Do We Really Have To Clamp Down on Welcome Mats?

The welcome mat is surely one of the clearest symbols of a homely environment. The idea that guests are warmly welcomed into a building is stamped on a mat and placed right at the front of the building, effectively telling the world that this is somewhere civilised. They’re also useful for wiping your feet on. So why on earth would any organisation be clamping down on them and asking residents to get rid of the welcome mat?

Not so welcome after all?

Well, the first point to note is that Trafford Housing Trust is really not against the welcome mat in and of itself – it’s what it represents, especially when you add in the danger of fire that it becomes an issue. Recently, we’ve been reviewing the situation with regard to personal property and communal areas and asking tenants to remove any personal items that may have been added – such as the seemingly-innocent welcome mat.

This is not something that we’re doing with any degree of joy in our hearts and the reaction from tenants has made it clear that it’s not a popular course of action. I can completely understand that tenants want to personalise these communal areas and make them both more comfortable and more useful as areas. Throughout our properties we’ve had all manner of chairs, tables, pictures and mats brought in and the effect works – it takes what can be a rather institutional sort of space and transforms them into something much more human.

That’s why it’s not an easy decision to remove these items. However, the fact is that fire safety is something that any social landlord has to be extremely hardline about. Not only is there a raft of legislation that enforces us to take these things safely (including the Housing Act 2004, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 and the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1998), but there have been horrific recent reminders about just how bad things can get when it comes to fire – such as the the fire at Lakanal House, where six people, including three children were killed and many more were injured. We recently had a fire in one of our buildings - where fortunately no one was killed - but it underlines the need to have the absolute gold standards when it comes to protecting tenants’ lives.

For anyone who is potentially rolling their eyes and muttering something along the lines of, “it’s health and safety gone mad…” then to an extent I agree with you. After all, common sense would say: what harm could a welcome mat possibly do? The answer is that it could potentially kill you. Firstly, the idea of having items that are flammable in communal areas increases the risk of fire in the first place. It also increases the chance that any evacuation would be thwarted by fire in a communal area. Secondly, during a fire a room can rapidly fill with smoke, which reduces visibility. The other potential danger of the welcome mat is that it becomes a trip hazard. 

Quite possibly, there will be some who would still say that despite these concerns, the benefits of personalisation mean it’s worth a degree of risk. After all, you can’t make life risk-free. I’m sure this is a discussion we will be having many times with tenants and although I can see both sides of the argument and continue to look for creative ways around the situation (please feel free to suggest any ideas you may have for creating safe but personalised communal areas); ultimately when it comes to fire and tenants, "risk" is the very worst kind of four-letter word.

Changes To The Board

For Trafford Housing Trust 2011 has been characterised by big news events so far. There’s been the launch of new developments, breaking into the top 25 companies to work for with The Sunday Times and as we come into April we have another significant change this time to the structure of our board. Without going into too much detail the board’s role at THT is to set the strategy for the business, and then it's the management team’s responsibility to deliver it. So the board have a key role in shaping the organisation. Consequently, how the board works and who is on it is a vital consideration.

To give you an idea of the scale of this news, this is a project that I’ve personally worked on for over twelve months now and it represents what I think is a significant step in the right direction. I’ve talked before about the values of openness and honesty that sit at the heart of THT and as you might expect the changes are something that we have consulted extensively with tenants about. Around 2/3rds of tenants were for the changes and 1/3rd were against.

So what are the changes that are happening and why do I think they’re important?

The changes:

1) The board is reducing in size from 15 to 10 members and the constitution of the board is changing too. Instead of the existing make-up of five tenants, five councillors and five independent members we are moving to four independents, three councillors and three tenants.

2) The board members will be paid. Currently only our chairman is paid, but under the new arrangement the board members will also be paid - around £5,000 per year.

The reasoning behind these changes:

As it stands the board has had a higher number of councillors because of the origins of THT and the transfer promises we’ve had the responsibility to fill. As this transfer has now been completed it stands to reason that the role of the council would be reduced on the board. By no means is this to say that we are pushing the council away though! The best indication I can give of this is that one of the new board members is the current leader of Trafford Council, Matt Colledge. I’m thrilled that Matt has joined the board as I think it ensures we can maintain our history of having an excellent working relationship with the council. We also have two new tenant board members joining us John Verbickas, from Sale and Robert King from Urmston.

Another reason behind the reduction in board numbers is that tenants are increasingly giving feedback and guidance to THT through the Tenants’ Quality and Insight Panel (or QIP as it’s known). Here there are up to ten tenant members and the mission of the QIP is to look at everything from a tenants’ point of view and make sure tenants’ feelings and issues are put to the fore. I think this has been hugely influential in strengthening the tenant voice in the organisation.

On the issue of payment, it’s largely about catching up with the rest of the world. Over a third of Housing Association organisations already pay their boards. To address one obvious concern - the level of remuneration is set by an external body, so there’s no danger that the board would choose their own pay scale! Frankly, I think one of the best arguments for paying the board members is that you need to have a professional relationship. They are paid for their time, their attendance at meetings, their ambassadorial role outside The Trust and their input. Paying people means that it’s more likely people can honour those responsibilities.

Overall I feel that the new structure of the board gives us a far more flexible and streamlined management position and the best chance of driving THT forward and getting the absolute maximum for our customers. I would like to thank those members of the board who have worked so hard and are now leaving us: Beverley Winn, Mike Cordingley, Bernard Sharp and Edward Kelson. I would also like to say a special thank-you to our vice-chair Kai Hughes, I hope to see all of them again soon and thank them for their work during an exciting time of development for the organisation.

Although the majority of tenants are behind the proposals I fully understand that some people have reservations. If that affects you then please leave a comment and I’ll do my best to answer any questions.

From Newbury Court To Newhaven

I was perplexed to read about a recent report by The Institute of Public Policy Research which described the “supply black hole” facing housing in the UK. According to the IPPR, England faces a daunting shortfall of 750,000 buildings by 2025.

The reason I was confused is because the report states that the only area that is exempt from concern is the North West. In fact, not only will the North West of 2025 avoid a shortfall, it will somehow produce a 40,000 surplus of homes! You can understand my confusion when Trafford Housing Trust’s waiting list for property currently stands at 7,500 and is growing at a rate of around 400 applicants per month.

Regardless of what may happen in 2025, in the context of new properties I have excellent news – Newhaven, a new development of 38 homes (great blog posts documenting the build here, here and here) built by Trafford Housing Trust in partnership with TMBC and the Department of Health is being opened today by the inspiring Bill Speakman. As well as being a war hero, and a holder of the Victoria Cross, Mr Speakman is also one of the new tenants of Newhaven.

 

As Newhaven opens I was thinking back to the moment when I told the Newbury Court residents that their much-loved home was going to be re-developed to make way for Newhaven. The reaction was mixed. One of the over-riding emotions was confusion. Newbury Court was a well-respected and solid development - why on earth would it need to be knocked down? The answer to that question lies in wider social trends and the changing needs of an ageing population.

As well as there being an ongoing question of whether there are enough homes, there is also the complex problem of whether there are enough of the right types of homes. Britain’s care needs are changing. Whereas once we might have looked to build Category 2 properties, now the demand is for Category 2 ½. For anyone who has yet to confront the complexities of housing categories, here’s a brief introduction (there’s a more in-depth guide to sheltered housing here if you need it). Beyond ordinary housing you have Category 1 accommodation, which is essentially an ordinary house with a pull cord. Then you have Category 2, which is usually a group of independent flats, with a small communal area and a scheme manager.

Newbury Court was a Category 2 development and it’s this type of facility that demand is falling for. The reason is simply because Category 2 is about enabling independent living. But if people are capable of living independently then they would rather do it in their own house that has been modified with the assistive technology that is available now. Beyond Category 2 then, you have what is often referred to as Category 2 ½ or Extra Care, and it’s this type of care that Newhaven falls into. The difference is the assumption that people need care and support, but that they also want a private space for them to go to when they want to get away from it all. 

When you see the residents begin to move into a new development it makes you see the really important element of what we do. As much as I understand the need for new development in the North West and across the UK, for me the satisfaction is less in chalking up another new development and more in understanding them as homes for people. Don’t get me wrong, it’s always a job to build something of a decent design quality and do that on budget and on time. So I feel incredibly proud of the people who have done that work. But, it’s a building and it only comes alive when you get people in it. 

Newhaven is going to be home to 38 people and I think the exciting thing is the future that this group have. What sort of community will Bill and his fellow residents create? How will their lives, and their relatives’ lives, change because of the building? In the drive to meet the shortfall of houses and reduce the waiting list, we always have to remember that it’s not the buildings themselves that are important, but the people who fill them.