Agenda and minutes

Churchill Place Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

Eastcote Lane Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

Harrow Federation of Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations

Kenmore Park Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

Little Stanmore Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

Milman Close Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

Weald Village Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

A representative from the Harrow Sheltered Residents’ Association was also in attendance.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Forum;

(b)               all other Members present.

Agenda Item No. 7 – Information Report – Garage Strategy Update

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non pecuniary interest in the above item in that she was on the Board of London Fire Brigade.  She would remain in the room whilst this matter was considered.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at the meeting.

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources and the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing

The Forum agreed to consider the report as a matter of urgency to enable the Forum’s views to be considered by Cabinet.

An officer introduced the report which set out the assumptions currently used in constructing the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2013-14 and the medium term financial strategy (MFTS) to 2016-17 which would be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 14 February 2013.  The officer made the following comments:

·                     the HRA was in a healthy position and it was anticipated that the balance would be £3.5 million for the next 4 years.  The proposed budget estimate included additional investment in the stock and the operational services;

·                     it was suggested that garage rents remain frozen pending completion of the garage strategy review;

·                     the current dwelling rent strategy agreed in March 2011 was based on the Government policy of rent convergence, so that by the end of 2015?16 similar properties in the same area would have similar rents regardless of the social landlord;

·                     rents were calculated using two elements, one was the property value which accounted for 30% of the calculation and the other was local earnings;

·                     properties were last subjected to valuations in 1999 and since then there had been significant levels of investment in the dwelling stock.  It had been suggested that due to the improvements made to properties a value increase of 7.5% should be added to the original valuations;

·                     the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had confirmed that there would be a mechanism to collect data relating to property values and that this information could be included in the calculation of limit rents.  The increases in rents due to the increase in property values would not result in a loss through Rent Rebate Subsidy Limitation;

·                     the increases in property values would result in a increase of the target rent of 2.85% or £3.06 per week;

·                     if the increase was phased in there would not be an loss because of the rent rebate subsidy limitation and as convergence increased over time the additional income would be in the region of £0.75 million;

·                     the full impacts of the welfare reform and the benefit cap were not known at present.  It was suggested that some of the income from the increase in rent levels could be used to establish a HRA hardship fund which would complement the provisions being made in the General Fund;

·                     the income from the proposed increase in dwelling rents could also be used to provide additional affordable housing as there was a shortage of affordable housing in the borough;         

·                     at present, 75% of tenants received some form of benefit and the additional rent increase of £3.06 per week would affect 25% of tenants.

Members of the Forum asked a number of questions to which the officers responded to as follows:

·                     52% of tenants received full benefits and 23% received partial benefits;

·                     the rent calculations based on property value and local income levels included an additional third element which was based on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 169.

Report of the Divisional Director of Housing

The Forum agreed to consider the report as a matter of urgency to enable the Forum’s views to be considered by Cabinet.

An officer introduced the report which updated the Forum on the further consultation with the Harrow Federation of Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations (HFTRA) on the 2013/14 Capital programme since the December meeting of the Forum.  The report sought approval for the recommendations to be made to Cabinet on building flexibility into the programme and a process to determine how to re-invest any current and future savings.  The officer made comments including the following;

·                     an amendment was required for the table on page 19 of the supplemental agenda to reflect that the works on the lifts were for 2 lifts at one sheltered housing scheme;

·                     Cabinet was being requested to approve a contingency fund for the Capital programme to help provide flexibility and to complete urgent works.  The suggested figure for the contingency fund was £250,000;

·                     a process had been developed to indicate how procurement savings and other savings would be re-invested.  The process was shown in an illustrative diagram;

·                     it was possible that if more savings were achieved than required for the contingency fund, investment could be made in homes by improving, facilities such as bathrooms, kitchens and heating systems.  Items from the draft 2014/15 programme would be brought forward to 2013/14 to spend the money;

·                     it was proposed that Cabinet delegate authority to the Housing Portfolio Holder to make decisions on the re-investment of savings;

·                     consideration could be given to some of the savings being used for projects which were not in the Capital programme, such as storage areas for mobility scooters in sheltered housing accommodation;

Members of the Forum made the following comments;

·                     the relevant ward Councillors should be included in the consultation process;

·                     as the £207,500 allocated for the lift works in the 2013/14 draft programme was for two lifts at one site there should be savings compared to the cost for works on one lift at two sites;

·                     if there was an underspend, consideration should be given making early repayments for the HRA debt;

·                     investment should be made in making void properties habitable as soon as practicable.

In response to the comments from Forum Members, an officer raised the following points;

·                     the concerns about void properties were understandable.  The issue regarding voids was not that sufficient funds were available but about the process.  The majority of funding for void properties was from the revenue budget and not the capital budget;

·                     there had been consultation with HFTRA regarding using any uncommitted resources to pay back the HRA debt earlier.  The general view was that this was a sensible consideration but not for the first year as it was unclear if the procurement savings were a one off incident or if they would be sustained in future years.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Cabinet)

That the comments of the Forum be noted when Cabinet consider the recommendations on building flexibility into the capital programme and a process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

Report of the Divisional Director of Housing

An officer introduced the report which provided an update to the Forum on a pilot project being undertaken by Harrow Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) to visit tenants and leaseholders to establish their awareness of the implications of the forthcoming welfare reform changes and to establish what sort of support and guidance should be made available.  The officer made comments including the following:

·                     as direct payments were ending, one of the most important questions which was asked was whether respondents had a transactional bank account;

·                     in addition, questions were asked about whether there were any incentives which would encourage a tenant or leaseholder to sign up to pay by direct debit, were there any other payment methods which would help people manage their budgets, whether budget training was required and if respondents had any current financial concerns;

·                     the CAB had been given the details of 600 households in the borough, which included 500 tenants and 100 leaseholders.  The contacts were identified using random selection and also various criteria, including those who would not be affected by the benefit cap, leaseholders with historic debts, leaseholders likely to face major works bills within the next 2 years and  tenants who were known to be in receipt of full housing benefit;

·                     an additional 346 households which were likely to be affected by the bedroom tax had been identified for inclusion in the pilot project;

·                     monthly progress reports had been provided by the CAB and the graphs included at Appendix 1 to the report showed the results following 285 interviews in the period ending December 2012;

·                     to date, no leaseholders had submitted a response or accepted an interview;

·                     the key findings were that two thirds of those visited had advised that they were aware of the changes and that two thirds were concerned about how it would affect them.  90% of respondents had indicated that they had a transactional bank back account and 50% of those visited would welcome discount incentives to encourage payment by direct debit.  97% had indicated that they would like direct payment of rent to continue;

·                     in addition, 81% of those interviewed had stated that they would not like to receive any help with budgeting and 79% responded that they did not have money issues;

·                     the majority of the interviewees to date had been older people and the CAB would now be targeting younger people for the interviews;

·                     it had been agreed that the pilot would be extended until the end of February 2013 to allow the CAB to prioritise their work on the fuel poverty project.

Members of the Forum asked a number of questions which the officers responded to as follows:

·                     CAB had been paid approximately £40,000 for the project from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and a service level agreement (SLA) had been set.  It was accepted that a response rate of one per day was low but at the beginning of the project there had been staff availability issues;

·                     the progress on the project had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

Report of the Divisional Director of Housing

The Forum agreed to consider the report as a matter of urgency for the reasons set out on the supplemental agenda.

An officer introduced the report which updated the Forum on the progress of the Garage Strategy from July 2012 to the present date.  The officer made comments including the following:

·                     within the borough there were 69 individual garage blocks containing 959 garages and carports.  At present, 400 were let and 162 others were in a lettable condition.  There were 50 people on the waiting list;

·                     site visits had been made to all the garage blocks by the Housing Portfolio and the Vice-Chairman of the Forum;

·                     Appendix 1 to the report included details of the sites which had been identified as having potential for development of affordable housing.  Feasibility studies of the sites were now  required;

·                     the results from the garage strategy regarding sites with potential for development would be included in a wider project regarding development options analysis.  The initial report on this wider project was anticipated in April 2013;

·                     a bid had been submitted to the Greater London Authority under the Mayor’s Housing Covenant for funding to develop some low cost home ownership properties on some of the potential development sites, which would be ringfenced for existing tenants to purchase.  An update on the bid would be submitted to a future meeting;

·                     10 garage sites had been identified which had the potential for repair and subsequent letting.  The criteria for identifying these sites were; sites with no development potential, sites where there were voids, locations with a waiting list and sites where repair costs represented value for money;

·                     the Garage Strategy Steering Group would receive estimated repair costs for the 10 sites at their next meeting;

·                     23 garage blocks had not been identified for either development or repairs.  The options for these sites now needed to be considered

Members of the Forum made the following comments;

·                     Hazeldene Drive should be deleted from Appendix 1 as there was potential for wider redevelopment opportunities;

·                     there were existing car parking issues at Stuart Avenue and the removal of the garages would extenuate these;

·                     further consideration was required for Stuart Avenue as there had been issues with a Compulsory Purchase Order in the past and the site was on a flood plain;

·                     an additional play area at Masefield Avenue was not required as there was one nearby and there had been anti-social behaviour on the previous play area located there;

·                     most of the existing garages were too small for modern cars;

·                     as most garages appeared to be used for storage, consideration should be given to increasing the rent for garages used for storage;

·                     it was welcomed that action would be taken to address anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of garages;

·                     storage of flammable products and gas canisters in garages was a safety issue for the Fire Brigade and nearby residents.  The terms and conditions of renting a garage should be explained when an individual rented one;

·                     there were concerns that some of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172.