Agenda item

To receive an update on the Capital Works Forward Programme from the Head of Capital Works.

To invite comment on the relevant Action Sheet item.

To note the reports of the CLF Major Works Working Group, including the proposed case study.

Consideration was given to the Head of Planned Capital Works Update.

Susanna Afra Head of Capital Works informed the Forum that her team was based in Property Management under Gavin Haynes the Director and the overall head of department. Her team worked alongside the Repairs Team and other teams in Property Management.

The work delivered by her team included:

·       Work on housing and schools.

·       Housing maintenance, such as roofs and windows.

·       Maintenance of communal areas, lighting in communal areas, lifts and boiler houses, door entry systems.

·       Fire safety which has required a lot of investment because of all the fire risk assessment actions.

·       A Retrofit Team responsible for retrofitting some Council properties targeting those properties with a poor energy rating.

There was a Forward Programme of Works which was based on the Stock Condition Survey that took place at the end of last year (2023).

A list of properties where external works were required had been provided from the Asset Data Team in Property Management. The list of internal work required such as bathrooms and kitchens that might need upgrading or replacing was being reviewed by her team. While the Stock Condition survey made some recommendations, the Council would need to commission some consultants to provide more detailed scoping at the early stages.

Residents impacted by the work would be contacted in the coming months detailing what was required to be done. The larger projects such as boiler houses, lift maintenance took a bit longer and the scoping was a lot more detailed. The Fire Safety Team were working on a large number of actions any residents impacted by those fire safety works would be contacted regarding the work as well as those residents impacted by the smaller scale retrofit work. 

The Council had been successful in obtaining quite a large amount of money in grant funding from the Social Housing Demonstration Fund, Government Grant Fund which the Council also had to match fund. The Council was looking at the cost benefit ratio of how much it should invest and whether it was a good investment with the match funding. Although on paper the funding looked generous, there was a lot for the Council to do with limited funds. There was the need to prioritise each of the work areas.

The Forward Programme was being developed and would be shared with leaseholders once signed off by the Director and the Council’s Finance team. Any additional work required that funding was not available for would need to be incorporated into the Council’s Asset Management Strategy.

Forum Members raised concerns about

• Patched repairs meant assets deteriorated long term.
• Use of external consultants for Stock Condition Survey was not good value for money.
• Inadequate Major Works consultation process (on a specific case)
• Fire safety programme was over-specked for Victorian street properties and money was being wasted. Many had hollow walls which were not addressed while signage was overkill for properties with just two or three flats.
• Chair pointed out that she had been charged for a fire risk assessment in service charge and had spent several months asking for a copy and none was provided.

The Councillor for Fortune Green raised a concern about leasehold houses that had not had fire safety work done.

Responding to questions from Forum members and the concerns raised the Head of Capital Works gave the following information:

·       The Asset Management Strategy would identify what the Council needed to do to generate potential income so it could continue to invest in its stock.

·       The Council had 33,000 properties it was required to maintain which was a huge challenge particularly since the Grenfell tragedy with the Council required to spend a lot more money on fire safety.

·       The reason the Council had to invest so much in fire safety in recent years had been due to changes in legislation which had required the Council to invest in certain areas which it had probably not done before.

·       The reality was that the Council had limited funds and needed to be strategic around what it did to make sure it continued to maintain its stock.

·       The Council was good at taking up opportunities to bid for grant funding, in the last few years it had received about £11m worth of funding.

·       It would be worthwhile if the new Head of Asset Management Strategy shared the strategy with Leaseholders.

·       The Chair suggested that the Major Works Working Group meet with the Head of Asset Management Strategy to look at the Council’s Asset Strategy. This should include detail on the financials of the budget.

Action By: Major Works Working Group and Head of Asset management Strategy.

·       With regards to lack of consultation and engagement from Project Managers relating to works being carried out on leaseholder properties, it would be good if Forum members could email examples of when this had occurred so it could be followed up. Feedback on the consultation and engagement process had been received and taken on board from the Forum to make sure that Project Managers were providing all residents with advance notice of planned works.

·       The Asset Data Team conducted a 100% survey of all external and communal areas and a 10% survey of internal areas identifying which bathrooms and kitchens needed to be replaced.

·       The surveys identified what those works might cost based on a standard set of rates using the Council’s framework.

·       The Council did not have an in-house survey team or the finances to employ a full-time team, consultants carried out the stock condition survey which would be sense checked by Project Managers and experienced Programme Managers.

·       The use of external consultants allowed the Council some flexibility. They were only used or employed when required which worked well for the Council. The Chair suggested in the interest of transparency that it would be interesting to know the cost of using consultants to carry out the stock condition survey compared to the cost of having an internal in-house team.

·       The Signage Strategy used by the Council in properties was what had been advised by the Fire Safety Advisor and the London Fire Brigade as well as recommendations from independent firms used to carry out fire risk assessments.

·       With regards to hollow walls the Council had to abide by the latest legislation and make sure the properties were as safe as they could be. A balance needed to be made about how much could be done in the properties. The feedback about hollow walls would be taken back to the team.

·       The Council had a programme of works which was based on risk assessments and risk factors. Risk assessments in Houses compared to blocks of flats were considered to be lower risk. The Council had a long list of projects that it was working through.

·       All fire risk assessments were available on-line.

·       An officer was developing the engagement process and communication that would be going to all residents particularly those in high rise blocks. It would be a good idea if this could be shared at a future Forum meeting possibly September.

Action By: Chair / Fire Safety Engagement Officer

·       There was also a Building Safety Manager for each of the high-rise blocks who residents could contact to provide feedback.

The Head of Capital Works was thanked for her responses and attending the meeting.