Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

To improve accessibility individual documents published after 1 May 2020 are available as HTML pages where their original format supports this

Speaking at a Council or Committee meeting

Venue: The Old Library - Oxford Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Andrewe Brown, Scrutiny Officer 

Items
No. Item

102.

Apologies

Substitutes are not allowed.

Minutes:

Apologies were noted from Caroline Green and Martin Shaw who were invited for item 4.

103.

Election of Chair for 2017/18 Council Year

 

The Panel is asked to elect a chair for the 2017/18 Council year.

 

The chair must be a member of the Scrutiny Committee and can be from any political group.

Minutes:

Councillor Henwood and Councillor Thomas were both nominated to chair the Panel but the Panel was unable to elect a chair because the votes were tied. 

 

The decision to elect a chair for the council year was therefore referred to the next meeting of the Council’s Scrutiny Committee, on 7 September.

 

Councillor Henwood was selected to chair this meeting in a random selection process.

 

104.

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

There were no declarations.

105.

Fire safety in tower blocks pdf icon PDF 54 KB

 

Background Information

Members requested a submission from officers on fire safety in the Council’s tower blocks in light of the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in London.  Members have also asked to hear the views of individual tower block residents.

Why is it on the agenda?

For the Panel to receive a verbal update on the Council’s response to the Grenfell disaster and hear the views of tower block residents.

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Councillor Mike Rowley, Board Member for Housing;

·         Caroline Green, Assistant Chief Executive;

·         Stephen Clarke, Head of Housing Services;

·         Martin Shaw, Property Services Manager.

 

 

Minutes:

The chair invited a member of the public to address the Panel.  The speaker expressed a number of concerns including about:

·         Public safety in tower blocks and the cladding on some Oxford towers.

·         The adequacy of the national testing regime.

·         The marketisation of housing leading to corners being cut to enhance profits and developer interests being placed above community interests.

·         Affordable housing stock being reduced as a result of Right to Buy.

·         Affordable housing policy in the city and the level of new affordable housing being delivered at the redeveloped Templar’s Square.

 

The Head of Housing Services updated the Panel on the Council’s response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, the safety of Oxford’s tower blocks, the cladding systems used and the status of the government tests.

 

He said that resident safety is the utmost priority for the Council. 

 

The Council had learnt lessons and implemented recommendations following previous disasters at Lakanall House and Shirley Towers.  For example the Council had taken a decision to retrofit sprinkler systems in all 5 tower blocks following a recommendation in the Lakanall House Coroner Inquest, which was published in 2013.  Only 18 blocks in the country had been retrofitted with sprinkler systems and 5 of those were in Oxford.  Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service had recently inspected all Oxford tower blocks twice and concluded that they were safe.

 

Following the Grenfell Tower disaster the Council had moved quickly to reassure residents about the safety measures in place in their tower blocks, including by issuing letters and hosting drop in sessions. 

 

The cladding systems on Oxford’s tower blocks were not the same as those on Grenfell Tower.  The insulation used in Oxford was rockwool (approximately 150mm thick) which was non-combustable and had the highest Euroclass fire safety rating of A1, whereas it is understood that the insulation used at Grenfell had been combustible.  The other element of the cladding system was the rain screen which was typically about 3mm thick.  The rain screens installed on parts of Windrush Tower and Evenlode Tower were made from aluminium composite material (ACM) and were similar to those used on Grenfell, comprising of two very thin aluminium sheets with another material in between.

 

The Government response to the Grenfell Tower disaster had been difficult to follow.  Initially the Council had been required to submit samples of ACM from its tower blocks for testing and these samples had failed.  However, all ACM had some combustibility and building regulations did not require it to meet that standard.  A number of experts had questioned the testing regime and the government had since appointed fire safety experts to advise them on whole system testing, including both the insulation and the rain screen elements of various cladding systems.  The first result had just been published and the system used on Grenfell was found to have failed.  The Council’s system would be tested soon.

 

The Council had taken an ‘in principle’ decision to remove the rain screen installed on Windrush and Evenlode towers (this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

106.

Tenant Scrutiny Panel tower project update pdf icon PDF 120 KB

 

 

Background Information

The Tenant Scrutiny Panel (TSP) has undertaken a review of the tower block refurbishment project and the Housing Panel has asked to be kept informed of progress.

Why is it on the agenda?

For the Panel to receive a briefing on the outcomes of the TSP review and the Council’s response.

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Geno Humphrey, Chair of Tenant Scrutiny Panel;

·         Councillor Mike Rowley, Board Member for Housing;

·         Stephen Clarke, Head of Housing Services.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Tenant Co-optee introduced the Tenant Scrutiny Panel’s (TSP) interim report on the tower block refurbishment programme.  He said that the TSP had visited all 5 tower blocks, spoken to project managers, requested documents and conducted a resident satisfaction survey about this big project.

 

The Panel commented that the report was very useful and interesting.  In response to questions the Panel noted that:

·         There had been limited opportunity to engage with leaseholders.

·         It would be useful for TSP members to be named in future reports.

·         Replacing inefficient, unserviceable storage heaters and improving energy efficiency had been a priority and the Council would evaluate these impacts at the end of the project.

·         It was unusual for satisfaction to be measured midway through a project but this had enabled a number of issues to be identified and addressed.

·         A tribunal case about the costs to leaseholders was ongoing.

·         Sinking funds could not be implemented retrospectively but would be considered for new developments e.g. at Barton Park.

·         The refurbishment involved complicated and disruptive works and there had been tensions at times.

·         The new Resident Liaison Coordinator had been a go to person and would remain in post until the end of the project.  This role was seen as vital for major works and budget proposals would be brought forward to make this post permanent.

 

 

 

107.

Housing performance - quarter 4 pdf icon PDF 52 KB

 

 

 

Background Information

The Housing Panel has a role in monitoring Council performance against housing targets.  This report contains outcomes at the end of 2016/17 quarter 4 (March 2017) for a set of housing performance indicators.  The Panel has also asked to monitor the numbers of households and children living in temporary accommodation, and this information is also included.

Why is it on the agenda?

For the Panel to note and comment on housing performance at the end of 2016/17 quarter 4 and the numbers of families and children in temporary accommodation.  

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Stephen Clarke, Head of Housing Services.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Panel requested a written response from the Head of Business Improvement about the pressures affecting measure CS002: Time to process changes in circumstances.

 

The Panel noted that a written response (previously circulated now appended) had been provided in respect of the numbers in measures HC016: Number of affordable homes for rent delivered and HC006: Total number of affordable homes completed in year.

 

In response to a question, the Head of Housing Services advised that the reduction in the number of children in temporary accommodation was an excellent result given the circumstances and he did not know what more the Council could do in seeking to reduce this figure, given that a range of initiatives were already in place.  He added that the impacts of the Homelessness Reduction Bill would need to be planned for and would hit the Council financially.  The Council’s response would be built into the forthcoming budget round.

 

The Panel heard that successful interventions with rough sleepers were defined as those where a person to whom the Council had a duty to house had been taken off the streets into accommodation or prevented from sleeping on the street.

 

The Head of Housing Services also confirmed that the tower block refurbishment project was an intense and complicated project that had impacted his department and used a lot of resource.

 

 

 

 

108.

Recommendations update - university housing needs pdf icon PDF 97 KB

In April 2017 the Panel submitted a report to the City Executive Board about university housing needs to inform the Local Plan Preferred Options.  The Board Member for Planning and Regulatory Services offered to provide a detailed written response to the Panel’s recommendations once the Local Plan Preferred Options had been published

 

The Panel is asked to note and comment on the Board Member’s responses.

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Panel noted the report and made the following comments:

·         Members were not impressed with the approach of Oxford University representatives at the meeting.

·         The response to recommendation C was a concern because amount of student accommodation concentrated in certain locations was becoming overwhelming and it may be appropriate to put student accommodation in areas outside of the city centre and Headington, e.g. Barns Road or Blackbird Leys.

·         In the response to recommendation E, post-graduates on research-based courses may need to be better defined to capture those whose research is of most benefit to the city.

 

109.

Housing Panel Work Programme pdf icon PDF 191 KB

For the Panel to note and agree its work plan, which can be adjusted to reflect the wishes of the Panel.

 

The Scrutiny Officer will introduce this item.

 

 

Minutes:

The Panel noted the work plan and agreed to:

·         Receive regular updates on the tower block refurbishment project, including any developments with building regulations and the Council’s representations to Government on issues of fire safety.

·         Broaden the item on leaseholder relationships to include engagement with resident groups and housing associations.

·         Receive a further update on the Council’s work on void garages and underused garage sites.

·         Visit a tower block with housing staff and meet residents.

·         Visit a homelessness facility in the city.

·         Seek the views of the public and interested parties (e.g. tenants who live on estates, homeless people etc.) when considering future items.

·         Include a message on the front of future agendas encouraging members of the public to address the Panel.

 

110.

Notes of previous meeting pdf icon PDF 73 KB

For the Panel to note and approve the record of the meeting held on 26 April 2017.

Minutes:

The Panel approved the notes with one change which was to say on item 96 that the list of garage sites was not complete and that the Panel supported a full census of garage sites in the city.

111.

Date of next meeting

Meetings are scheduled as follows:

 

5 September 2017

12 October 2017

13 November 2017

8 March 2018

9 April 2018

 

All meetings begin at 5.00pm.

Minutes:

Noted.