Liddiard seconded this nomination. Therefore, Councillor Redsell
was elected Chair for the duration of the meeting.
|
27. |
Minutes PDF 86 KB
To approve as a correct record
the minutes of the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting
held on 18 December 2018.
Minutes:
As Councillors Rice and
Spillman had sent their apologies, the minutes from the meeting
held on 18 December 2018 could not be agreed.
|
28. |
Urgent Items
To receive additional items
that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter
of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
Minutes:
There were no items of urgent
business.
|
29. |
Declaration of Interests
Minutes:
There were no interests
declared.
|
30. |
Garages Review - Phase 1 progress report PDF 68 KB
Minutes:
The Corporate Director Adults
Housing and Health introduced the report and stated that this was a
progress report on a piece of work that had come before the
committee twelve months ago. He outlined the progress that had been
made, as detailed at point 2.3 of the report, and used the examples
of finding £200,000 in the HRA budget for urgent repairs;
undertaking an initial condition survey; liaising with the
Community Payback Team; reviewing tenancy agreements; and filing
up-to-date records and registers. He stated that due to the poor
condition of some garages, some may have to be demolished and
pulled down, but that the garages project team was meeting later on
in the week to discuss these types of issues. He discussed the fact
that a small amount of funding had been found in the HRA budget,
and once this had been agreed by Cabinet, urgent remedial works
could begin. He summarised by stating his team’s commitment
to improving the condition of garages in the borough.
Councillor Redsell opened the debate by commenting that many of the
borough’s garages were reaching the end of their life, and it
was important to find out who owned them. The Corporate Director
replied that records had not been in a good enough state, and
described how Thurrock were going to undertake a full record and
audit to be able to identify the owners of garages. The Assistant
Director Housing added that she would be leading the garages
project team to ensure targets were met and it remained focussed on
issues.
Councillor Pothecary stated that she was pleased to see that
progress had been made, and added that when garages fell into
disrepair it often led to an increase in anti-social behaviour,
which caused concern for all councillors. She asked if the urgent,
remedial work on the garages would always rely on a subsidy from
the HRA, or if in future the maintenance of garages could be
self-sustaining. The Corporate Director clarified that work on
garages was a part of the HRA, which contained a small repair
budget. He added that extra money had been found from within the
HRA to fund the repair of garages, but this could not come from the
capital receipts budget. He also commented that although the
council received income from garages, there was a high void level
and demand across the borough varied significantly.
The Housing Tenant Representative continued the debate and
mentioned the fact that some garages were unsuitable for large
cars. She then asked if applications for garages were renewed every
year. The Assistant Director Housing responded that it was
understood that people rarely used their garages for cars anymore,
and used them as extra storage space instead. She commented that
the council were going to review tenancy agreements with the legal
team, as the change of use could affect issues such as insurance.
She clarified that when a resident applied for a garage, they
remain on the waiting list.
Councillor Redsell added that she ...
view the full minutes text for item 30.
|
31. |
Homelessness Prevention Strategy Review PDF 72 KB
Minutes:
The Housing Strategy &
Quality Manager introduced the report and stated this was a review
of the approach to homelessness in the borough. He elaborated that
this was a statutory duty that the council had to undertake every
five years, and the current strategy was coming to the end of its
life. He stated that this was compounded by new government
legislation which would affect the borough. He discussed how the
strategy was divided into two sections, the first being a strategic
analysis in the context of Thurrock, and the second being the
consultation phase with key partners and stakeholders, such as
Youth Cabinet, and Members. He stated that the first stage analysis
would begin in February 2019 and run until April 2019, with the
second consultation phase running from May 2019 until August
2019.
Councillor Redsell began the debate by stating she felt
homelessness was a problem across Essex, such as in Southend,
Basildon and Brentwood. She asked which stakeholders would be
consulted with at the consultation phase. The Corporate Director
replied that although homelessness was a problem, the number of
street homeless had been declining in Thurrock, and there were
currently only 140-150 people living in temporary accommodation
across the borough. He added that people staying in bed and
breakfasts were only there for a short time, and compared this to
other boroughs, which had significant numbers of people in bed and
breakfasts and temporary accommodation. He then commented that
people placed out of borough had also been decreasing. He felt that
there was more work to be done to tackle the issue, but that the
council had a robust policy and could implement it well. He finally
stated that the team would be consulting with key stakeholders, and
people who work with the homeless on a day to day basis.
Councillor Liddiard felt that there had been a change in the past
four to five years in the reasons for homelessness, as it used to
be primarily divorce, loss of employment or health issues; but felt
now homelessness was often due to tenants being evicted by
landlords and given a Section 21 notice. He mentioned that he had
also heard that London borough councils were offering landlords
significant reward to take their tenants, and wanted the council to
find out from London boroughs why this was happening and how many
people from outside Thurrock were being housed. He then gave the
personal example in his Tilbury ward of a block of flats which was
being used to house Newham residents. The Assistant Director
Housing replied that as the cost of renting was increasing and
benefits were decreasing, more landlords were giving out Section 21
notices. She stated that the council were working with landlords
and tenants to solve problems, and added that there was a dedicated
financial inclusion officer in the housing team who specifically
helped those residents. She clarified that some London boroughs did
offer rewards to landlords to house their tenants, but this was
happening in ...
view the full minutes text for item 31.
|
32. |
Housing Allocations Policy Review 2018 - Financial Qualification PDF 85 KB
Minutes:
The Corporate Director
introduced the report and stated that this had gone to Cabinet
following discussion at Housing Overview & Scrutiny Committee,
with some amendments based on the committee’s comments, such
as the introduction of a Sheltered Housing Register. He commented
that this was being sent back to the Housing Overview &
Scrutiny Committee to consider the financial qualifications. The
Housing Strategy & Quality Manager elaborated that the
financial qualification used an affordability ratio, which was the
national guideline of housing costing 1/3rd of a
person’s net income. He continued that the council then
looked at property size to determine affordability and used the
30th percentile as the affordable benchmark to rent and
buy. He commented that the calculation worked out a person’s
net salary affordability for both renting and buying, and then used
the more expensive of the two figures to set the threshold. He drew
the Committee’s attention to page 27 of the agenda, and the
table at 3.7 which set out the five thresholds and rationale behind
them. He stated that the majority of thresholds used renting as it
was the highest value, other than three and four bedroom
properties, where it was more expensive to purchase. He summarised
by stating that the council then used local earning salaries which
were below the thresholds to work out how much money residents
bought home, and how much they would need to earn to qualify for
council housing.
Councillor Redsell asked if there were people what didn’t
qualify for council housing as they earnt too much, but were
earning too less to afford to rent and buy. The Assistant Director
Housing replied that Cabinet had believed this because section 5 of
the report had originally used net incomes rather than gross
incomes, which made the figures look lower. The Corporate Director
clarified that Cabinet had asked the Committee to consider whether
they felt the threshold should be higher, and stated that the more
detailed analysis had shown there were very few people who could
not afford to rent or buy, but earnt too much for social
housing.
Councillor Pothecary stated that she felt concerned as the
threshold had been set using the 30h percentile, and asked whether
the 50th percentile would have been more representative.
The Housing Strategy & Quality Manager confirmed that the
threshold used the more expensive figure of either buying or
renting depending on property size, which ensured the figure was
representative. Councillor Liddiard then drew the Committee’s
attention to the problem of residents over 55 who could afford
mortgages, but the banks would not allow them. Councillor Pothecary
asked when the threshold would be reviewed as it was a good idea to
do this every year, and the Corporate Director replied it would be
every year, although the review may not be as detailed as the
report in the agenda. Councillor Redsell summarised by stating this
was a comprehensive report and felt it would be good to see the
review next year.
RESOLVED: That:
1. The ...
view the full minutes text for item 32.
|
33. |
Fire Safety update including a Review of Fire Suppressant (Sprinkler) System PDF 95 KB
Minutes:
The Technical Services Delivery
Manager introduced the report and stated it focussed on the whole
portfolio, rather than just tower blocks. He gave some context to
the report and stated it had come before committee due to the
tragedy of Grenfell Tower and the government review on fire safety,
which the MHCLG were currently working on, and although
recommendations had not yet been published, the council were being
proactive. He commented that in March 2019 a fire risk assessment
from the chartered institute would be carried out, although the
council were already upgrading fire doors. He stated that to
install a suppression system in all tower blocks across the borough
would cost £3.3million, and although Essex Fire and Rescue
would give the council £10,000 per block, it would not be
enough money to install them. He summarised and discussed how
during a fire in a block of flats in Chadwell St Mary, the compartmentalisation system
had worked, so no one was injured and only a small number of
properties were damaged.
Councillor Redsell opened the debate and stated that the
Chadwell St Mary tower block fire had
shown that the systems in place were working as the fire had
remained in one flat. She asked if the Essex Fire and Rescue policy
of staying inside your homes if there was a fire was also followed
by Thurrock Council. The Technical Services Delivery Manager
replied that the ‘stay put’ policy was supported by
Thurrock Council and was in place in all tower blocks. He stated
this was the most effective way of keeping a fire from spreading as
residents did not impede firefighter’s in stairwells and kept
the fire from spreading as doors remained closed.
Councillor Liddiard questioned if the council was replacing front
doors on flats, or communal doors, and it was confirmed that front
doors on flats were being replaced, although it was felt some
communal doors might also require upgrading. Councillor Pothecary
then stated she felt there were problems in tower blocks of
communal fire doors being left open, and asked if the council could
communicate with residents the importance of keeping them shut for
their safety. The Technical Services Delivery Manager replied he
would look into this, and stated that as communal doors were used
most, they were the doors which needed replacing more often. He
stated that officers undertook monthly walk-throughs in flats to
identify issues, and CCTV was in place to identify residents who
were abusing fire doors, and tackle the source of the problem. The
Assistant Director Housing added that she chaired the monthly fire
safety meeting, during which officers shared pictures of problems
in communal flat blocks so issues could be solved.
Councillor Pothecary expressed her concern with residents smoking
in lifts, as this was anti-social behaviour as well as being a
safety concern. She stated she felt glad there was CCTV and asked
if this could be checked regularly, to which the Technical Services
Delivery Manager replied affirmatively. Councillor Redsell agreed
with ...
view the full minutes text for item 33.
|
34. |
Work Programme PDF 47 KB
Minutes:
Members stated that this was
the last meeting of the municipal year, so there was nothing to add
to the Work Programme.
|