Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Cohen.

Councillor Sargeant had advised that he would be delayed due to commuting from a prior commitment. 

To receive declarations of interest.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2024.

Councillor Stanley requested that her apologies for lateness be amended in the minutes.

RESOLVED   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2024 were approved as a correct record subject to the amendment above.             

The Chair of the Committee will answer questions from members of the public submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Public questions were submitted. They were answered by the Chair, Councillor Luff. There were no supplementary questions. Refer to the recording of the meeting and Agenda Item 4.

See Agenda Item 4 for deadlines for submission.

There were none.

Following a proposal by the Chair, Councillor Luff it was agreed that item 10 Leasehold Management Policy would be taken after agenda item 5 Members Questions.

The purpose of this report is to present a new Leasehold Management Policy.

The Principal Leasehold and Section 20 Officer introduced the report and explained that the Leasehold Management Policy was new. The Policy set out leaseholder’s rights and responsibilities regarding the management of leasehold properties and to adhere with leasehold legislation and regulations. The Policy applied to purchased flats and maisonettes through the Right to Buy Scheme and subsequent resales but not shared ownership properties. She highlighted that the Policy provided transparent and consistent guidance on how the council manage leaseholders and leasehold properties. If the Policy was not adopted, it could lead to confusion and inconsistency as well as not meeting the regulatory and consumer standards.

Councillor Kambites queried whether the council could be in a position where there were enough leaseholders that could potentially wish to purchase the freehold. The Principal Leasehold and Section 20 Officer advised it was highly unlikely and there would be a lot to investigate including the eligibility of the block. If it were to arise guidance would need to be sought from One Legal. Councillor Kambites then questioned the position of the remaining council tenants within that block should it arise. The Principal Leasehold and Section 20 Officer advised that guidance would be needed from One Legal.

In response to Councillor Cook’s question the Principal Leasehold and Section 20 Officer advised that the Policy didn’t differ from other council’s Leasehold Policies and that councils were bound by the lease and legislation.

Councillor Kambites proposed and Councillor Cook seconded.

Councillor Schoemaker raised concerns that those likely to become leaseholders may not have a large amount of spare capital and could be faced with a large bill for potential repairs.

The Chair, Councillor Luff, agreed with Councillor Schoemaker that large leasehold bills could be concerning for residents therefore it should be investigated what options could be available to tenants and then return to Housing Committee at a later date.

Mr Richter, Tenant Representative, advised that Right to Buy residents had a limit on costs for the first 5 years which would alleviate the impact. The Principal Leasehold and Section 20 Officer confirmed that at the point of a tenant going through Right to Buy then the projected costs were provided for the first 5 years and subsequent resales were provided the projected costs for the first 2 years.

Councillor Kambites highlighted that the Policy was required to meet legal requirements.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

To present the draft Council Plan which sets out the council’s priorities and objectives for the next four years.

The Chair, Councillor Luff, introduced the report and explained that the draft Council Plan set out the strategic direction for the council over the next 4 years. The draft Plan included five overarching priorities, three of which were closely aligned to the existing Council Plan: Environment, Climate & Nature, Communities & Wellbeing, and Local Economy there had also been two new priorities introduced: Housing and Working for our Communities.

Good quality housing played a vital role to ensure lives were well lived, and the Housing priority within the Council Plan outlined how the Council would play a full role to ensure the quality and quantity of homes in the Stroud district were enhanced, and that in the Council’s role as a landlord the housing stock was good quality, energy efficient, safe and fit for purpose.

The Council Plan was underpinned by specific aims, objectives and actions designed to deliver meaningful outcomes for the district and these were set out in Appendix A of the report. Some of the achievements that were specific to Housing Committee were set out in section 2 of the report, the Chair, Councillor Luff, highlighted the below:

·         At the Retrofit Academy Awards in 2024, the council was named as the Best Social Housing-led Retrofit Programme for a county-wide project to deliver a whole house retrofit of 46 properties.

·         There had been continued investment in modernising the Independent Living homes for older people, with improvements made across 13 sites.

·         46.5% of council housing stock had achieved an EPC rating of C or above.

·         15 homes were purchased through the Local Authority Housing Fund programme, providing homes under the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

The Plan was consulted on widely with a public consultation running alongside stakeholder events including workshops with the Stroud Local Strategic Partnership, Parish and Town Councils, and the Youth Council. The public consultation received 297 responses in total and details of this were set out in section 4 of the report and in Appendices C and D. Some of the headline results were:

·         83% of respondents agreed with the aim ‘Improve the quality of homes in Stroud district’

·         58.6% of respondents said they thought the aims for the Communities priority clearly set out what the council were trying to achieve

The Housing priority had the highest number of respondents say they disagreed with it as a priority, it was felt that this reflected the public concern about new housing developments rather than the council’s focus on addressing housing needs and supporting tenants. 69 qualitative comments were received on the Housing priority, with the highest number received regarding Housing Development, followed by Infrastructure and Social and Affordable Housing.

The Delivery Plan was an active and flexible document that would be kept under regular review and that would change over time. Following approval of the Council Plan, the Delivery Plan would be split into an annual delivery plan for review by policy committees. Since the Council Plan had been developed, the Devolution White Paper was released which outlined plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item HC.055

The purpose of this report is to present a revised Housing Services Anti-Social Behaviour Policy.

The Head of Tenant Relationships introduced the report and explained that the Policy had been refreshed since it was last adopted in March 2021. The revised Policy considered changes in good practice, legislation and regulatory framework. It supported the council as a landlord to provide effective management and to promote safe, sustainable communities. It also complimented the councils overarching Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy. He advised that the it set out the below points:

• A clear definition of ASB.
• The council’s approach to hate incidents.
• How the housing service would work in partnership with other organisations to prevent and tackle ASB.
• How tenants would be supported to report ASB through a variety of means.
• The actions that could be taken to tackle ASB.
• How tenants would be updated that had been affected by ASB.

When the Policy was reviewed several internal teams and operational managers, partner agencies, residents and One Legal were consulted. It reflected the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance and was benchmarked against other social housing providers.

In response to Councillor Moore’s question, the Head of Tenant Relationships advised that misogyny wasn’t currently considered a hate crime, and the Policy included the current protected characteristics as a hate crime. Councillor Moore queried whether misogyny could be included in advance of it becoming a hate crime protected characteristic. The Chair, Councillor Luff, stated he was going to ask the same question and agreed that misogyny should be included. It was agreed that it would be discussed further under debate.

Councillor Cook stated that the Policy was broadly the same as the ASB Policy that was approved last year and asked whether it had been tested against a case through the entire journey to ensure it was effective. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that the case management principals were broadly the same as the existing Policy however the review of the Policy was to improve and tighten arrangements for supporting vulnerable victims which had been tested.

Councillor Cook asked whether the current process worked well for dispute claims. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that the Policy set out the council’s case management principals and there was a requirement for the council to investigate reports which involved feedback from the complainant and the alleged perpetrator.

Councillor Mathews asked whether the alleged perpetrator was kept updated throughout the process. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that the action plan was set out with the reporter rather than the alleged perpetrator. The action plan included the information that the reporter needed to provide to ensure there was sufficient evidence. He stated that perpetrators were written to where permission was given by the victim reporting the ASB.

Councillor Mathews queried whether there was a process in place for the alleged perpetrator to be informed and to allow them the opportunity to stop the alleged offences. The Head of Tenant Relationships confirmed that the perpetrator was contacted and each case was assessed based on the risk on the victim which would determine what the escalation would  ...  view the full minutes text for item HC.056

The purpose of this report is to present a revised Tenancy and Estate Management Policy.

The Head of Tenant Relationships introduced the report and explained that the original Policy was adopted by Housing Committee in November 2021. The revised document considered subsequent changes in legislation and regulatory framework as well as current good practice. The Policy outlined the council’s approach and responsibility to tenancy and estate management which was a vital part of the councils role of delivering and promoting safe, secure and sustainable homes and communities. The aims and objectives included:

·         tenants’ rights and responsibilities

·         the role of the council as a landlord to support tenants

·         the actions that may be taken by the council to deal with breaches of tenancy

·         encouraging tenants to participate in the delivery and development of estate management

·         maintaining clean and safe blocks on estates

The Policy also set out how the council would fulfil the regulatory standards under the consumer standards. Following consultation feedback several formatting changes had been made to ensure it was accessible, some sections were removed that were no longer relevant and some content was added to include clarity. The Policy was developed in consultation with operational managers across the council, residents and One Legal, it also considered the changes from depooling.

Councillor Rothwell-Warn asked whether following depooling, tenants could chose the services they received. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that the service charges were split into estate services and flat block services. It was set out what services were delivered and then tenants through consultation would have a say on what services would be delivered.

Councillor Rothwell-Warn asked whether it would be a possible for tenants to opt out of ground maintenance. The Head of Tenant Relationships highlighted that the council would set a minimum standard in terms of grounds maintenance which would be reflected in the service charge. Councillor Rothwell-Warn expressed concerns of conflict between depooling and the Tenancy and Management Policy. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that there were certain services that the council would want to deliver as a landlord to maintain the quality of the estates, the service would be covered by tenants however tenants would be consulted on the specification.

Councillor Rothwell-Warn highlighted that the Policy didn’t state grass cutting and she felt it should be included, she also asked whether playing fields would be covered. The Head of Tenant Relationships confirmed there were different areas of land which had different cutting schedules. Councillor Rothwell-Warn asked whether playing fields would be a serviceable charge. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that if it was Housing land then it would come under the estate service charge.

Councillor Cook asked whether within depooling, if tenants could request CCTV and pay for it. The Head of Tenant Relationships advised that the council may consider the installation of CCTV to provide community protection however there would be a cost which would be a service charge. Councillor Cook asked whether the same would apply if the council wanted to install CCTV but the tenants were against it. The Head of Tenant Relationships  ...  view the full minutes text for item HC.057

The purpose of this report is to present an updated Repairs and Planned Maintenance Policy to replace the existing 2017 Policy.

The Operations Manager introduced the report and explained that the previous Policy was adopted in 2017. The revised Policy had gone through consultation with resident groups, and set out the council’s roles and responsibilities in providing a well maintained home to tenants as well as communal areas.

Councillor Ananthan asked whether there was a regular maintenance schedule. The Operations Manager advised there were ongoing schedules for communal light testing but the council also developed cyclical programmes for external painting and gutter clearing which were shared with the properties affected.

Councillor Ananthan asked whether the programmes could be shared with Councillors for their specific ward. The Head of Assets & Investment (Council Housing) advised that it wasn’t ward specific however she could share the maintenance programmes. She highlighted that some of the programmes were within other Policies that had already been to Committee including annual gas services, renewable heating and painting of homes.

Councillor Ananthan asked how regular maintenance would be planned if it wasn’t ward specific.

The Operations Manager confirmed that the programmes were system generated, and the stock condition surveys generate the planned programme going forward which would determine if it was cyclical maintenance or planned maintenance.

In response to Councillor Mathews’ question the Operations Manager confirmed that the schedules were property specific rather than ward specific.

The Head of Assets & Investment (Council Housing) explained that planned maintenance was where information was gathered on the council’s housing stock, following a stock condition survey being undertaken which would then allow a planned maintenance programme to be put together. She continued that cyclical maintenance that was based on the asset and the need of the property which would be a schedule based on properties that had gas for example or air source heat pumps. Repairs would then cover urgent repairs and routine repairs. She advised that she could share the detail on planned maintenance within each ward and highlighted that there would be drop in sessions at Nouncells Cross and the council were trying to communicate more on bigger projects and street approaches.

Councillor Stanley asked what would happen if the council owned one side of a semi-detached property and there was an issue that impacted the private resident joined to the council property and whether the council would respond to the issue urgently. The Operations Manager explained it would be based on a case by case basis and the urgency to deal with the repair and the threat to the property was paramount. He advised that if third parties were involved the development of the Policy included a 3 month rule for the repair to be resolved however that didn’t apply to urgent repairs. He added that the focus would be to secure the repair and make it safe.

In response to Councillor Cook’s question the Head of Assets & Investment (Council Housing) confirmed that once a property hit a certain financial threshold it would be reviewed and, in some cases, get a valuation and look at investment return.

Councillor Rothwell-Warn commended  ...  view the full minutes text for item HC.058

Mr Richter, Tenant Representative, highlighted the below areas that tenants had been involved with:

• Draft policy consultations.
• Sending out information on depooling tenancy variation.
• A new scrutiny group which would begin to investigate communication standards and feedback and then damp and mould.
• Tenant satisfaction measures survey.
• A 12 month resident engagement action plan to launch in February.

Nature recovery project which aimed to cut down on the costs of cutting the grass.

To consider the work programme.

It was agreed that the ASB Policy would be added to a later meeting as the March Committee was busy.

RESOLVED To note the above updates to the Work Programme.