Agenda item

Councillor David Harvey, the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, to provide an update to the Committee on current and forthcoming issues in his portfolio and to answer questions from Members.

5.1      Cllr David Harvey, Cabinet Member for Housing,provided a written update and responded to questions about the ongoing resident survey, which aimed to measure resident satisfaction with Council housing. The Committee queried the reliability of the responses to the survey. The Committee welcomed Councillor Harvey’s reply, which explained that the sample size of the survey and the quality and diversity of responses was likely to have a low margin for error, and that on first inspection, the responses received were consistent with known issues. The Committee accepted that more robust interrogation of the results of the survey would follow.

5.2      The Committee was given an update about the Churchill Gardens Pilot, and the multi-agency panel. The Cabinet Member clarified that the multi-agency panel was a measure to collaborate with several fields and disciplines where objectives were shared.

5.3      The Committee discussed the Smart Homes initiative, and was informed that interim results from the trial period of the Smart Homes programme would be available in October or November for scrutiny by the committee. It was raised that residents generally needed to have an active internet connection so that they could benefit from these innovations. The Committee was pleased to hear that a voucher scheme was under consideration that would get residents connected at very favourable rates.

5.4      Regarding drones checking the status of repairs and home conditions, the Committee was advised that, whilst there may be a teething period where residents were sceptical of drones inspecting their property, this technology was expected to be very useful. The Committee heard that, when repairs were needed in high places, the birds-eye view they offered would be valuable.

5.5      The Committee discussed the issue of anti-social behaviour on Council Property, and the enforcement measures that the Council could take against persistent anti-social behaviour. The Committee heard that only one eviction had been necessary over the last year, and that there were approximately 30 Notice of Possession Orders (NPOs) active or being processed. The Committee further heard that these NPOs would allow the Council to indicate to residents that, were they to misbehave or act anti-socially, they would be evicted, and that courts would have the ability to pass that measure rapidly.

5.6      The Committee was advised that cases of anti-social behaviour could be sensitive and complex, and that the Council endeavoured to respond to each case with the requisite nuance. The Committee discussed how situations involving families where only one member behaved anti-socially complicated enforcement against anti-social behaviour.

5.7      The Committee noted that the Cabinet Member aimed to reshape the agreements signed with tenants to emphasise neighbourliness as a key component. The Cabinet Member explained that a pilot scheme investigating two Council Estates would seek consensus on tenants’ expectations of good behaviour and that this would enable the Council to respond more effectively to cases of poor behaviour in Council-owned properties.

5.8      The Committee suggested benchmarking, using analysis of other countries, which could be a valuable exercise for the Council. Singapore was named as a country that may provide good examples of enforcement against anti-social behaviour.

5.9      The Committee requested clarity around Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for leaseholder satisfaction and heard that satisfaction rates in Westminster had gone up by approximately 6% in the past year. The Committee heard that this placed Westminster’s rates relatively highly when compared with other London boroughs. The Committee was told that hard work had been done in communicating with Leaseholders about major works in the past five years, though the dividends of these efforts would likely take time to realise in the data. The Committee heard that measures taken by the Cabinet Member and the relevant Council departments in this regard included hosting small-group workshops, which clarified to leaseholders the details of major works. It was noted that Leaseholders may not have had a good experience in the past, and so it was an ongoing process to rebuild trust with them.

5.10    The Committee requested more information about the status of Agilysis, the Council’s repair call centre, and performance in the face of reduced staff capacity and ongoing high demand for services and repairs. The Committee heard that staffing of the main centre was facing a cut of nearly 30% of its capacity. The Committee discussed the advancements in the call system used by the centre in aiding performance. The Committee also heard that, in addition, the changes to the call centre would be graduated over the course of two or three years and that additional capacity could be provided in an urgent situation if needed, with some 15 additional staff able to be drafted in to increase capacity in a crisis or over the winter months.

5.11    The Committee requested and received reassurances that drones were legal to operate on Council property, provided that they were seen and managed by an operator. The Committee was also advised that, before drone repair inspections were implemented, the measures would be checked thoroughly with Legal Services and that this step ensured that no Council officer or department breached regulations on drones.

5.12    The Committee requested information about the employment of Westminster residents as apprentices and officers involved with this portfolio. The Committee welcomed the Cabinet Member’s position, which was that, whilst the top priority was to employ the best candidates available, he had consulted senior officers about the number of attractive jobs on offer for residents. The Committee heard that the Cabinet Member aspired to hold job fairs for residents to seek employment with the Council in housing roles.

5.13    The Committee inquired about the reliability of data in recent housing surveys, and whether residents were included in the questioning process. The Committee welcomed the information that an online survey group had been set up to ensure resident input was accounted for in questioning.