Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Peter Bennett.

There were no declarations.

To approve the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 21 January 2019.

With respect to item 2, Members’ Declarations under the code of conduct in respect to items on the agenda, Members commented that it should read “- by virtue of being leaseholders on the Barbican and/or Golden Lane Estate:”

RESOLVED – That, subject to the correction, the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 21 January 2019 be approved as an accurate record

Matters arising

In respect of the update on the window replacement project, an update would be submitted to a forthcoming Community and Children’s Services Committee.

Members were informed by officers had been in correspondence with CTIL to ensure that they followed an agreed application and planning approval process before approaching anyone with ‘speculative’ notices of mobile equipment installation.

Members are asked to note the Sub Committee’s Outstanding Actions list.

Members received the Committee’s outstanding actions list and noted the following updates since the last meeting of the Sub Committee:

·         A report on Parkguard Ltd would be considered under item 12 of the agenda.

·         A report on Tenancy Visits would be considered under item 10 of the agenda.

·         The Housing Update and Risk Register, including the new ‘dashboard’ format, would be submitted for consideration at either the May or July 2019 HMASC meeting.

·         A report on the Portsoken Community Energy Project would be considered under item 14 of the agenda.

·         An update on the collection of water charges from tenants would be provided at the May 2019 HMASC meeting.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect of progress on the Housing Major Works Programme. The following matters were raised:

·         Following feedback from Members, the Assistant Director agreed to revise the key in appendix 1 to make any project ‘slippage’ clearer within the delivery forecasts.

·         The results of destructive testing for the front door replacement project at Great Arthur House had demonstrated that the removed door did not comply with current fire safety requirements. Work was underway to improve the fire resistance of the sample door and if this also failed then there would be a requirement to replace all doors. There would be no testing on the panelling as the project team were aware these were not in line with current fire regulations and the Project Team were working directly with the Planning Team to agree a resolution. A key issue remained with the Parcel Cupboard, which was also non-compliant, and it was proposed that this may need to be replaced with something that looked similar but functioned differently. A Member asked why the doors were so unsatisfactory. The Assistant Director explained that, at the time of installation, all City of London Corporation buildings met the contemporary fire safety regulations and that current regulations were not applied retrospectively. However, if a Fire Risk Assessment is completed and buildings are considered unsafe, with improvements needed, the Corporation were obliged to make these improvements.   

·         A recent procurement exercise for works on Petticoat Tower Balcony Doors and Windows had led to the successful contractor withdrawing having been unable to accept the City of London Corporation’s Terms and Conditions. On this basis the City of London Corporation was no longer able to accept this tender bid and was able to award the project to the second-place

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect of a fire safety update on HRA properties.

The Chairman requested that in future and that once an item in the Fire Safety Action Plan had been reported as “complete”, that it would no longer be included in subsequent reports to the Housing Management and Almshouses Sub-Committee.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Susan Pearson declared an interest in this matter and informed the Committee that she would not speak or vote on this item having not applied for the relevant dispensation.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Service in respect of the consultation schedule for the City of London Primary Academy Islington.

The Assistant Director explained to Members that the report included the list of conditions that had come to them as a result of their planning application. He explained that residents would not be denied an opportunity to comment on the items marked as “accepted” or as “consultation not necessary” in appendix 1, the proposed consultation schedule, but there were other areas that did need a more in-depth approach. On this basis a consultation schedule had been agreed to reasonably reflect what had been asked for by residents and planning. This schedule had been published prior to the meeting and features monthly drop-in meetings and quarterly “public” focussed consultation meetings.

[Marianne Fredricks joined the meeting at 11.59]

A Member thanked officers for taking the initiative on areas where there needed to be consultation and for considering how they were going to fulfil these conditions. It was suggested that residents who were more directly affected should get greater representation than those who lived further away from the site. It was also requested that future consultation meetings be distinct from the construction progress updates. Some Members felt that residents would prefer a more regular public consultation meeting, proposing that meetings should be held monthly and alternate between public consultation and drop-in sessions. Points were made regarding the advantages of the different formats of meeting, including whether drop-ins gave value for officer time, the ability for residents to feel heard amongst other strong voices in public meetings, and how

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The Committee agreed to take item 14, Portsoken Community Energy Project, at this point on the agenda.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services Department in respect of the Portsoken Community Energy Project. The Chairman invited Afsheen Rashid from Repowering, to address the Committee.

Members heard that it was good news to have a site identified and costs agreed, however, the project was no longer able to benefit from the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) pre-accreditation. As identified in the feasibility investigations, the panels would need to be connected to meters in the communal areas, classed as “domestic”, rather than through the Artizan Streel Library which was designated as “non-domestic”. Only non-domestic sites were eligible under the FIT scheme. Whilst this did lose security of FIT income on the project, it did remove time constraints that had been imposed by the FIT.

In order to address the matter of income, an alternative financial model had been proposed to the Committee. The model was a blend of funding sources including at least 50% of community shares and the remaining 50% of capital costs could be sourced from carbon offset funds, Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Value contribution.

Engagement with residents included door-to-door visits and a consultation evening had been overwhelmingly positive with lots of interest if compared to Repowering’s similar projects on similar estates. This engagement would continue to run on a monthly basis with the prospect of more tailored events in due course.

Members were still in support of the project and were hopeful of its success. They expressed their thanks for the work done on recalibrating the financial model following the withdrawal of the FIT eligibility. A question was raised as to the long-term view on the sustainability of the project. Ms Rashid assured Members that there

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services Director in respect of the Community Centres Policy.

The policy had been drawn up as a matter of priority to address operational matters following an audit recommendation. Consequent to approval, a Community Centres Strategy would be drafted in line with this policy and Corporate aims. Residents would be invited to consultation on the strategy and final approval would be sought from Committee in July 2019. Members asked that the strategy include detailed KPIs and be reported on alongside a more detailed financial model.

At present, no Community Centre generated surplus and therefore all were subsidised by the HRA. On the event that a surplus was generated, the service charge could be amended accordingly. Due to HRA subsidies, if a Centre made a loss any costs that needed to be recovered from leaseholders would be negligible.

With regard to restrictions of hire, a Member asked for assurance that non-resident and commercial lettings would not result in disturbances, such as excess noise, for residents. This issue was covered by the terms and conditions of the hire which apply to any booking. Any breach of these terms and conditions would result in the user being prevented from re-booking the premises. All lettings were dealt with by the respective Estate Managers, all of whom are acutely aware of the sensitivities of local residents.

A further audit recommendation was that the Estates’ finances should be reported to and monitored at committee level, a process which would be introduced in due course.

RESOLVED, that the Community Centres Policy for use by the Housing Service, be approved.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members considered a report of the Community and Children’s Services Director in respect of the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Policy.

The Chairman recognised that there was no doubt that their CCTV needed to be regulated by policy but raised concern over the prohibition of the installation of doorbells with integrated cameras. There was a sense that these were already in use across the Estates and that they were of benefit to a number of those in the community, particularly those who were more vulnerable.

Under the ICO’s guidelines, there was no distinction between CCTV and doorbells with integrated cameras when aimed at communal areas. As a result, the policy restricted personal use of CCTV, self-contained image recording devices (including doorbells with cameras) and automated camera systems. This ban was strengthened by the tenancy agreement, which did not allow the installation or affixion of anything outside of the owner’s property. It was noted, however, that residents install their own regular doorbells without issue.

Individual residents would be criminally liable for misuse of any data that constituted harassment, however, the level of liability of the City of London Corporation in a case such as this was uncertain.

It was agreed that further consideration and legal advice was needed on this matter, however, Members recognised the need to ensure they had a working policy in place.

RESOLVED, that

·         the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Policy for use by the Housing Service, be approved; and

·         investigation into the use of doorbells with integrated cameras be continued and reported back to the Committee in due course.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect of an update on the Tenancy Visits Project.

To date, there had been a 95% completion rate of interviews with a few remaining appointments arranged. Following comments from residents, changes to the Tenancy Visits Team’s leaflets and correspondence to make them more noticeable had proven successful. Approval was being sought by the Team to approach those tenants that had not yet responded to the survey. There were approximately 90 tenants that had not replied.

A full report with more substantive findings from the visits was due to be reported to the Community and Children’s Services Committee in July 2019.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect to the Housing Property Services achievements of 2018. Thanks were extended to officers for their hard work and continued efforts.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect of an update on the Residents Reassurance & Engagement Support Service (Parkguard Ltd).

Parkguard Ltd had been very well received and served as a visible assurance to residents. Patrol officers had become a font of local knowledge and a source of intelligence for police.

Financing of the contract with Parkguard Ltd would need to be considered when it came for review in early 2020. Officers identified a potential need for costs to eventually be recharged, in part, to leaseholders directly. Members commented on the success of the service and that, if it were necessary to pass costs on, it would be worthwhile providing residents were shown the value of their contribution. This would involve setting clear KPIs and publicising the benefits of the patrols.

 A list of interventions was collated by Parkguard Ltd and shared with the City of London Corporation. Officers suggested they could draw on this data and publish an appropriate summary for residents information.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of the Director of the Built Environment.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect to the project to increase recycling on Middlesex Street Estate.

Recycling performance across the City of London had been stagnating in comparison to national performance. In June-July 2018 42% properties in the Middlesex Street estate were participating in Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR) and 25% in food waste. Officers intended to trial a recycling incentivisation scheme by offering Middlesex Street estate a one-off £1000 award for communal use in the Estate for a 5% increase in participation. It was noted that a 50% rate of DMR participation would be considered a “good” level.

The percentage figures were due to be updated following the collection of more recent data and would be reported both in numerical and percentage terms to the May HMASC meeting. It was clarified that the data pertained to the number of household’s involved in recycling, as opposed to the tonnage of recycling and waste collected.

The City’s recycling was collected and transported to the contractor’s UK recycling centre, at which it was processed mechanically and bailed into various types. Bails were then taken to a mixture of mainly domestic but some foreign plants, including France, India and China, for processing. These destinations were determined by the contractor and changed periodically.

Following a question from a Member, officers confirmed that the Corporation would continue to engage with supermarkets to encourage plastic wrap minimisation.

RECEIVED.

There were no questions.

There was no other business.

MOTION - That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

To approve the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2019.

RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2019 be approved as a correct record.

There were no non-public questions.

There was no other business.