CCC may | review housing governance

Court of Common Council

Thursday 22 May 2025

Councillor Mark Wheatley asks the Chair of Policy and Resources to commit to a working party to review housing provision and consider the creation of a single Housing Committee (one of the Lisvane review recommendations).

lord lisvane review

Taken from Lisvane Review Recommendations Summary:

Community & Children’s Services Committee
47. Move housing functions into standalone committee incorporating both the housing-related responsibilities of this committee together with those of the Barbican Residential Committee

Barbican Residential Committee
48. Establish a dedicated Consultation Group where representatives of all key stakeholders can meet regularly to discuss and help monitor ongoing and emerging developments across the Estate
49. Similar arrangements to be established across the other Corporation Estates
50. Formal remit of the committee to be relocated to a new Housing Committee, with meetings arranged such as to provide dedicated scrutiny for Barbican matters
51. Newly constituted Committee asked to present formal proposals relating to resident involvement in service charge

Housing Committee
52. New committee be established absorbing both the housing responsibilities of Community & Children’s Services Committee (and its Housing Management and Almshouses Sub-Committee) and the remit of the Barbican Residential Committee
53. The new committee to meet on a monthly basis, with agendas arranged such as to allow for consideration of Barbican Residential business and current Housing Management business on an alternate meeting basis
54. Membership of 12-15 and ensuring sufficient representation at meetings by Members of Wards within which relevant housing estates are located

Watch from 51:18

transcript

51:18 | Mark Wheatley (Dowgate)
Will the Chair of Policy and Resources commit to convening a working group comprised of not more than 12 members of the Court elected by the full Common Council and supported by relevant officers to review our housing provision and to consider the creation of a Housing Committee with grand committee authority? If so, will he agree to convene the working group within 6 months of this date and request that findings be submitted to the full Court within 12 months of its first convening?

51:58 | Deputy Chris Hayward (Broad Street) – Chairman of Policy and Resources
I note that this question was asked on Mr. Wheatley’s behalf at the Policy and Resources committee on the 8th of May. So, I will repeat what I said in that meeting for the benefit of this Honourable Court. Members will be aware that following three external reviews of our housing service, action is being taken to improve customer focus, contract and cost management, and to implement a new housing strategy and develop an asset management plan. A report in February 2024 considered whether governance arrangements are sufficient to oversee those improvements in our housing service and concluded that no significant governance changes should be made at that time. That paper did however say that this should be reviewed again in two years which would take us to February 2026. At Court of Common Council earlier this year I also said to Mr. Wheatley in response to a question that I felt that the time to consider such a change would be over the coming civic year.

So in response, my Lord Mayor, I do think that there is a plan already to consider this and on that basis I’m reluctant to agree to any new processes or working groups in addition to that process at this moment in time. When we do consider this matter, I personally would want to be convinced that a new grand committee is the right mechanism given that we have a Housing Subcommittee of which he is now a member, a Barbican Residential Committee and a Residential Consultative Committee already. I would also want to fully understand, and I hope this Honourable Court would, what resident’s views were on this matter.

54:23 | Mark Wheatley
For decades this Corporation has neglected the fabric of its buildings and in doing so it has let down the communities it serves within the City and out with. Lord Lisvane accepted that. I think we did, my Lord Mayor.

However, when we took that decision to defer an outcome several years ago and when the Barbican Residential Committee and others decided to push the review into 2026, which as the Chair notes is this civic year, we denied the residents good scrutiny of the challenge that Lord Lisvane said that we should review our governance. If things have improved recently, it’s because of good officers and good Members working within adequate structures. All I’m requesting is that residents see that we consider the question, not that we reach an outcome. We’ve had working groups for our contested heritage, we have a working group for income generation. If the City is anything, it’s about serving our residents. We should not loose sight of that. So, can I ask Chair, if you deny this now, why don’t residents deserve the same courtesy that others do, the courtesy of a working group to consider a simple question?

55:55 | Deputy Chris Hayward
The fabric of our buildings which he rightly refers to which is wholly unacceptable and absolutely the lack of investment in our estate and our housing estate has not been acceptable. Honourable Members have heard me say that in this Court on numerous occasions, I don’t need to reiterate it again here today. However, of course, solving that challenge is easier than just saying, ‘it’s a travesty and we have to do something about it’. The HRA is in inadequate financial provision to be able to achieve that, so we have to look to private money and to partnerships to inject into our estates if we are going to make any sensible significant difference to the quality of housing we provide.

I do not want to, absolutely do not want to, take away from our residents anything they want. But he is presuming in the questions he’s putting me today, that this is what the residents do want. I would prefer to hear that from the residents rather than from any honourable Member including myself. I would like to say to him, let’s ask the residents what they want, not what we think they want, collectively in this body. And so today I think that good scrutiny is essential, and he’s right, he’s right. Members and officers have now pushed this up the political agenda and are now taking scrutiny of our housing services very seriously indeed. But I would want to see from officers as well what the full options in governance were available to this Honourable Court before we settled on one of them. Before we asked Members to deliberate, because that is the function of governance, good governance – we ask officers to bring us information, we debate, we deliberate, and as I always say, officers advise and Members decide. Today I think is not the moment to establish that working party. It would be premature. But I do accept the charge that we should ask the residents what they want and we should reflect what the residents want. And if they come back overwhelmingly saying they want this then I would take a different view.

58:08 | Deputy Helen Fentimen (Aldersgate, Labour)
I think that I would like to emphasise some of the points that the Chairman has already made. There is a very, very significant program of improvement work and new building work in housing, in social housing and many, many benefits that have coming to the Barbican Estate as a result of the Transformation Board undertaken through the BRC and jointly with the senior officers here. We have made in recent past very significant improvements, and as I said there are very significant work program already underway under new leadership, a new senior leadership team, who are making very significant impact on this program. We also have, wherever we can, already put in place resident liaison groups who are being consulted on a day-by-day basis on the work programs in their estates. There are multiple opportunities for residents to participate in that work.

But I would like to ask the Chairman if he would agree that given the reference you have already made and the comments about resident engagement to date, whether introduction of a new committee structure at this point would disrupt this positive improvement that we’re currently undertaking and distract officers from the very important work that they are currently undertaking?

1:00:10 | Deputy Chris Hayward
Thank you Chair of CCS for your question and indeed the additional points that you have presented in support of what I said in my response. I agree with both the point about significant and positive work being underway, as you rightly say, and the support of this Court and that now is not the time you ask the question again to review our governance structure around this issue, but I do look forward to working with you and your Committee to support those activities and plans to improve this provision. And frankly you know it’s not about talking the good talk it’s about walking the walk as well – we have to deliver for our residents and for our tenants for our leaseholders and as I have committed in this Court and I know with your support Chair we will do just that.

1:00:53 | Edward Lord (Farringdon Without)
This matter has been kicked down the road for many years now. As the questioner Mr. Wheatley pointed out Lord Lisvane made a recommendation in relation to the governance of housing that was not taken on board. Members have over many years sought for some degree of change. I remember Deputy Anne Holmes when she was Chair of the Barbican Residential Committee promoted this idea of having a single Housing Committee and yet it was kicked down the road again. This Court has a habit of doing this kind of thing and sometimes you actually need Member action to bring things to the fore. 25 years ago there was a significant demand to review the composition of the Policy Resources Committee. Officers were reluctant to bring proposals before Members, so what happened was a motion came before the Court that created a working party to review the composition of the Policy Resources Committee and I think we probably have a much better PNR Committee now than we did 25 years ago because of that Member action. Would the Policy Chairman therefore agree with me that sometimes Member action is necessary?

1:02:40 | Deputy Chris Hayward
I have to say to the Honourable Member I don’t believe we are kicking this issue down the road. I accept, I accept Honourable Member, that that is a charge that would have been worthy of this Court a few years ago; I do not accept it is a charge worthy of this Court today. And the Honourable Member who’s been around in this Court for many, many, many, many years and is undoubtedly the expert on governance of our affairs in this Court and to whom I look to regularly for advice on standing orders on structures, on compositions, also of course was prominent during the Lisvane review and I recall him being quite supportive of a lot of the recommendations for adjusting the numbers of committees, subcommittees, working parties which had grown and grown and exploded and exploded and we had to reduce them down because it was just becoming too expensive and unnecessary a bureaucratic structure to deliver. So, I do think that he’s right, that Member action is of course necessary on occasions. I’m not suggesting we should be in the hands of our officers and be mere puppets of our officers. Of course, we shouldn’t be. We should of course exert our democratic accountability and decision-making powers, but to do so in a responsible way and setting up of ad hoc committees and working parties in order to try and achieve that objective is not, I believe, the correct route.

– (auto-generated transcript provided by YouTube, with minor corrections and tidying up)

minutes

Minutes as presented to June’s Court of Common Council can be read here (item 12, pages 11-12).