The Property Services Manager said that the Great Estates programme comprised of 2-3 major schemes per year plus a number of smaller schemes.  Wherever possible the great estates schemes were aligned with cyclical maintenance and off-street parking improvements to achieve better overall outcomes.  Tenants and leaseholders were consulted as they knew the estates best.  This involved door knocking, exhibitions, and surveys.  Officers wanted to know where anti-social behaviour (ASB) was taking place so that opportunities for ASB it could be designed-out.  Officers wanted people to be proud of their estates and feel the investments had been worthwhile. 

The Property Services Manager said that officers had found that the lead in process had been quite considerable, often involving 6-9 months of preparation before improvement works could start.  This had resulted in £400k of slippage but it was expected that future spending targets would be met.  Some blocks needed external treatments and officers were surveying and cataloguing blocks in order to understand solutions and costs, which could inform a future rolling programme of further improvements.

The Panel voiced support for the programme and suggested that the types of schemes taking place provided an ideal opportunity for local young people to get involved in their delivery, for example as apprentices.  The Panel also suggested that may be an idea to involve children in redesigning communal areas where these were being vandalised.  The Property Services Manager said that he would take these suggestions away.

The Panel questioned how schemes were selected and heard that they were prioritised from suggestions by local members, residents and officers.  It was suggested that members representing unparished wards may wish to direct some of their allocated CIL funding to environmental improvements in estates.  The Panel encouraged the planting of trees, particularly where trees were being removed as part of an improvement scheme.

The Panel raised concerns about cars were parked on grass and questioned whether additional off-street parking could be delivered in these areas.  The Property Services Manager advised that the biggest limitation was obtaining planning consents.

The Panel welcomed the report and asked for a further update in 12 months to include:

·         More details about off-street parking improvements.

·         Feedback from residents.

·         Any metrics that can be provided to illustrate how improvements had made a difference (e.g. numbers of additional parking spaces provided).