Agenda item

The Business Innovation Manager and Business Improvement Manager delivered the presentation on the Tenant Participation Review which invited Scrutiny to provide a steer on the scope for inclusive co-design of tenant participation and comment on the options for tackling resource challenges. Key points raised included:

·       A summary of the progress of Moving Forward Together, including the identification of a number of resident priorities

·       The intentions around co-designing tenant participation with residents

·       A summary of the delivery challenges, significantly the resource capacity of staff

·       A request for input on some of the proposals and options provided (see below for details).

A representative of the Housing Scrutiny Panel noted that recruitment to the Panel had proved difficult, particularly in ensuring diverse representation. The Chair recognised both the importance and challenges in engaging communities. It was also felt that progress over recent years had been slow, and hoped this could be improved upon.

A Member enquired about the progress of fire safety work following two recent fires in council properties. The Business Innovation Manager stated that the approach to fire safety had changed following the fires and a subsequent inspection, with the decision made to remove EPS cladding, remove ‘stay put’ directives, and hold ‘waking watches’. Residents were contacted where changes had taken place. A productive event with residents in attendance had taken place on the day of the meeting, with the Fire Service present.

A Member noted that the budget consultations had been examining a reduced capacity in community development, and queried whether officers had capacity for necessary work. The Business Innovation Manager agreed with the challenges of this, and stated that this would be considered as work progressed. Key considerations included which methods of engagement should be prioritised as the best use of time, ie. formal tenant participation meetings, co-designing with residents. Asset-based community development work was expected to be a focus. Changing contact methods to allow more time to focus on more complex cases had been considered.

A Member recognised the will to make improvements but had concerns over the acknowledged obstacles. It was considered that formal meetings were unlikely to be the best way to engage people ‘on the ground’, but that residents would attend meetings about specific concerns, as demonstrated by the fire safety events. The need to reach people where they were based was emphasised. The Business Innovation Manager agreed that building flexibility into engagement methods to capture different preferences for input required consideration.

A Member noted the need to manage expectations around what would be possible in light of budget considerations and the additional funds for fire safety work. Officers supported this.

A Member asked if the resident satisfaction survey was broken down by area to see if feedback varied. It was confirmed this was the case.

A Member outlined previous experience with a model in which artists were provided with studios in residence in a tower block, helping to support a cohesive community within the building to mutual benefit. Officers noted the suggestions and welcomed further materials.

As part of the presentation Officers suggested a number of areas where it would be useful for Scrutiny Members to provide a steer or comment, including;

1.       Offer views on resident engagement priorities.

One Member noted the high level of response around ASB as a priority (although the responses were gathered prior to the fire incidents). Another Member confirmed this matched their experience with case work, where residents felt little action around ASB was being taken, and Members emphasised the need to take clear actions quickly. The Business Innovation Manager recognised the concerns raised and highlighted that a new policy around ASB had been shared with Councillors with the intention of revisiting procedures and an action plan of improvements. Resourcing also impacted this issue.

2.       Provide a steer in response to the options submitted for tenant participation co-design and proposals to begin the first phase of co-design (by March 2023).

A request was made for the advantages and disadvantages of the options (paragraph 2.7.6 of the report), which were summarised as follows:

Option 1: “The housing engagement team facilitates a single task and finish group”. The advantage of this option would be the opportunity to work as a single group, providing continuity and faster progress towards development. The drawback would be the potential risk of excluding some voices.

Option 2: “Housing commissions an external organisation to co-produce, with residents, a revised involvement structure with improved engagement activities”. The advantages of this option involve utilising community grassroots resources, but is dependent on what is possible/available across the city.

Option 3: “Housing commission an external organisation to co-produce a local involvement model / offer.  The formal structure remains in place with recommended changes made”. It was noted that limited resources would affect this option.

Members considered that the most appropriate approach may vary by Ward. For example, in Easton where there were a number of community groups the second option would be considered appealing, but that may not be the case in areas with fewer community groups and differing capacities. It was hoped there would be scope to tailor the approach to the needs and abilities of different areas, but it was recognised that this touched on part of a wider conversation around building communities through innovation.

3.       Comment on the options for the co-design and make clear how they would like members to be involved with co-design activities.

Officers stated a preference to involve Councillors and communities at the same time in order to work on solutions in tandem. This was supported. It was suggested that the knowledge and networks built through the work between Councillors and the community resilience fund could be applied.

4.       Comment on the proposed joint working with community development and where relevant commission engagement to local groups.

Members acknowledged the benefits of harnessing outside capacity through commissioning and the opportunities that come with community development. It was agreed that further consideration was needed, and Members would send any further comments directly to Officers due to the limited time for discussion.

Officers stated their interest in hearing from Councillors around influencing governance and decision making. Members noted that based on the report the main way for Ward Councillors to connect would be through the local Housing Forum. The difficulty in Ward Councillors engaging directly with residents of tower blocks was highlighted, as they are frequently inaccessible without a fob; Officers noted this.

5.       Comment on the need to identify a named person for consumer standards

It was clarified that the regulations suggest that the named person for consumer standards should be senior enough to influence all areas of the business, so consideration was needed around where that responsibility should held and what could be delivered within that while ensuring regular contact with the political level. Members suggested that more information was needed around the hierarchy of decision making in order to form a view on this issue. It was agreed that Officers could provide this information.

RESOLVED; That i) Members direct any further comments to Officers, particularly around joint working, ii) Officers note the comments of the Communities Scrutiny Commission for consideration, and iii) further information around the hierarchy of decision making for the ‘named person’ is provided.