Share this page

Follow up: Consultation on Building Safety Resident Engagement Strategy

11 December 2020

In July of this year, 198 residents took part in a consultation on our Building Safety Resident Engagement Strategy. Analysis from the consultation identified several key findings due to residents’ responses so we thank you for your insight! We said we would report back with the feedback and the rest of this article will highlight the points that were raised. 

In response to how easy it was to read and understand, promisingly, most readers found it accessible. Twenty residents however, found issue with the length and jargon, saying it was not engaging and it was hard to understand.

The tone of the draft could also be an issue. When referring to the section on resident and landlords’ responsibilities, a reader said they found the language used to be ‘quite passive-aggressive’ and for us to review the wording of section 4.2.1.

Despite most readers finding the draft accessible, it has been rightly highlighted that to make the strategy inclusive, there could be less text and more images or charts included for our extra care residents. Using video communication was also proposed and would be a preferred means of access for disabled residents.

Regarding being satisfied with Building Safety resident engagement, seventy-five percentage were, yet thirty-one residents were not. Those who were not would like to see: an increase in interaction and information around cladding, how we are holding other residents to account for their behaviour and a more detailed approach of how our strategy will come into play.

To follow on from above, some respondents wanted an addition of content including, evacuation plans specific to our different buildings; examples of flammable products residents should not store in their homes or on their balconies; and annual building safety checks. There was also a suggestion to emphasise both building safety, such as corroded effluent pipes, and disability support plans. To further the information around possible dangers of cigarettes and BBQ’s, one resident suggested the risk of fire from cars and car parks and extreme hot weather should be included within the strategy as well.

When we asked for any other comments from residents, questions were posed. Examples of these were ‘what is the frequency of pop-up sessions?’ and ‘how can residents assess historic fire risks?’. Closing the analysis is feedback from most residents stating how they want to be more involved with the decisions made around their home's safety.

To conclude, what can be taken from this analysis is that the language and tone used in the strategy is an issue, that there needs to be different ways of accessing the strategy and that a significant number of residents would like to see an improvement and to be more involved in Building Safety Resident Engagement.

Next steps

  • We are actively working on re-writing the strategy with your feedback in mind.
  • We will continue to explore more creative and accessible ideas such as the video communication proposed in the consultation.

Be on the lookout for the next opportunities to give feedback on the updated strategy.