Agenda item

Paula Burton, Housing Strategy & Investment Manager:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a report on the introduction of a Management of Communal Area’s Policy

2. added that the proposed Management of Communal Areas Policy laid out the approach that the CoLC would take to manage enclosed communal areas and the areas that immediately surrounded blocks of flats

3. confirmed that such a policy would have a number of benefits for all stakeholders including residents, Council staff and members of the public as detailed at paragraph 4.3 to the report

4. reported that Management of Communal Area policies were implemented by the vast majority of social housing providers in order to set out the required standards relating to safety, repairs, maintenance and aesthetics

5. referred to paragraph 3.1 of the report which defined a communal area, some of which included; communal entrances, any shared stairwell, balcony, or access path and communal parking areas  

f.       added that an agreed standard would ensure consistency during the maintenance and refurbishment of communal areas. In addition, it would ensure that safety critical aspects relating to communal areas met legal and regulatory requirements as detailed at 4.4 to the report

g.     invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Question: Why were maisonettes not included?

Response: The policy covered any communal blocks.

Comment: The report from the commissioned company would consider overall estates, the overall appearance, not specific communal areas. Consideration of an identified area would be the assessment of the regeneration of a specific area.

Question: Had LTP been consulted with on the proposed policy?

Response: Consultation with LTP had taken place.

Question: The policy was welcomed. Who would be responsible for enforcement of the policy?

Response: Expectations and enforcement would be by way of tenancy agreement as it concerned communal areas. Expectations would be communicated clearly and subsequently enforced by HRS and Investment.

Question: The policy was positive as many areas were dirty, smelly and cluttered. The policy provided for mobility scooters. Was it possible for pushchairs to be included?

Response: Suggestions would be fed back for consideration.

Comment: The report was encouraging and the policy greatly needed. All tenants and housing officers should be given a copy of it. Compliments offered to the individuals responsible for the devisal of the policy.

Question: How did the Council plan to enforce a ‘zero tolerance’ approach?

Response: Identification of the individual responsible was an essential step in any potential enforcement action. Methods of enforcement action would be contained within tenancy agreements. Previous attempts to discover the identity of a perpetrator included work with community services, often opening bin bags to ascertain if the identity of the personal responsible for rubbish could be discovered. It was not always easy to identify who owned items and/or rubbish. It was essential for the policy to be in place to enable any action to be taken.

Comment: It was hoped that the policy would give officers the authority to enforce action to reduce the cluttered appearance of areas such as the Ermine East.

Comment: It was important to consider the suitability of accommodation offered to families. It could be problematic to place a family in accommodation on a third floor with a pushchair. The policy would not allow for them to be left in communal areas. A mechanism to record inspections of these areas was important. It was important to consider provision for all access routes.

Comment: A defined policy would provide more diligence and authority. Therefore, if something was wrong, as long as the tenant had a copy of the policy, something could be done to put it right.

Comment: Inspections should be documented to create a record to refer to.

Question: If an individual were to smoke cannabis a number of blocks away which resulted in other tenants being unable to hang their washing out, what enforcement action would the policy allow?

Response: Issues of smoking would be addressed under anti-social behaviour and in the circumstance of cannabis, criminal activity. Such activities should be dealt with that way.

Comment: It would be positive to view performance indicators on the policy.

Note: (Daren Turner, Strategic Director of Housing and Investment, joined proceedings at this stage)

Comment: The policy was a great start and development of performance monitoring was anticipated. If there was a caretaking system, it would be positive for there to be a paper trail. In addition, it was important to share all information with tenants.

Response: There would be a communication plan for tenants to ensure all were made aware of the policy.

Comment: Consideration should be given to social media communication also.

Request from Mick Barber, Chair of LTP: If any changes were to be made to the policy, that they be made known to LTP prior to progression to Executive for formal approval.

Response: Any changes to the policy would be submitted to LTP for consideration.

RESOLVED that:

1. Additional information be provided by Officers in relation to:

·        Performance indicators relating to the Management of Communal Areas Policy

2. The policy be proceeded to Executive for formal approval.