Housing & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub Committee - Monday 3 November 2025, 6:30pm

Housing & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub Committee
Monday, 3rd November 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

I'm going to go back to the halloween.

We have the halloween decorations down there.

Like a Christmas tree.

Oh my god.

I'm getting into November.

I'll be cooking.

One, two, one, two.

Are you ready?

Welcome to Housing and Regeneration Subcommittee meeting.

My name is Ahmadur Khan and I'll be chairing this meeting.

This meeting has been held in person with housing regeneration, sub -committee members

along with the key participants in the meeting room.

Others will join remotely.

Only the sub -committee members present in the meeting room can vote.

Should a technical error prevent online attendees participating in the meeting, I'll take the

decision how to proceed the meeting after taking advice from the officers.

This meeting being filmed for council website for public being. Those participating in the meeting will be in the meet including the footage. I

remind members that

the meeting is only speak on my direction and engage and speak clearly into your microphone to ensure that

that your contribution can be probably recorded.

Please have your mobile on silent.

Keep your microphone on mute except when you are speaking.

With the exception of scrutiny members online, only turn on your video camera when you are

speaking to save the bandwidth.

Scrutiny members are encouraging to keep your video camera turned on.

If member and officer join remotely wish to speak, please use your raising functions.

Please do not use the remote meeting chart function as it will not be seen as those who

are participating physically in the meetings.

Justina, do you have any apologies?

Yes, Chair.

Councillor Kabir has sent his apologies.

Councillor Abdulman is here as substitute.

Thank you, Justina.

Can members introduce themselves following any declaration of whether you have any disclosure

of pecuniary interest and indicate which aspect it is?

Can I also remind members that guidance noted on declaration of interest including in page

7 and 8 to agenda pack, if you are in any doubt, please refer to this guidance note

and give the explanation for each declarations.

Next item to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Everyone has to introduce themselves.

I am Susanna, I am the leaseholder of Tower Hamlets.

No interest to declare other than that.

Thank you.

The minutes of the previous meetings are this importantimm

coded. So

with that, I just want to say very quickly that all We

have. behalf

of once again I want to thank everyone for watching.

I have to say apologies.

You know that we should have this minutes

before five days before the meeting.

So I should be, next time we should be on time.

Thank you very much.

Outstanding action logs.

Our first item for this evening is to review the actions log

on outstanding action logs.

Can I now welcome Paul Bajaj, Strategy Policy Officer who provided the support to this subcommittee

to provide the update.

Thank you, Chair.

The Action Log was included in the papers that were sent out for this meeting.

Since those papers have been distributed, the two items that were still outstanding

we've sent briefing notes around.

So the note on performance data for quarter 4 for registered providers was sent last week

and today we sent a response, sorry, the reply to the request for call centre scripts.

And I have nothing else to add, Chair.

Let's move on to our first report item on the agenda, that local plan update.

With this briefing introduction, I would now like to welcome committee members, Councillor

Kabir Ahmad and David George.

Councillor Kabbiramat, can you introduce the items, set out any key points.

David, please feel free to add to the cabinet members comments.

You will have maximum five minutes to provide us an overview on the item.

Please consider the slide as read, as taken as read by the subcommittee.

So highlight any

Key areas that subcommittee need to know about be aware of those then we'll be move on to the member questions

I let you know two minutes before your time zones. So time now

begin now

Thank you chair as you are aware chair we passed the

current draught local planning cabinet

quite recently and

sort of further on from that it's gonna go through the motions and be presented at the full council for

adoption by this council

I'm hopeful that the whole council will adopt this local plan so it can go to the planning inspector

So what is the local plan? So the local plan is the most important planning document for this council

The plan will help address, prioritise and set out the Mayor's strategic plan, such as

challenging, overcrowding and related inequalities experienced by our communities.

The draught Tower Hamlets plan outlines a strategic borough -wide vision for growth across the

borough.

It also includes policies on delivery, housing, environment, design, employment, town centres,

community infrastructure, biodiversity, connectivity and waste against which planning applications

will be assessed.

It is an enormous and ambitious plan and seeks to encourage housing delivery through a number

of mechanisms.

This includes the number of site allocations for shaping requirements for development on

large -scale strategic sites which will assist with negotiations to secure

delivery of infrastructure, proposing a more permissive approach to tall

buildings across the borough crucially seeking to increase the affordable

housing requirement across the borough from 35 % of new homes to be affordable

to 40 % with a great emphasis on delivery of social rented homes.

Preparation for the draught plan has been ongoing over a number of years and has undergone extensive

consultation starting in 2022 and has been strongly shaped by the community.

An example of that is Red Church Street where numerous residents raise concerns around the

economy in that area and the impact of the night time economy.

And since then, with evidence based approaches, that has been taken out now from the new local

plan.

In addition to this, if adopted, the local plan is expected to support the delivery of

52 ,000 property homes up to 2038.

Thank you.

I also have here David Joyce, corporate director of housing and regeneration.

Sri, who is the director of planning and building control.

And Natalia, who has been working on this extensively in order to get us to the stage

we are at.

Oh, Matthew is over there as well.

And Mark.

So that's the team.

Thank you.

David, do you want to add anything? Sri?

Do you want to add anything?

Yeah, I mean just from my perspective a huge amount of work has gone into getting us this far.

The plan, as Councillor Kavera has said, is evidence led.

and in fact we did do quite a lot of work prior to the publication of these

documents to bolster our evidence around areas such as heritage to support

the positioning they were taking on things like tall buildings and density

which is critical to then the housing delivery that underpins the plan so

you know just I would like to thank the team for all of the work that they've

put into this. From this stage obviously the plan gets submitted if it's agreed by full

council and will undergo an extensive examination in public where all stakeholders can bring

any remaining issues they have and all views will be heard by the planning inspector before

we then progress to make any final amendments and adopt the plan. But I think as councillor,

the lead member has said is this is the guiding document for us that will guide

significant planning decisions in the borough and it needs to be said that the

level of growth that this plan sets out remains at the very top in terms of when

you compare us to our London boroughs and that is also because the need is

higher in a place like Tower Hamlets than virtually anywhere else in Tower Hamlets

I think we've got a plan that reflects that but also reflects the special character and

diversity of the borough because we have lots of different parts of Taraham that all have

their own qualities and I think we have a plan that's very responsive to that and has

responded to what local people have told us.

So I won't add anything more other than to say thank you to the team and obviously really

looking forward to questions from members.

I think it was useful to get a sense of our positions and ambitions moving forward.

So now I ask members, do you have any questions, please raise your hand.

Thank you, chair.

And thank you to officers for putting this together.

It's a great honour to be here.

a long, long process to get to this point.

Thank you to officers who also gave me a separate briefing on this one, we're happy to answer

some questions.

It's really good that this presentation includes the key issues raised by consultees and my

question is, as I said in the briefing as well, is around the density, the toll building

zones, especially with some of the issues raised.

I'm still a little bit unsure how we're going to navigate through that, bearing in mind,

because this local plan is supposed to always update itself with the new changes, and we've

had very recent changes to seal and afford housing targets from City Hall.

How do we think we will do?

Do you think it will still stand up?

Do we need to make any extra adjustments to any of that, or do we think into how much

we should be okay with that.

And when it comes to infrastructure, there is a mention of a separate infrastructure

delivery plan.

Is that going to be funded by the unspent infrastructure fundings that we have from

different parts now, or is that because I assume there's going to be lower intake of

that as more schemes come through.

So I'd like some clarity on that, that would be really helpful.

And lastly on the tall buildings, I mean historic England have raised concerns around this,

taking into account the different bits of the Hamlets and some of the heritage and conservation

areas.

Can you just talk me through some of the work that's been done?

And actually that would be helpful for the infrastructure planning as well, how much

work and how much behind the scenes exploring have been done about where we are and how

We are actually driven by data, not just the plan itself.

Thank you.

Okay, so I mean, I'll try to have a overview

of the questions and then in terms of the specific details,

we've got our directors and officers here

who have fantastic insight.

The first thing is, again, our plan is leading us to 2038.

Some of the noise coming from City Hall and White Hall is time bound, initially.

But again, it's not fixed yet. It's still due to go for consultation.

I would suggest, and I've actually asked officers to go and speak to other local authorities in London,

because London is quite different from the rest of the country,

in terms of the level of development that takes place.

And Tower Hamlets is very different from most of London,

such as Richmond and Havering and other

suburban local authorities.

We have the highest level of planning applications.

We have density.

So we have challenges that suburban boroughs don't face.

And what I would say is, and I would ask members of all

political parties to lobby government and connexions

you have in relation to that and the council will certainly do this, that the

conceptions they're considering will not be beneficial for the social housing

waiting lists, for those who are facing challenges of overcrowding and we all

know London is spending billions now per year in order to house the homeless. In

in trouble because they have to spend outside their designated budgets because of the spend

that's there.

And in order to tackle some of these challenges, you can't reduce social housing, you need

to increase social housing.

I'm not going to go into the political ramblings, but it's important to understand from borough

to borough, the challenges we face and the planning applications that are in front of

us is decided by a quasi -judicial body.

and that body is made up of members from different political parties

and of course they listen and they see the needs of the borough

and therefore they will assess what applications should be passed and not passed.

In terms of the local plan and the infrastructure, it's appalling that the GLA,

the proposal suggests that the GLA can keep its seal money,

yet every local authority in London loses their seal money

if a 20 % threshold is made.

So not only are we hit by the reduction of social housing,

but we're also hit in providing the infrastructure required.

So again, it's still at proposal stage, and I hope it doesn't become law,

but I would certainly say MPs, councillors associated with this borough,

should strongly lobby against such proposals going forward.

We as a council will certainly challenge it and that's from my perspective.

If David Shri, you want to come in?

Yeah I mean just on the point that you've made I think a critical point is as you said

that the local plan goes beyond the period that the government's proposing for these

temporary measures so I think that is an important point.

I think the second point is that the proposals to the extent that we understand them, whilst

way the consultation to start have not were not worked out with local councils

in mind if you look at the London councils response they're really clear

that boroughs were not involved in the development they seem to be done at pace

between City Hall and government so I think it's really important in the

consultation that all London boroughs and certainly Tower Ham that's make a voice

heard about what the some of the impacts this will have and and certainly the

point about committed sale from the GLA is also true for councils because we

have sale which is committed as well which will be impacted if this if this

moves forward and and I think the other sort of concern I have is that whilst

this proposal is being consulted on which developer is going to actually

start on site because actually whilst there's uncertainty why would you start

on site so I think it might in the short term actually slow down delivery of

which is a bit worrying for all of us I would imagine.

So it is a concern but I think the lead member is right to point out that this plan needs

to have a longer term horizon and does have a longer term horizon.

I think both David and Councillor Kabir have covered it well and you had three questions

interlinked just to kind of confirm them.

So the impact on affordable housing again as David has mentioned is time limited within

the next three, you know, 2028 is what they're looking at. The consultation is not out yet

and we are very clear that in the local plan we have very strong evidence that has led

us to go with the 40 % affordable housing target. And we feel confident that the values are

holding that up for us and the tall building policies also make reference specifically

to the delivery of those. So we have policies in the local plan that speak to each other

and we will definitely be picking that up in the consultation response in how important

this is for delivering what we are trying to address through the local plan, the local

challenge. With regard to infrastructure planning, Matthew will come back to you to respond in

terms of how we are planning with both the existing unspent and also the ones in the

future forecast. With respect to the tall buildings and the historic England's comment,

We took on board the feedback that they provided to the regulation 19 consultation.

We undertook extensive evidence further to allay any concerns they may have and the policy

and the modifications proposed addresses the impact on World Heritage sites.

They still have maintained the impact on other conservation areas but if you look at the

policy wording in for zone F for example, it's very specific about it's not everywhere

but it's being appropriate and responsive to those and also meeting the other considerations

such as affordable housing and the tenure mix, et cetera.

So there's a danger of looking at it in isolation.

And I think that's what we have kind of strengthened

and so that the policies speak well to each other

and presents a clear picture.

So Matthew or Natalia, if you want to add.

Hello, Matthew Pullen, Head of Infrastructure Planning.

I don't want to repeat what others have said really,

but it is important to note that what's being proposed are short -term measures.

In terms of the impact that that will have on our SIL income, we have the infrastructure

delivery plan which looks at now, and it sets out a relatively manageable funding gap between

what we think costs will be for the delivery of infrastructure against what income we think

we will get through CIL Section 106 and other funding sources.

And we will obviously need to consider how that will be impacted by any government announcements

as they come in.

But that is complex.

We don't know the extent to which our CIL income would be impacted because any reduction

in CIL is conditional on hitting certain affordable housing values and it's still to go through

consultation, etc.

But as a matter of practise we review, normally within year, but at least once a year we review

our infrastructure funding position so that we can continually manage our approach and

our forecast of what funding we'll have to deliver infrastructure over the years. And

we'll continue to do that to make sure that whatever impacts there are from any government

changes we can we can work with the rest of the council and manage those.

I think I appreciate the responses and I think Councillor Ahmed's point about the issues

and the concerns, I share the same concerns so it's not like I don't understand it and

you kind of went through things I already understand. The point I was trying to make

here is I get the policies talk to each other here in the borough. How does it, but it can't

stand alone, it still is part of London, it's still part of the UK, how does it talk to the

rest of the country, how does it talk like do we have any barriers, and I know a few times it's

been repeated, this is temporary, I know it's temporary and that's one of my concerns once

you've lost the ability to have these social homes, it's gone into a black hole, you've lost

for good, that's why I have a different political stance on this. But how do we react to that?

So that was really my question of does that mean it makes it difficult to negotiate with this local

plan? Does it mean we have to do anything different? And also forgive me if I've missed

this but I didn't quite understand, maybe you've answered it and I didn't fully get it, but the IDP,

how would it be funded? It was really simple and you talked a little bit about the infrastructure

assessments. My question was really getting at you've picked the places you've picked,

surely you've picked them because the data has driven that these places can take the

tall buildings. I just wanted you to give me a bit more reassurance about what was those

works that were done, what was explored that gives discounts for reassurance that these

zones can take the more density as far as infrastructure is concerned.

So I didn't fully get my answer, so I'm having another go at this.

May I ask a question and also the responder, please keep your question and respond brief

so the member can ask more questions.

Thank you.

I mean, I'll start off being as brief as possible, but each application will be assessed on its

what the context is, what the surrounding areas are, what the heritage issues are.

Although we've widened it up, it doesn't excuse, it doesn't mean that every single spot of land in Tower Hamlets will simply have tall buildings,

you know, skyscrapers and so on and so forth. So it will be drawn in context.

The key factor here is around viability.

And around, when we talk about social housing and stuff like that, we talk about viability,

and that's what dictates how much social housing is coming out of something, not a sort of

just randomly putting numbers together and saying that's what we're delivering.

Now of course 40%, but if a developer can evidence that the viability isn't there, it

wouldn't hit 40%.

The current plan as it is says 35%, both London plan and local plan.

But the new proposal takes us even below that.

In terms of the specific exercises that were run in order to test such as heritage and

you know heights in particular areas and so on and so forth, I'll let Natalia come in

in relation to that.

Yeah, so in terms of assessing individual sites and across the borough looking at where

tall buildings could be appropriate, it was a balancing act of different pieces of evidence.

So on individual sites, site specific capacity studies

were undertaken, so that was taking into consideration

what is an appropriate kind of form, bulk and massing

that could then feed into a kind of estimate of capacity

for those individual sites.

In terms of the broader tall building zones,

again, that was informed by a range of different factors,

including the kind of characterization study

that looked at what is the kind of character

of existing areas, the London plan suggests that all of the boroughs should be kind of

sort of split up into three areas that are kind of conserve, enhance and maintain, transform,

sorry, so across those three areas and then that was taken together alongside with the

heritage impact assessment which was obviously an additional piece of evidence that was undertaken

as part of the second round of consultation.

In preparing and revising the tall buildings policies,

we've worked incredibly closely with Historic England

through this second consultation in response

to the concerns that were raised

at the previous Regulation 19.

And the fundamental concerns from them came around

the impact of the World Heritage Sites.

And we've got to a position now where they're much

more comfortable around the potential impacts

on those World Heritage Sites.

So that additional work that's been done has helped to mitigate the majority of their concerns.

So hopefully that helps answer your question.

In terms of IDP, I mean Matt will be able to add more on this, but in terms of how that's

funded, it comes from a variety of different sources.

So part of that will come from, still part of that will come from TFL funding if it's

around transport.

But essentially the sources of funding are listed for different projects within the IDP

itself.

But Matt, I don't know if there's more to say.

In terms of assessing what our needs are, it's important to note that the IDP isn't

a standalone thing.

It brings together intelligence from the wider set of strategies that the Council has and

evidence -based that supports the local plan around transport, education, health.

We work with key partners, including TFL, the NHS and other partners, to understand

what needs are going to be to support the level of growth that the local plan is setting

out, that then ends up as a big list of projects, put simply, and with cost estimates next to

those projects, so we can get an idea of how much money we will need, not just us, but

us, the NHS, TFL, other bodies will need in order to be able to deliver that infrastructure.

And then as Natalia set out, there's a range of different funding sources from grant funding,

CIL, Section 106, external investment that come together so that we can assess whether

broadly we have a balance between costs and income.

Does that work a bit better as an explanation?

I think just to also complete your earlier question about the written statement and what

does it do to local plan, obviously that consultation is not out yet and the local plan as we discussed

is a very long -term plan and it's looking at the examination, we're looking at the evidence

we have and the time scale that we're looking at whereas these measures that are introduced

for the next three years.

There is a danger, as you say, that some of these schemes

may come back for renegotiation, et cetera.

So that's something very light.

And we are looking at that bit carefully, also

as part of the development management process

and other initiatives that are also proposed as part of this.

However, from a local plan perspective,

taking the long -term view and the scope

of how the examiner would look at is within that framework.

So that is the bit that we feel confident.

As was also mentioned, it has come as a surprise to all of us and also my counterparts in other

London boroughs and it has come at a time when affordable housing is most needed and

there is a real challenge of how that is going to come forward, even the consent schemes

moving forward.

Thank you.

OK.

OK, now, Chancellor Abdulman, your question, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the lead member and the panels for your hard work and presentations.

I think very much you answered a lot of my questions from my colleagues.

My first question is the announcement from the government to the city hall, which is

minimum percentage of affordable home to 20%,

which is basically for us is a damning consequence

because we know we are condensed

and we need to build a lot of houses.

My question to lead member is,

how will this affect our drive rate of 40 %?

What is your contingency plan?

How do you adopt food?

Because we're asking for affordable home 40%.

And also,

Also, if this plan goes for 20%, that means there's more house to be sold for private

and developers, would they be able to sell it? And if this is an affordable home, there

will be building. What would be drawing the line into it? Because we've seen in the past

this happen and therefore a lot of houses in 2008, during the recession, couldn't sell

and then they have to fluke you off the developers.

Are we gonna be in a definitely similar sort of thing

like St Andrews and those, that's a prime example

I'm trying to hold you up with a little bit of this.

And another question to, we've seen a lot of development

happening in Thai hamlets and a lot of residents

are complaining about the water pressure

and a lot of RSL are putting pump to produce

a pump in the building to increase the pressure

so they can go up high.

Are we aware of it and what are we gonna do

with the new development coming into effect?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Manan.

So as I said earlier on,

at the moment it's not become policy, the 20%.

I'm hoping that the government rethink that policy.

If it does come in, it's for a time limited period,

Three -year period up to 2028

This is two years three years

25 to 28, but we're nearly at the end of 25. So it's up to 2028

I think there is strong objection from London councils

There is there will certainly be a strong objections from us in relation to that

a lot of the

planning

consented

Programmes that are in place now

The risk is they wait they reapply and they stagnate other than build out

In terms of what they will do with the other 80 % I don't know councilman and we as a counsellor in talks with numerous

Developers because they are struggling to sell properties. So our acquisitions programme

We're looking at acquiring properties and some of these are billion pound

multi -billion pound very well -known companies in Tower Hamlets that we are having discussions with in order to purchase

large amounts of properties from them.

Another element of it is due to building regs and second staircases a lot of RSLs are pulling away from the already developed

properties and again, they're a bit stuck as well because regulations have changed and

And with regulations people's minds have changed.

So where there was one staircase and it's above certain heights, people aren't buying

those properties.

So it is a buyer's market out there because the prices have dropped.

Is it a profitable market out there?

I can't tell you and I can't actually articulate what they're going to do with the other 80%.

That's the developers.

In relation to water pressure, I think that's an issue with Thames Water, but within the

planning infrastructure, Matthew, Natalia, Mark, do you want to come in?

Yeah, this is an old one, the water pressure one, it's been around for many years, in fact

at a previous scrutiny session Thames Water came in and we had a session with them at

one point many years ago.

We work really closely with Thames Water. What they tell us is that, and what they say the evidence shows,

is that they are required to get one bar of pressure to the roadside,

and across Tower Hamlets, one bar of pressure is present at the roadside, and that will get you up ten metres.

That will pump water up ten metres successfully. That will get you up three to four storeys.

After that, the water pressure in taller buildings is provided by the system within the building,

the pumps within the building that will distribute the water around the building.

And the majority of issues that residents face are because the pumps are old or haven't

been maintained within buildings and so that is for housing management people to make sure

that they are solving.

That said, if there are any issues Thames Water will investigate, is what they tell

So what they tell us is that in terms of supplying new buildings coming forwards, there is sufficient

infrastructure at the moment for the new buildings that are coming forwards at the moment to

continue to get one bar of pressure to the roadside for all buildings. They are doing

works, and they have done works coming down Burdett Road to get more water to the Isle

of Dogs in particular, where a lot of the growth is coming forwards, a lot of the tall

buildings are coming forwards to ensure that there continues to be sufficient pressure.

But they are happy to investigate anything and but they will at points have to pass it

on to housing management people in order to deal with issues inside the blocks.

Yes, a quick one please.

The reason I was asking on the first Matthew is a lot of where I live in both the RSL which

is cemetery of Poplar Haka and we go majority building up for floor no higher than that

and recently they've been putting pump underneath every single building because the people at

the top for floor third floor not getting enough pressure so when they put in the pump

and things like that, the residents, they gain service charges, increased everything

else.

So at the end of the day, whatever money they're spending to get that water pressure up, the

residents suffer for it.

So as a council, are we have any power to say, I know you said pressure one, but that

wasn't the problem in the past.

Why is the problem now?

And that's crossed the whole of my world.

I think these questions about infrastructure are really important and another example is

the need for an electricity substation on the Isle of Dogs and we've talked about the

need to talk to providers about how you deliver that.

One of the big benefits of bringing a local plan forward is having clarity over what's

going to be required so that we can go and talk to these utilities providers and actually

try and get them to start thinking on a longer term basis. One of the problems

that we have with utilities is the regulatory environment only allows them

to plan for three years worth of investment which can really prevent

long -term planning and decision -making but at least with the local plan in

place we can go to them with clarity and really start to push them and hopefully

to start thinking through some of the things that you're talking about and I

what is going to happen to the private units is critical.

We are advised by BNP Paribas as our viability consultant

and the lead consultant, Anthony Lee,

wrote an article recently and he actually

said the sad part of these proposals

from the government and the GLA is

that even the private sector is saying they will

make very little difference.

The reason being they do nothing to address demand,

which is your question.

and the demand for private residential units has fallen through the floor and unless you

look at devices like stamp duty holidays or things that are probably are only things that

we might see in the budget in November you're actually not addressing the underlying problem

and so that is a real issue.

I think what we do see a lot of, now a lot more than we used to see, is alternative types

of accommodation, so co -living, student, private rent sector housing rather than homes

for sale and I would imagine we will continue to see more of that unless something happens

in the housing market that leads to an increase in demand.

So I think congratulations on pushing the envelope on social housing to 40 % and I think

how is the council planning team communicating the weight to be given to

this at this stage which is quite advanced especially when there are

planning appeals being made by big developers there are planning

applications not to build as much social housing so I want to know how the

planning team not not not the local planning but how the planning officers

are communicating the weight to be given at this late stage,

which is, you know, if you were to pass it at the full Council,

you can give it full weight.

But how this is communicated publicly is important,

and I want to know what are the plans to educate the planning team

to communicate it better.

I think it's important to note that the current local plan

is still the plan that we use for making planning decisions.

The emerging local plan, after the full council,

will start to materially start gaining weight,

but the level of weight we attach to it

is dependent on where it is in the system

until the final adoption.

But until that adoption, it continues to gain weight.

It gains more weight when we submit

to the Secretary of State.

It gains further more weight as we go through the issues.

What happens with any application

that we are determining now will be based on the current local plan.

However, in the reports and the presentations that officers do, they will also mention at

what stage our local plan is and what weight or consideration we have taken into account

on that particular application, depending on when it goes to committee.

So that is how we are capturing this so that the members and decision makers and the public

clear in terms of how and what policies are taken and bought in decision -making.

Thank you. I'm making this point because it's very dangerous if your planning officer says it's minimal weight.

It gets quoted across all the legal enquiries. So it's very important what you put publicly out there and what is said at the SDC meeting.

I think going back to the measures announced by the government and City Hall, and I was

having a look kind of prior to coming along, and it says things like affordable housing

cut from 35 % to 20%, the mayor getting power to call in on schemes over 50 homes, again

relief of sales, so the removal of elements of density guidance, standards on dual aspects,

cycle storage, limited time planning route to allow security planning permissions without

viability assessment and so on and so forth.

And I think and appreciate for the purpose of the local plan and the report, perhaps

didn't get the time, the opportunity to look at the details and see what impact A, it has

on the local plan and B, the impact it then has on the council and delivering whether

it's affordable housing, whether it's sale, whether it's viability assessment.

And I think what would probably be useful is in the next month, I think December 8th, we've got the next scrutiny meeting.

And I think what would be probably useful is to have a paper report at the next meeting whereby there is some kind of assessment on

a. on the local plan, b. the impact on the council in particular from 2025 to 2028, even if it might not affect the local plan

and see in terms of the position from the council of having worked with lobby with other

fellow councils and I don't know whether it is developers or local MPs or whoever in order

to try and mitigate the potential impact of these policy announcements.

I think that's a very good suggestion.

that's very good suggestion. One of the things is worth acknowledging is that

there are out to London boroughs who do have very real viability issues and

probably can't even deliver 20 % and so some of these measures are targeted at

some of those lower value boroughs and I understand that. I think one of the

things that we'll want to do in the consultation responses is argue for a

localised approach to this rather than a one -size -fits -all because we are

different to Bexley, we are different to Redbridge, we are different to Arrow and actually

our evidence base that underpins this local plan is recent and up to date and it is informed

by the best evidence from a company like BNP Paribas, so they're not sort of mugs and so

I think we have a very strong case to be saying where we can in a borough like Towerhamlets

continue to seek higher affordable housing percentages and only recently have approved

schemes at that level we should be allowed to do that and I think this

comes back to the point that is a consultation it will be a consultation

and we have to respond to that and so if there is a determination to proceed with

it one of the things that we're likely to say is please allow some local

discretion in areas like Tarahum that's where we do still have strong evidence

that we can deliver and hopefully though you know we will be heard on that point

Is that...quickly, make it brief, because nearly we'll get 45 metre on this.

Separate to that, another question which I had was which is basically when I looked at

page 22 and that kind of zone F of kind of tall buildings across the borough, I think

one of my concerns was around, you know, if we, if we have this kind of across the borough

tall buildings and then how do we ensure that we have adequate infrastructure to support

the delivery of it?

And maybe that's a question for you, Matt, around how do we ensure we have adequate infrastructure

to deliver and also in light of the fact of the potential government announcement of still

income going down as well.

So yeah.

So I suppose again you look at the context of the plan, it's up to 2038.

The interim measures is up to 2028.

On the assumption that everything will be picked up and taken over within the next two

years.

The climate is quite hostile to development at the moment due to building inflation and

a whole range of others.

and even those who've invested in properties are finding it difficult to offload and sell.

None of what's floating out there has actually addressed those principles.

So those who've, big developers who've got into developments

need to offload what's there before they can sort of cash and bank and so on and so forth.

But again, each application will be assessed on its individual merits

and infrastructure will be calculated into those applications, bar that gap period.

I don't believe that there will be an extreme frenzy per se in those two -year periods,

because companies have to get the money together, and it's not done with a snap of a finger.

It's an opportunity. You have to acquire land, you have to go through various different phases.

And if you look at the site itself, we don't have companies already holding assets and land within those who are ready for development

in any case. That's the first point. I'll let officers come to the technical aspects of things.

Thanks. I won't comment on the written ministerial statement changes any further because I think there's been a lot of comment on that.

So not withstanding that and any impact that could have on the seal that the the tall buildings policy

It does allow a broader range of tall buildings and the existing local local plan

But that's within the context. I think of the plan setting out that it's aiming to deliver

52 ,000 homes is that right?

52 ,000 homes and the infrastructure that's planned for through the IDP and as I said the IDP doesn't stand alone

And it stands with a whole range of other documents supporting that to say what infrastructure

is needed to support that growth.

As I said before, we monitor this on an annual basis regularly and then sum it up on an annual

basis.

And if we see changes to this and we think that there might be more housing come forwards

than the 52, we will be able to adjust that.

And the local plan is reviewed every five years.

but the plan is set out for the infrastructure necessary and needed to

support 52 ,000 homes. Does that cover the question?

And that's the 52 ,000 homes over to 2038 I'm assuming, the time period.

I guess the reason being is, I think Talia, when I was working in Enfield in Meridian Water and 10 ,000 homes,

the challenge is when you deliver such a number of homes, how do you ensure all your infrastructure,

and the

infrastructure, schooling, parks, road,

utilities and all of those things are

adequately in place to deliver such

number of homes.

You know.

I have to add something

with this one.

Like the

government like the announcement

about

the Labour government that they are

reducing from 35 to 20 per cent

affordable home to speed up the

planning.

I don't know how it's going

to work when inflation is high,

interest rate is high, work

So how will they be able to speed up

this planning by reducing from 35 to 20 %?

My question

to our officers and our committee members,

is there any way

we can opt out from that 20 %?

At the moment

we still haven't seen the consultation

documents

and one of the things to note is also that

it is whatever measures in addition to the ones

that have been discussed,

they are also focusing specifically on the

schemes that are stalled and which may not come forward

and how these measures would help

to bring those things forward.

So again, there are some time limited measures,

there are some criteria that these schemes have to meet,

so it's not a blanket for all schemes.

And again, the time limited nature of this

and the fact that, for example, in some of these,

they have to be on site and must have delivered

at least 200 homes by 2038 or 2030.

All of those set certain conditions.

So again, as the lead member said, it can't happen, but a snap of a finger.

So there are things that they have to go through.

And in the meantime, as the consultation responses are being prepared, we will bring something

back with the level of assessment we can do within the time scale ahead of the next meeting.

We have spent enough time on this item, so thank you.

We agreed action.

I think my proposed it if you need a counsellor

So I'm happy to support the proposal if I think David supported as well if we can come back to this

It might not be December because we don't know how when the consultation will be and how long it would be

But those those pieces of information we've asked for and also actually on top of that

We spoke a lot about treating this unilaterally for us

But you might not work because of if someone else is doing 20 % we doing 40 % people aren't gonna come to us

they're going to want to go somewhere else.

Can we have all of that put in there?

Because it's actually going to shape our work

as a committee for the next few years.

So if we can have that, that would be great.

Okay.

Is that agreed?

Sorry, I was just going to suggest

once that consultation is launched,

should we come after that?

Because we're still being hypothetical.

Can we see what's going to be put,

what we're going to put forward?

We don't.

Whatever we're saying in the consultation

as a committee, we're asking for that.

Can we see that?

because obviously whatever Mahbub has asked for is everything that's going to be part

of that consultation.

Thank you.

I think just subject to time scales and there being a meeting and all of that.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

So we have a feature with him.

Thank you.

Thank you committee member Kabir Ahmed and also Sarpriya and David Joyce and others.

I don't know your names, apologies for that.

Thank you very much for coming here and your update and your presentation was wonderful and helpful for us

Thank you once again from our side now we move on to

Now we move on to

Our next item is okay. The entire team is to review

the reports and the recommendation the follow the scrutiny a

challenge session of

review of

commercial asset. Now we would like to welcome our Scoot -in Support Officer Paul Berger to

... Yes, please.

Thank you, Chair. I am, of course, very conscious of time because we slightly overrun on our

last issue, so I'll keep my initial presentation very brief, but I'm very happy, if I keep

it too brief, to answer any questions to expand on this.

So the purpose of this item is to review and potentially approve the report that the committee has developed on a review of commercial assets.

So what the committee has done is over the course of the summer and in the autumn we had a series of meetings and site visits to different parts of the borough to look at different commercial aspects that were under the Council's control.

We looked at commercial properties that were on

Housing estates and we also then went on site visits to did look at the area of the Ben Johnson Road area

to look at the ocean

regeneration and the commercial assets there it was followed up with a with a

meeting where

Recommendations were submitted. So what I have tried to do in this this report is summarise those recommendations

Maybe some of them are where they were very similar recommendations.

I've tried to put them in a coherent manner.

So we've now put six recommendations which are in the paper.

So if the committee does have any amendments they might to make, I'd be happy to take those on.

But hopefully we can either approve the report as it is or approve it subject to any amendments.

And then the next stage would be to submit that report to the mayor and cabinet for them to develop to review which recommendations

They would like to take forward and to develop an action plan that which would come back to

scrutiny in

Probably about nine months or a year's time to see what progress has been

Thank you Paul do member have any questions on that report or with

it as it is. I think it's a fabulous report and congratulations to the chair and Paul

for putting this together. I now hope that the team can take this on board but I do have

a question if there's questioning time later at 6 .2. So I think if the team here takes

this all on board, I think it will lead to generally a better management of commercial

assets.

Under 6 .2, however, we don't want the objectives to kind of conflict with each other.

So what we understand currently is that the current objective given to officers is that

the highest bid, you know, basically you want to get the highest bid for the shopfront,

But if you accept this, so 6 .2 says that yes, the committee recommends that the council review how we can work with the private sector to ensure all properties on housing estate best meet the needs of the local community.

Best meets the needs of the local community.

So if you embrace this, therefore it is about curating the type of services and shops, not so much who bids the highest.

If I am a night time operator,

I have loads of money,

I want to blast the music,

sell loads of drinks,

a few metres from the windows,

would you go for that?

Or would you go for a doctor's surgery

or a dentist that the residents need?

I just want to make sure that we...

If you embrace this,

it means you have to change some of the way you work

and the objectives that you give to your team.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean perhaps some of the officers present may want to provide a response, but

can I first of all say how grateful we are to Sam and his team for the work that they've

done on this report as well, that they've come along to site visits and they've been

able to fact cheque us where possible.

So I think that, and I'll give the officers a chance to have a look at that, but maybe

what we need to understand is these are our recommendations that we're putting forward,

but then be up to the executive to decide how they take that forward and develop that

into a coherent plan.

So with that in mind, bearing in mind that officers haven't yet developed an action plan

going forward, I don't know if the team would like to do any response to that.

Just to say, first of all, it is a really, really helpful report, thank you, and it's

very constructive and obviously as you say we will now work with the lead member preparer

response and that will be considered by cabinet.

But in terms of your question I think it's important to remember that this obviously

sits alongside a number of other regimes like licencing and planning and it's very rare

that a unit would have the ability to be used for so many different types of uses but notwithstanding

that we are looking at how we can be we can emphasise the importance of the kind

of economic contribution locally of our shop units. We obviously have to

do that within the kind of best value legislation and and make sure that we do

achieve value for the council but within that work at what scope we have to

really think about the role that these shops are providing because it is really

clear when we visit our retail premises that many of them have a more local function than

say, high street shopping would have and that is valuable and important. When I visit quite

a lot of our estates I notice how many of our shops are providing fresh fruit and vegetables

for instance when there's often a dearth of that available. So we need to think about

those characteristics when we're considering best value

and it's certainly something we're looking at.

Sam, anything you want to add?

I think from my perspective when we're talking about the highest bid,

it's not always the highest bid and there is a set of criteria

that they're scored against before they get to that stage.

So the marketing exercise takes into consideration the parade of shops

and local intention.

The issue is that sometimes the bids that come in don't always support

the local community. We're dictated to by the bids that are submitted and sometimes

they're not in line with necessarily what the community would want. So we're scoring

a set of bids that come in that people apply for under their business plan. But we do look

at some of those and sometimes we do take best consideration. That is a veer from policy

and we don't have to do a paper on that, but we will take that into consideration. It's

not always the highest bid that gets that unit.

I just want to say firstly thank you to everyone that's worked on this and thank you for your leadership on this chair.

I do think we've had lots of issues with asset management over the years for this council and these are really constructive recommendations

and I can understand some of the things that you said so when you do respond back I'm really looking forward to working through what the barriers might be

and give us the opportunity to be able to further recommend.

If any of those recommendations have barriers

and they're not possible, it would be good to know why

and how to make the impossible possible

in a way that meets our statutory duty,

legal contractual duties, as well as being able

to deliver the best outcomes for the people of this borough.

Yes.

If not, you can view the report.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for coming.

Our next item is for this evening is the review of social landlord performance for quarter

one.

So with this briefing introduction I would now like to welcome Mumin Chaudhry, performance

officer.

Can you introduce the items and the progress you have made.

You will have maximum of five minutes to provide us with the overview of the items.

please consider the slide as taken as read by the subcommittee.

So highlight any relevant key areas as area that the subcommittee need to be aware of

and then we'll move on to the members' questions.

I'll let you know when your time finish.

So your time starts right now.

Thank you very much for coming.

You can start your five minute start now.

This is the social landlord performance report for housing and regeneration subcommittee.

The report is on the performance of registered providers and it's an opportunity for members

of the committee to assess the performance of providers across a number of areas that

matter to residents.

The Council for Transparency includes its own performance alongside that of RPs.

The Council is performing well compared to RPs in the borough.

It is an outliner on percentage of decent homes and ASB.

You've got an ASB paper coming next as well.

And we have a plan to reach decent homes and on ASB

We've launched a new hotline

and

reporting on complaints and leaseholder properties

So Karen, do you wanna?

Just briefly. I've has the committee read the report

so if we take it as read and then

If there are any specifics, we can have that addressed.

Do you want to come in?

Thank you, Chair.

At the last meeting you will recall that Andrea Baker was standing down.

So Elizabeth is the new Chair of Town Hamlets housing forum, so we were expecting her to

be here tonight, but unfortunately she is not able to attend.

In terms of the report, Mooin has done most of the work on that.

He's our officer responsible for liaison with the registered providers.

I think he's got a couple of things that he wants to share with you tonight about some data that's missing from one of the registered providers.

And he'll let him touch on that and then he can take you through any of the key items and then we're here to answer any questions.

But unfortunately we haven't got Elizabeth here.

But what we will do if there's any particular questions for registered providers, we take it back directly to them as we always do.

This is the Court of War performance report for registered providers in the borough.

In this version of the report we included a new metric which is the number of units

available at the end of the letting period as well as the already existing metric we

have which is the ones unavailable.

THCH and Clarion didn't provide data in time for this quarter, but they have since then

provided the data, so that's available on request if any of the members would like that

information.

Just to take you through the data itself, decent homes, Poplar Harker, Providence Row

and Spitalfields reported 0 % non -decent homes.

The council had the highest at 16 .83%, but that's an improvement from previous quarters.

On repairs completions, Spitalfields, Poplar Harker, Gateway and Providence completed over

90 % of both emergency and non -emergency repairs on time.

L &Q had the lowest non -emergency repair completion rate at 60 .61%.

For safety cheques, gas safety, most RPs achieved over 99 % gas safety compliance.

Spitalfields, Providence Row, L &Q and NHG reached 100%.

SWAN reported the lowest at 94 .12%, mainly due to access issues.

On fire cheques, six RPs, including Providence and Poplar Harco, achieved 100%.

SWAN had the lowest at 91%, 91 .3%, and East End Homes slightly below 99%.

On asbestos, most RPs reported 100 % asbestos safety cheques.

Gateway improved significantly from 48 .16%.

that was reported last quarter to 84 .58 % in this quarter.

Peabody and Riverside were just under 99%.

For water, seven RPs including Swan and East End Homes

reported 100 % water safety cheques completed.

Gateway was the only one below 99 % at 69 .3%.

For lifts, NHG, Spitterfields and Providence

all had 100 % safety compliance.

Poplar Harker had the lowest at 91 .5 % on complaints.

All RPs received complaints from less than 10 % of their stock.

L &Q and Poplar Harker had less than 1%.

Swan and Riverside had the highest complaint rates

relative to stock, which was at 7 .28 % and 5 .9 % for response times.

Complaint response times, Gateway, Providence, Rowan, Spitalfields

had a response rate of 100%.

Riverside had the lowest on -time response rate of 30 .67%.

On antisocial behaviour, the council had the highest antisocial behaviour rate at 2 .55 %

of stock.

All other RPs reported ASB rates below 1%.

One had the highest relit times.

It was 177 days for standard relets and 327 days for major works.

Several RPs including L &Q and Peabody had major relet times over 100 days.

Vacant units, unavailable vacant units, Gateway, Notting Hill Genesis, Bitterfields and Providence had few of them.

Five units unavailable for letting Riverside and East and homes had the highest number of unavailable units

Available vacant units Riverside had the most available vacant units with 70 followed by Poplar Harker at 16

Gateway reported no vacant units unavailable

available for letting

Thank you

Thank you very much for your reports

I really like it.

It was useful and to get a sense of

Positions to member have any questions. I'll take one question at a time, please. I can't stop the man of your question

Thank you for the report

Consciency as tiredly just went through it. I just got question for on the asbestos

particular gateway housing Association

The asbestos safety cheque is low compared to other RSLs on last quarter.

Any reason why and what was the reason behind it?

Sorry, can I just repeat which RPU you were talking about?

Was it Gateway?

Yes, Gateway.

Okay, Gateway?

Yes, Gateway.

Yeah.

So, Gateway haven't responded on why that is, but we can follow up with them.

as as

Yes, so

Karen just pointed out that last quarter was at forty eight point one six percent, which is an anomaly

So I'm assuming that it would have something related to the figure that was reported last quarter

but in terms of a detailed explanation we can reach out to them and ask why the number is

Next question.

Yes, it has been noted.

Next question, please.

I've got a specific question.

I'm going to leave the date for everyone else.

There's been issues with swan housing repairs for a lift in Bo for over five months now,

and councillors have been working very closely with the Government to ensure that the housing

Is there any mechanism that you can recommend that we can use for this committee on trying

to push through those really tough repairs?

I know lifts are difficult, but five months is kind of out of the reasonable timeframe.

Actually on that, Councillor Ahmanson, you can answer when he comes back, you would be

really surprised when you can't get resolution on something and then you get the mayor or

the MP involved and all of a sudden there is resolution.

Like how can we use the mayor to make sure when it comes to RSLs that is he having face time? How does it work?

You know just being able to report to them directly some of our big social

housing landlords about the feedback that he probably gets in his

In his surgeries and that we get in our surgeries as well

Yes

I just want to add to what Asma was saying, I just want a correction if there is one being

taken over by another country.

Can I just also just add to what her question is, it would be easier for them to answer

it as well.

Lift isn't the one -day issue.

Since they've taken over the service repair service is literally going

pear shape and it is because I'm on I'm part of the big state on this

is a centurion because of century and I've been

getting a lot of

Emit and a lot of them a lot of them and I'm not happy at all on this. So we need to get

from the

We do have our own storeys, so we will know that.

Officer to respond.

Obviously as the council we are not the landlord when the cases are raised with registered

providers but nonetheless I do know that all members are very active in picking up case

work and making representations on behalf of residents.

That does include the mayor, a lot of the casework that comes through the mayor's surgery,

he then raises with us and on occasions when the issues are serious we will have meetings

with the resident and the RP and I've been involved in a number of those cases.

I think the other forums are that Karen and obviously moving in the team that are here

are hold relationships with the registered providers through the Tower Hamlets Housing

forum which Andrea used to be chair of and we can I think through this committee as well

share particular concerns with the chair, the new chair, to be raised with the relevant

RP and so we will do that. We always advise, Karen's always very clear that we advise

people that the number one route that people need to follow is the complaint procedure

with the relevant registered provider and follow that through to the Ombudsman where

required but certainly and when there are serious issues and patterns of

issues we are happy to pick that up for the team and raise it with the relevant

RP we know all the chief executives we know all the senior officers and we can

follow those routes where required but we always say to people the first route

is to follow the complaints procedure of the relevant provider because that's

quickest route to resolution.

Anything to add, Karen or Pippin?

The issue of lists comes up often.

I think at the last meeting we talked about lists and I think Stephen, you were here,

weren't you?

And we talked about a piece of work that we'd done whereby we'd asked all of the registered

providers to let us know what their issues are, to see whether there's a sort of commonality

of the problems.

So we're happy to share that with you just in terms of what their insights are as individual

providers as to where they have particular issues.

We were also trying to establish amongst the registered providers a commonality of approach

because often what will happen, members will say, well on this estate when the lift went

down, this registered provider did this in terms of a package of support.

But this other registered provider isn't doing anywhere near as much as that.

So what we're trying to establish at the registered providers, what might be the sort of minimum package of support,

particularly if lifts are out for a while and there's vulnerable residents in there.

So we can definitely share with you what registered providers told us in terms of their insights,

some of which I've shared with Stephen and he sort of says that quite a lot of that in there is common to ourselves as well

in terms of some of the issues that they're facing.

But it might be, when outages happen, obviously if they're out for a long period of time,

it can really affect people's lives.

One case that we heard was that a person had recently come out of hospital

and he needed to wash his clothes more often than normal.

His washing machine broke down and he couldn't get a new washing machine delivered

because the people wouldn't carry it up the stairs in order to get to his flat.

I mean some of these things are, you know, they can last for weeks

and people are really suffering.

What might be worthwhile, because it is something that all registered providers are facing,

and we obviously have our own issues with some lifts as well,

is you might want to consider in your work programme some sort of deep dive into that,

because it would be useful to try and arrive at whether there's any commonality of action

or endeavour on behalf of registered providers.

State to Ex retaining along the

Purpose daddy

.VAoke

Really

talk

carried out a training exercise with the Tuhuf members in terms of around lift issues and

it appeared that a lot of the partners were experiencing similar issues with regards to

parts especially after Brexit, not being able to get parts through and unfortunately yes

a lot of the lifts that are actually installed are now reaching some of their lifespan which

makes it quite difficult in terms of for example like I think this might be the one that Council

is talking about the sanctuary obviously has been out of action for quite a while

I'm actually in a lot of consultation with them regarding this lift issue and

the problem has been the fact that that lift in particular has possibly reached

its lifespan so it needs to get completely changed now in order for that

to happen you can't just do that without consulting because obviously there's an

impact in terms of service charges etc so there's a period where that actually

You need to kind of tick the boxes before you can then go on to kind of instal that new lift which hopefully

Sanctuary are in the process of obviously doing but unfortunately, it's a lengthy process and can't be done within you know

a matter of you know weeks unfortunately, but I think majority of

RSLs, RPEs operating in the area are obviously experiencing these issues

And one of the main things is obviously is part. It's just making sure that parts are sourced quickly

But unfortunately, you know when they do go it can take a little while for them to come through and then this is been an ongoing

Issue for a lot of the RPS especially with their lifts and the ones that are obviously have been around for quite some time

Thank you

My question is do the council have any power and do they have any SLA?

Agreement on the repair side. So at least we know there's a benchmark

certain time they have to respond or they have to repair it.

Any kind of mechanism there, because at the moment

things are, every ourselves behave how they want to behave.

And it may be, maybe they're not making excuses,

but one of the things is Brexit causing problem.

But, and the residents are suffering,

especially those who are vulnerable residents

who need access to the lift, or they can't get delivery,

or they're missing cost of appointment,

things like that, they can't without a lift.

those things are very vital to the service and unless we are someone who is SLA, we hardly

refuse to string.

I mean I think it's worth being really clear that we don't have any recourse with registered

providers and ultimately registered providers are accountable to the social housing regulator

and the housing ombudsman and so that's why we say even though we can put pressure on,

we can work with, we can encourage, we can even call out poor performance at this committee

if things are bad.

What we can't do is force action and that's why we always say to people make sure that

you continue to go through the housing ombudsman route or make a complaint to the social housing

regulator if you feel that's necessary because we can't and don't have recourse in that way.

I would just say that, just to add to David's point, we do use the partnership approach

with register providers and certainly I would say they're very responsive when we do contact

them because often where it's affecting a number of residents, if it's an individual

query, if it's a very vulnerable tenant, we will make that contact with the register provider

to say this, it's often something hasn't been communicated often. There's been a breakdown

in communication on the registered provider side. When we do reach out, I would say they're

very responsive because they don't want to be contacted by David or I about a particular

case because it's come to our attention. So shouldn't have to, but if we do have to pick

up the call, they are very responsive. I should also add as well that the Housing Act 2004,

which is the Housing Act that our environmental health team used to enforce

against poor standards in the private rented sector, it also covers housing

associations as well. Now it doesn't form the bulk of their work but they do over

the course of a year take a number of complaints from tenants under the Housing

Act 2004. Now I've recently spoken to registered providers about how there's

There's 49 ,000 private rented properties in the borough and the team's focus really ought

to be on focusing on the poor standards in that sector where they may have an unresponsive

private landlord.

That's not to say that we won't pick up housing association cases, but if we do pick them

up we want a very timely response from the registered provider.

We do advertise that on our website that housing associations can, if they're really struggling,

contact the Environmental Health Service but we want to see that intervention

from that team picked up really quickly by the registered provider.

Take one more question after that we have to close these items. Yes, no question?

You've done your question, anybody else? Any questions? Okay, I have to say

something about the because I live in the area where is high risk building is

high risk buildings and lift is constantly breakdowns and I'm not gonna

name the I'm not gonna name the housing Association that will look after those

lift but as a council I can say that it's been not five months six months

even years without people are difficulties coming down from 23rd floor

27th floor and is not been repaired properly

Maybe one with them next week's I'm thinking about six months four months

So what as a council what we can do about those?

people constantly they like their belief breakdown and they

Kind of ignore to repair those lift

According to the needs of the residents who are living in those tall buildings

So you can assume that which area I'm talking about the world the high -risk buildings up there

What is the council? What we can do?

But unfortunately Elizabeth is not here,

that she could have carried our message to them

that we are not happy as a council.

As a committee we are not happy, you can see.

And honestly that we are not happy about the lift.

Lift is very important parts of our everyday life.

So as a council what we can do about it,

or how we make them repair the lift quicker than they do.

Thank you.

I will share... Sorry, sorry, I just want to come in.

So, Chair, thank you. As my ward councillor, I know exactly which organisation you're talking about.

Can I suggest, as the scrutiny committee, you formally write to Karen as well as to

Huth, raising those concerns.

So the first thing I would say is you hold a lot of power, both as a Councillor and as

a committee, and you need to exercise that power.

and I think you should not only just write to the local level,

you should write to the chief executive of those organisations.

There's lots of important repairs issues raised,

and you should do it formally as a committee.

Myself, as a lead member, I'm happy to also follow up on those complaints.

And we've got David and Karen and a corporate team here

who will support in relation to tackle some of those issues.

So please exercise your rights

So we can Paul can look into the bring those big offenders

being in here, I'm not naming anything bring here and

Face the members for the questions of regarding the repairs if learning the leaf break down and is meant to be

Yes

Perhaps I could just say we have built into the the housing work programme

a resident engagement and it's usually with a different housing provider.

So we will look into maybe the best housing provider to bring in and to bring in their

residents to get their views and to get a response from that housing provider later

in this year.

Thank you, we'll do that.

For this item, thank you once again for your report and your coming and your wonderful

report also answering the quilting member questions.

Thank you very much for coming.

You may stay or you may leave.

We will move on to other items.

Our next item for this evening is

anti -social behaviour at police.

With the brief introductions,

I would like to welcome Leo Hutchinson,

strategy and policy manager.

Can you introduce the items and progress you have made?

You will have five minutes to provide us the overview of the items.

Please consider the slide as taken as read by the subcommittee.

So highlight any relevant key areas the sub committee need to be

Will be move on to member correction

So you I'll let you know before your time couple of you before your time ends

Chair

Just want to highlight the lead member for community safety wasn't invited

There may have been a mix -up

the

The ASB in housing estates also particularly council housing estates falls under the lead

member for community safety.

I spoke to him today.

So he's asked me to deputise for him.

But there was no invite for him.

So in future if it is a community safety related issue, please include the lead member.

Because we did what we have raised.

We did speak to Paul.

And I did ask all that why he was not invited. He shouldn't be here

He was should we ask the answer the member questions and Paul say that can you pull explain to the members?

Community member the members what's going on here?

Yeah, actually you're absolutely right counsellor. It was an oversight on our part the

Process the way this this point came to us was via the house

I think housing DLT and because of that there was an oversight that we didn't include the cabinet member

member for ASB in that so we can only apologise and we will make sure that doesn't happen again.

Thank you Paul, so your time starts now.

Thank you.

First of all, I'll just

start with apologies. We would usually come with a senior representative from

communities

but due to sickness and

personal commitments

You have myself and Thea Bailey who should be joining us online as well.

But that being said, we'll do our best to answer any questions you might have and be as informative as we can.

Essentially we're bringing this item to scrutiny to ensure that scrutiny has sight and opportunity to contribute to the development of the ASPE policy

and ensuring that we go through the appropriate steps

to build a policy that is robust and future proofed.

I will take this as a report that's been read

so I won't go through the ins and outs and I'm mindful of time.

So essentially I'll just go through the broad consensus of the policy

or the current state of play I would say,

which is that essentially we're developing a new ASB policy.

It focuses on how the council on housing will prevent, address and resolve ASB.

It comes about as a result of the fact that Talham's housing has been reintegrated to

council services and essentially as a result of a recent inspection or visit from the housing

services standards. We essentially have been advised to ensure that we have a

policy in place. We ran a consultation on developing this policy from August of

this year to September and we received a total of 130 responses from residents

and essentially the feedback has been used to feed into the findings that

we've gathered from professionals as well.

So essentially, people took part via a survey.

We also will be consulting the Tau Hammers Youth Council

on the 26th of November.

We ran a professional's consultation, essentially,

where professionals were able to tell us

some of the gaps and shortfalls, some

of the things that work well, and things

that we need to improve upon with regards to service delivery and processes and practises.

We also ensure that we were able to feed in comments from our local public to ensure that

the policy is grounded in the voices of local people and there are a number of things that

were highlighted from both the surveys that we collected from the local public as well

as the consultation with professionals. The survey asked a number of questions, for example,

their experience of ASB, how often ASB is experienced, any suggestions and concerns

that would help shape the policy, how satisfied with the response they received with regards

to report in ASB, et cetera, et cetera.

And a lot of those findings are demonstrated,

or the highlights of those findings

are demonstrated within the report.

I'll just name one, which was obviously

most of the correspondents were council tenants.

And with regards to those that did complete the surveys,

47 % said that drug -related activity in relation to ASB

was the form of ASB that they had witnessed.

So there were other types obviously

and the majority of people who completed the survey

said unfortunately that they didn't actually report

the ASB that they'd experienced,

which is another factor that we'd need to consider.

But going forward in terms of the findings

that we did get from people,

there was some qualitative feedback as well.

Many people said that they'd like to see more dedicated officers in their local areas, more visible patrols,

improved noise monitoring, CCTV, more strict enforcement.

So these were some of the comments that we'd gathered from our local public.

As a result, professionals have pretty much come up with five priorities that the policy should focus upon.

and these, as I said, have been grounded on the voices of those that have fed back to us,

as well as our local professionals who deal with ASB on a daily basis.

And they are prevention and early intervention, support for victims and witnesses,

multi -agency partnership working, case management and proportional enforcement.

So essentially this presentation brings forward some of the focus

that we anticipate should be reflected within the policy.

And taking it as this report has been read,

I won't go through all of them,

but clarification of how to report ASB should be reflected.

The fact that we've got a new 24 -hour ASB service,

that should be utilised, detailing what we will do

and what we won't do with regards to ASB

and what we will consider ASB locally.

and

Another key factor was obviously ensuring that ASB is clearly defined for our local public

We brought this item to DMT communities DMT and there was some some feedback around that

Some of that feedback stated that this should be a council part of sorry a power policy as opposed to a council policy

Incorporating the likes of registered

Providers as well

There was also some feedback around including the fact that we have a somewhat commercialised ASB service that we can generate income from

and also ensure that we're essentially making clear what will happen once reports have been responded to by those who report to us.

So in terms of next steps, there are a number of next steps to go through and we want to ensure this is a robust policy that does exactly what it says it should.

We want the policy essentially to detail how to report.

it should essentially make sure that we can make clear where people can report the processes in which people will be able to go through

if they need to appeal decisions around reports of ASB and also clarify obviously what it is that we consider ASB to be locally.

So we will be consulting Taohamless Youth Council in November.

This is also...

Two minutes left.

Thank you.

Housing regeneration scrutiny subcommittee is obviously where we are now for November.

And then it will go through a number of other formal governance processes

to ensure that those that need to will be cited on the development of this policy.

I'm mindful of time and will stop droning on but also the fact that my colleague theories is online and just probably won't have too much to add but if she does more than welcome to.

Do you like to add anything on this report?

No, no, I think that was all. Thank you, Leo.

Thank you for your view. I think it is useful to understand how this policy has been developed

and giving us the opportunity to contribute. Do members have any questions? I will take

two questions at a time.

Thank you for the presentation.

Just a few questions for you.

How does the policy intend to meet the requirements for the housing ombudsman and social housing

regulator?

What level of data can be provided on service standards from officers and theos to evidence

the value for money to tenants and lease holders?

This is directly recharged.

What level of data can be provided on service standards from officers and

theos to evidence value for money to tenants and lease holders? This is

directly recharged and also if they talk about the new line asked given the high

numbers of ASP reports already, what was the reasonable for creating other

How does this aid the customer experience?

Thanks for your questions. I'll direct the first one most definitely to my colleague around the new SB line.

Purely because I don't work within the ASB service but I'm also on the policy development side.

I'm not sure if there's much light you can shed on that.

Yeah, unfortunately, sorry, I don't know.

I wasn't here just for the very beginning of the item, but we have had apologies from the service manager for this meeting.

And I am standing in for him, but I do not work in the ASB service myself. Apologies.

I'm working with Leo on the development of this policy, however.

In terms of the new reporting line, it's specifically for tenants and leaseholders.

and it is to offer a service whereby if ASB is reported, then the Theo service can go

out and immediately respond to those reports, because at the moment prior to today, which

is when the service launched, that wasn't something that was available. So that was

the kind of purpose that hopefully we can respond more quickly and in the moment to

reports of ASB specifically on the Council's estates.

Thanks, Thea.

I'll also mention around how the policy will

meet the requirements of the housing regulator.

As far as I'm aware, the housing regulator

suggested that we should have one of these in place.

So the production of an ASB policy

would be a direct response to that but we do have a number of actions and

recommendations that have been recorded and listed that we will look to deliver

against. I'm not sure if there's anything more you want to add to that.

Yeah I think a key thing from the regulator is about publishing service

standards as you just mentioned Councillor and that is something that we

leaseholders what the service standards are around a SP and then obviously we will need to report on those standards going forward

On page 56 in the previous report shows councils ASB of

2 .55 % per year, per every 100 homes.

Are we getting value for money

from the council's community safety team?

All other previous are less than one.

If I'm honest, I'm not sure of the answer to that question

in terms of best value.

I know community safety teams and in terms of ASB,

there's a lot of investment across the board.

ASB doesn't necessarily fit purely within the realm of community safety.

ASB is something that is addressed in conjunction with a number of different services.

It could be housing, it could be police, community safety.

It also stretches further to registered providers.

And as I'm sure you'll be aware,

ASB is also affected by things like mental health

in terms of the reports that we might receive as well.

So in terms of the community safety services demonstrating best value and the linkages

between ASB and the reports that we get, I'm not sure how to answer that question.

I think the point of this exercise, members, is to give this committee an opportunity to

feed into the policy framework and as Leo has identified, there is a chain that is going

to be followed for this to be ratified later next year, around February next year, in terms

of the timeline but I think yeah February yeah I think it would have been

good to have our more senior officers here because I mean the strategy of

policy team working in a sort of section of it not necessarily the front

forward -facing elements of it to respond to that and rightfully council I mean

you've identified, okay, the gap that exists.

And it's important that we feed in

in order to bridge that gap.

Other RSLs are below one per hundred.

They have smaller housing stocks as well.

But nonetheless, we're at 2 .55,

and that's a gap that we need to bridge

through housing management and the council's ASB team.

And legitimately you've asked the question value for money

From the HRA there is a recharge back to communities and that's constantly under review by David

Gulam director of neighbourhoods

And Stephen Platt who was here as well. So we we from from the housing management side of things we do scrutinise

the levels of service that are being provided but we also have to draw context to it the

The FIO team has recently, very recently, increased to a sizeable number from where it was.

There's a lot of training involved and there's a lot of certification involved as well.

So they're going through those enhanced processes.

And what we're hoping to achieve with that is getting sort of a below one and as good

or better than the best housing provider there is.

But there had to be an investment and that investment's taken place now.

So going forward with the strategy in place and the policy in place, you'll see more

proactiveness.

The key areas within the report are around visibility and that will be increasing more

and more.

Members, can you send your question to Paul and Paul will email to them for the reply.

I think you should...

I think you have questions though.

We can give you a suggestion but if you want a question to be answered then send it to the poll and Paul will write to them and they will reply.

So your suggestion please.

I have two questions.

The lady on the screen

said something

about

the policies

launched.

I will interrupt you.

We are now

taking questions.

Your question

is sent to Paul

and Paul will

ask them to

reply.

What time do we take

suggestions?

The suggestion is

the communication is

really important.

How do residents

contact the

fields, for

example,

So the communication is important as a suggestion.

Secondly, the last slide, in terms of feedback, it says that case management should be led by ASB team only,

rather than the ASB and the housing.

While I can understand you want to kind of channel through one,

But if I refer you back to your survey on slide 72 where you said that those who report,

most of them report to the housing officer.

So it is basically the housing officer is the person that knows their predicament.

So I just want to suggestion again.

I just want to warn that if you try to improve your system,

but don't forget that residents are probably closer to the housing officer

and therefore report to the housing officer

because the housing officer manages the block and knows the issues.

So I think sometimes the policy needs to be aligned

to the real life experiences of residents.

So suggestion again, before you implement this policy,

please be mindful of how residents are currently reporting ASB and experiencing ASB.

Thank you. Asma?

Thank you, Chair. Can I just say, even though the service area director isn't here, this is like one of the...

I don't think I ever remember having a policy this early on to feedback too, so that's a really good point.

good thing that I want to praise the team for. There's a bit here about how many people

have actually filled in the survey. 42 % from Bethnal Green East, 27 % from Bow East, and

good on these residents, but it's also really sad to see that because the problem areas,

Weavers' Ward, Brick Lane, Orgate East, other parts, I'm just like really sad that they

didn't participate in this, they could have really benefited from this because they have

different layers of complications that impact their estate ASB.

So maybe I would like to suggest if we can put a survey back out and try, because we've

put that out and then maybe we can also push it through our residents as well because it

is really sad that two wards have almost 70 % of the feedback and the actual AASB, I bet

if you were to equate 70 % of the reporting you'd get it in all these other places that

I mentioned earlier. So that's one suggestion. The other suggestion is, I guess I'm going

to echo what Susan said, is please don't try the strategy, ultimately shouldn't reinvent

the wheel. We've got lots of great things and lots of bits happening in the council.

It's about the strategy, just needs to pull all of it together and making sure that each

part of the council talks to each other. That's not happening right now. So things like designing

out for instance, there should be an option of how people, the reporting evidence where

the design out can happen. CCTV cameras, additions that, the investment that's gone in, allowing

that to be on estates as well, along with TRA set up, so the council, the housing team

works really hard to help work with those TRAs that are active, but also those that

don't have TRAs, all of those elements coming together with the residents voice panel, just

bringing all of that together.

And lastly, on the Theos point, if the strategy can make sure that the spread of Theos, patrolling

and officers are really genuinely reflective of where the problems are.

Like you said, I think it mentions in this slide where there are some places where people

say very rarely they need to report ASB whereas other places it's almost every day.

I don't think spreading it equally amongst all the wards or all the areas is going to

solve the problem because some areas are worse affected.

For instance, Brick Lane, Weaver's areas, they're not just affected by the night -time economy, the borderline with Hackney,

the designing issue that happens is some licencing, all these things affect how some of the residents have to deal with the negative impact of all those things.

So I hope the strategy can take that on board.

Thank you, Nafma. We'll take Abdulmanar, please.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks. One of my suggestions, I was looking through the report.

Is there one of the questions I would strongly say, can you have one system, one number please,

if it's possible, collect all the RSL, talking together of the council so people do not just

phone out, you are Poplohaka, you are Swan or you are Riverside Housing, different number

for different RSL for ASP reporting, well it's council so if you have one system for

that's easier for residents to contact.

Just come in.

So currently only housing management pay for FIO services.

So it's council estates.

We are speaking with our sales

if they want to buy into the service

because ultimately they're responsible for their estates.

And if they buy into our service

then they'll be using our number.

So we are happy as a service council to support them in doing that,

but they will have to buy into the service.

Otherwise it's only...

It will be council tenants who pay a premium for that service

and say other RSL residents will get that free of charge in it.

That won't be fair.

And without money you can't fund the service.

So they will have to buy into the service.

So we are having discussions with all the RSLs and the communities team I know are going through various different processes in order to regulate being able to do that as well.

So hopefully if they buy in then we will have one number for it.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentations.

Our next housing management committee meeting is Wednesday 5 November.

the paper for the meeting have been published, the Council website, can members highlight

the particular questions or recommendations the committee would like to cheque?

Sorry, could I just clarify that? What we're saying is the Cabinet subcommittee meets two

days from now. So the recommendation the committee would like to raise with the Cabinet and send

them to me. Is there any other business to discuss?

Sorry chair, can I just yes, please?

So I'll give an open invitation. It's a public meeting for all

members here if they want to attend the

Housing cabinet subcommittee meeting, please, please feel free to come

So, you know and observe what happens there

So is there any other business to discuss

Thank you very much everyone for attending.

Good evening everyone.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Housing & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub Committee - Monday 3 November 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Housing & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub CommitteeMonday, 3rd November 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Housing & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub Committee
Monday, 3rd November 2025 at 6:30pm