|
Area in city |
Central |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Chloe McLaughlin |
|
Officer job title |
Estates Services Manager |
|
Contact Details |
chloe.mclaughlin@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
The cleaning at Craven Vale is inadequate and insufficient. Residents want to see some action taken to improve the situation.
|
|
Background |
Cleaning of blocks at Craven Vale is not of an acceptable quality or frequency. For example, one bucket of water is used to clean several blocks, which means the water is filthy and spreads dirt around rather the floors rather than cleaning them. Frequent complaints have been made and residents are frustrated by the lack of improvement and difficulty in getting any action.
|
|
Request or Question |
· Why is the cleaning at Craven Vale not up to standard? What is being done to improve this? · What are the quality standards and what quality controls are in place? · Are there any requirements about how often buckets of water should be changed to ensure cleaning is hygienic and effective? · Can Housing ensure that up to date schedules of cleaning work are posted in every block? |
|
Response |
|
· Why is the cleaning at Craven Vale not up to standard? What is being done to improve this? The Estates Service listened to the feedback received regarding the cleaning and actioned this by carrying out a deep clean of all the blocks in Craven Vale in April. · What are the quality standards and what quality controls are in place? The blocks should be of a good standard once the cleaners have left. Regular quality checks are carried out by team leaders and any issues are resolved quickly. · Are there any requirements about how often buckets of water should be changed to ensure cleaning is hygienic and effective? A bucket of water should be changed after every two blocks maximum. The cleaning solution that is used is designed to collect dirt at the bottom of the bucket which keeps the water cleaner for longer. However, if a block is particularly dirty and requires more cleaning then that bucket of water will be changed before going on to the next block. · Can Housing ensure that up to date schedules of cleaning work are posted in every block? The cleaning schedules are currently being reviewed and will be put up in blocks when they are completed. |
|
Action |
As above |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
Central |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Janine Gosling |
|
Officer job title |
Project Manager – Major Works |
|
Contact Details |
janine.gosling@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
The roofs at Hampshire Court are in urgent need of replacement.
|
|
Background |
A survey was conducted at Hampshire Court 2/3 years ago. This showed that the roofs were in a bad condition, resulting in leaks in properties. Since the survey, residents have not been informed about any planned works or updated in any way. In some flats (flat 28 is an example) there is permanent leakage.
|
|
Request or Question |
· Are there any planned works for roof replacement at Hampshire Court? · What action are the Council taking to keep Hampshire Court residents informed about follow up to the survey and plans for maintenance of their properties? |
|
Response |
|
We have engaged consultants to undertake a full condition survey and to prepare specifications of works for external repairs which will form part of a future major works project at this time earmarked for 2026/27 financial year subject to budget approval. Once we have the full details of the condition survey our Programme and Delivery team will arrange for resident meetings to discuss the proposed works. The condition survey was issued to the council in February 2024 for works to the main building. This includes roof replacement with insulation, flat windows, communal stairwell windows and brickwork repairs. The management team need to discuss the best delivery route and procurement method for all elements of the work. Formal Stage 1 consultation with residents is due to take place this summer, which will then allow us to go to market and procure contractors. Once we have accurate costs we can then carry out section 20 consultation with leaseholders and arrange for residents to meet the contractor. Works to the car park are programmed for delivery in 2025/6 which includes concrete repairs and drainage and with works to the building following afterwards in 2026/7. |
|
Action |
Stage 1 consultation for leaseholders and pre-early engagement with all residents due to take place this summer. |
|
Start date |
July 2024 |
|
End date |
October 24 |
|
Area in city |
Central |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Craig Garoghan |
|
Officer job title |
Principal Accountant |
|
Contact Details |
craig.garoghan@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
Residents would like to have more consultation on the Housing Budget before it is agreed.
|
|
Background |
In previous years there have been meetings with residents to go through some of the central decisions and priorities for the budget and how this will impact on residents. This has allowed residents to input their own priorities and concerns as part of the process. This didn’t happen for the 2024/5 budget and residents are asking for plans to be put into place to ensure that this consultation does happen in 2025/6. |
|
Request or Question |
Request plans for consultation with residents on the Housing budget 2025/6 to be put into place, allowing time for thorough involvement of residents. |
|
Response |
|
2025/26 Budget proposals will be presented to Area Panels during the latter part of 2024.
This will include key budget planning assumptions regarding rent setting, service pressures and capital investment. Proposals will be discussed with residents to ascertain the key priorities for residents.
|
|
Action |
Budget proposals will be presented to Area Panels during the latter part of 2024. |
|
Start date |
August 2024 |
|
End date |
December 2024 |
|
Area in city |
Central |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Janine Gosling |
|
Officer job title |
Project Manager – Major Works |
|
Contact Details |
janine.gosling@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
Windows at Essex Place urgently need replacing. In some cases they are a health and safety hazard.
|
|
Background |
Problems with the windows include: · Not being able to shut them properly · Windows falling off their hinges · High winds causing whistling through gaps in the windows · A big wait for any repairs · Windows being ‘repaired’ by being drilled shut, so they can’t be opened at all. It was noted that new windows in Somerset Point and elsewhere were of shoddy quality, and are cracking, rusting, and generally deteriorating very quickly. Using cheap materials is a false economy – the expense of scaffolding and doing the work is enormous, and products should be installed that will last. |
|
Request or Question |
· When is a window replacement programme planned for Essex Place? · Why are residents having to wait so long for repairs? · Does the Council think it is acceptable for residents to have their windows drilled shut so they can’t be opened? How does this fit with advice to keep homes aired to prevent condensation and damp? · Can the Council commit to installing good quality windows, that will provide overall value for money? · Can the Council guarantee full consultation with Essex Place residents and the Residents Association when this work is eventually done? |
|
Response |
|
Currently there is no window replacement programme planned for Essex Place in the next five years. In 2014 the windows and louvres to the north and west elevations were replaced, along with the balconies being enclosed with glazing and windows to the south and east elevations were overhauled. The governments Decent Homes Standard provides that windows should last around 35 years before requiring replacement, so we would be preparing to replace them in 2049. Regarding repair wait times we have spoken to our contractors, and they are not aware of any outstanding repair requests at Essex Place however if there are any repairs that have not been attended to please contact the repairs help line. We recognise the importance of ventilating properties and our contractors only screw shut windows at Essex Place when the locking system is broken or dangerous. This is a temporary measure to ensure the health and safety of people around the property and is usually reversed within 14 days. Again, if tenants have been left with a window fixed shut, please report this to the repairs help desk. The council is always committed to providing value for money as well as quality for each of our projects. We appoint specialist consultants to specify the products to be used to ensure we are using the most appropriate technology. The coastal location of Essex Place which is exposed to the driving wind and rain (as are many of our other high rise buildings) does mean that elements of the windows such as the hinges and rubber seals do not always last as long as expected.
Our procurement for large projects is via the Orbis Partnership with two other local authorities, which ensures we have access to a wide range of competent contractors and suppliers.
As part of the formal consultation with residents and leaseholders, we are able to set up sample windows so residents can see and try out the new windows. This has been done for previous projects when residents had concerns about being able to easily open and close the window, reach the handles and wanted to be able to safely clean the outside of the windows.
|
|
Action |
A window survey can be undertaken by an independent consultant to a sample of windows on each elevation to determine the extent of wear and tear and remaining life expectancy. |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
East |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
10th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Jan Dowdell |
|
Officer job title |
Tenancy Services Operational Manager |
|
Contact Details |
janet.dowdell@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
Residents are not satisfied with how the Council are currently dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB).
|
|
Background |
Residents’ lives and well-being are severely impacted by increasing and persistent incidents of ASB, particularly in Whitehawk. Residents feel that the Council is not taking them seriously on this issue, and not taking responsibility or sufficient action. Residents in Whitehawk are dealing with a number of ASB issues - for example: · Tenants dealing drugs. · Frequent instances of Police being called in to deal with drug-related incidents · People with drug and alcohol problems and a history of ASB being housed into blocks of flats where a majority are elderly and/or vulnerable. · Children of residents and adult residents behaving inappropriately in communal areas of blocks – shouting abuse outside people’s doors, banging on people’s doors etc. · Tailgating – people entering blocks that they don’t live in by following closely behind residents · People buzzing to enter into blocks claiming they are the Police or delivering post. When tenants report incidents of ASB to the Council, and where CCTV footage is available, tenants are being told that the Council will not investigate incidents nor view the CCTV footage before the Police are informed. Tenants who live in blocks don’t have a door-entry system with a camera, which would allow them to check who was buzzing at their door before letting them in.
|
|
Request or Question |
It was agreed to raise this at all Area Panels. · The Council’s current way of dealing with ASB is not effective. Residents want the Council to take a much more proactive and constructive approach to dealing with ASB. · Why are tenants who have been repeatedly reported for ASB, and in clear breach of their tenancy agreements, not being removed from the property? If the Council’s approach is not working to stop the ASB in the early stages, and the problem persists, then the process needs to be reviewed and further action must be taken. · Why are people with a history of ASB / drug / alcohol issues being re-homed in a block which also houses a large population of elderly and vulnerable people? The Council needs to take into consideration the existing community of residents when re-housing tenants to assess whether it’s appropriate.
|
|
Response |
|
It’s understandable that residents feel unhappy about seeing and experiencing ASB and criminal activity in the area they live.
We work in partnership with police and other partners within the safer community’s partnership to manage situations but understand that we are not always able to provide quick solutions and the activity can be ongoing for a period of time.
As with any investigation work, we rely on reporters providing us with facts and evidence to build a case and understand a proportionate response to find lasting solutions.
· The Council’s current way of dealing with ASB is not effective. Residents want the Council to take a much more proactive and constructive approach to dealing with ASB.
Complaints about nuisance and ASB are managed by our Area Housing Teams who initiate an investigation into the alleged behaviour. The aim and purpose of the investigation is to use whatever powers and support measures are needed to bring an end to the ASB/nuisance. This can take some time depending on the nature of the case and people involved.
The actions depend completely on the facts of that case and the intention is to create solutions which are appropriate for that individual situation using a combination of enforcement and support measures which are intended to alter a person's behaviour and bring an end to the nuisance being caused to other people. The reason for this approach is that it can produce more sustainable and long-term solutions and it is an expectation of the court should we present a case before them.
So far this year we have recorded the following formal actions - Closure orders – 1 Community Protection Warnings – 10 Community Protection Notices – 4 Cuckoo case – 5 Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) - 8 Injunctions - 1
This does not include informal warnings which are the first step in most ASB/Nuisance case.
· Why are tenants who have been repeatedly reported for ASB, and in clear breach of their tenancy agreements, not being removed from the property? If the Council’s approach is not working to stop the ASB in the early stages, and the problem persists, then the process needs to be reviewed and further action must be taken.
A council tenant can only be removed (evicted) from their secure tenancy by the court. Before a case can be taken to court to request an order to evict a tenant, officers are required to show the court measures they have taken and what tools they have used to bring about a change in behaviour. They want to see that officers have given the tenant a chance to amend their ways. They will also want to see that we have provided supportive measures where needed to help a tenant change the behaviour that’s causing concern.
Eviction has to be the last resort and will only be pursued where other powers have been explored and failed to bring a lasting change.
We require reporters to work with us to build a picture of the situation, gather factual evidence and sometimes be prepared to provide witness statements and attend court. We rely on presenting facts for all legal interventions and work closely with the Police where crimes such as drug dealing are present.
· Why are people with a history of ASB / drug / alcohol issues being re-homed in a block which also houses a large population of elderly and vulnerable people? The Council needs to take into consideration the existing community of residents when re-housing tenants to assess whether it’s appropriate.
Some people are excluded from the Housing Register but not all with a history of ASB/drug or alcohol issues are. The council allocates its homes through the published allocation policy.
We do have a Sensitive lets policy which is used in exceptional situations but it's not possible for us to request sensitive lets for all situations where there has been or is ongoing ASB. |
|
Action |
|
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
East |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
10th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Jonathan Pyle |
|
Officer job title |
Environmental Services Manager |
|
Contact Details |
jonathan.pyle@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
The overall quality of service provided by City Clean is not up to standard. Across the city, there are issues of missed bin collections and rubbish left strewn on the streets after a bin collection. Residents of Brighton & Hove are paying for this service through their Council tax. They deserve a better service.
|
|
Background |
N/A
|
|
Request or Question |
It was agreed to raise this at all Area Panels. · Residents would like to know who is currently in charge of City Clean – is it managed directly in-house by the Council, or has the service been tendered out?
|
|
Response |
|
CityClean is part of the Council and therefore is an in-house service.
|
|
Action |
N/A |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
East |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
10th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Damian Rowland |
|
Officer job title |
Asbestos Manager |
|
Contact Details |
damian.rowland@brighton-hove.gove.uk |
|
Issue |
Asbestos is only removed from properties after a tenant has moved out or died.
|
|
Background |
A North Whitehawk resident reported a high incidence of deaths from cancer in the tower blocks in the area recently, and queried whether there is some correlation between the cancers and the asbestos widely present in the tower blocks. The asbestos is only removed once the property is vacant. While it is understood that asbestos is not hazardous until it is disturbed by building works, there is a concern that if a resident were to drill a hole to put a picture up on their wall, for example, they would be exposed to asbestos dust.
|
|
Request or Question |
It was agreed to raise this at all Area Panels. · Why aren’t the Council automatically removing asbestos from all their properties? · Are Council residents warned about the presence of asbestos in their homes, informed about where the asbestos is located, and given clear instructions of what not to do?
|
|
Response |
|
BHCC has standard advice for tenants on our website and within the repair’s handbook regarding the potential for asbestos within the home which is as follows:
“As a tenant you should be aware that there may be asbestos in your home. However, it's only dangerous when it is disturbed and fibres are released into the air.
This can happen when it is cut, sanded, or drilled, which is why it is important that you contact us for permission before starting any improvements.”
Tenants are also able to request any asbestos surveys that may have been conducted historically to their property, if available, these are provided free of charge.
All buildings built before the year 2000 have the potential to have asbestos. Asbestos use in the built environment was common throughout the UK during the construction and building period of the 1940s-1980s. Asbestos, being a fibrous silicate mineral, is also widespread in the natural environment.
The presence of asbestos containing materials does not itself present a significant risk to health, if the material remains in good condition. The standard advice from the Health and Safety Executive is to leave these items in situ if they remain in good condition. Information regarding the asbestos within your home can also be found on the HSE website Asbestos in the home (hse.gov.uk) - https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/home.htm
BHCC acknowledge our responsibility under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, specifically regulation 4, the duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. BHCC regularly undertake inspection of all known asbestos items within communal areas through a re-inspection program undertaken by UKAS accredited consultants. The 2023-2024 re-inspection program has been conducted to all managed housing blocks, with any necessary actions taken to ensure any asbestos containing items remain in good condition.
Work to remove asbestos containing materials from within domestic properties is time consuming, highly disruptive, and invasive. When a domestic property becomes vacant, BHCC have taken the approach of surveying and removing most of the identified asbestos containing materials, or enclosing others such as textured coatings to ceilings that are deemed very low risk, prior to a property being reoccupied. All of this is undertaken by a licensed asbestos removal contractor and standards of any licensed asbestos material removal is confirmed by an independent UKAS accredited Asbestos Analyst following all industry safety procedures and guidance.
If you are unsure about asbestos in your home, or require advice or guidance, please contact the Brighton and Hove City Council Help Desk on 0800 0526140 or 01273 294409. |
|
Action |
N/A |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
East |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ city wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
11th April |
|
Week of Area Panel |
10th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Janet Dowdell |
|
Officer job title |
Tenancy Services Operational Manager |
|
Contact Details |
janet.dowdell@brighton-hove.gove.uk |
|
Issue |
In Woodingdean, it seems that certain people have had access to discretionary payments to repair/replace their individual fencing, while other residents are told that this is not something the Council will currently repair and is the individual’s responsibility. Bids for individual fencing are also not allowed via the Estate Development Budget.
|
|
Background |
N/A
|
|
Request or Question |
It was agreed to raise this at all Area Panels. · Where is the money for this discretionary fund coming from? · Why is the Council paying for fencing for some residents while others are told it is their responsibility?
|
|
Response |
|
· Where is the money for this discretionary fund coming from? The HRA budget.
· Why is the Council paying for fencing for some residents while others are told it is their responsibility? Although gardening, fencing and trees are outlined in the tenancy agreement as the tenant’s responsibility, there are circumstances in which discretionary housing funds can be used to help provide solutions for some council tenants.
The issue of unmaintained fencing can often cause distress to tenants especially where children or vulnerable people are affected by such neglect. There will be times where we will want to intervene and arrange the work ourselves.
The discretionary funds are very limited and the Area Housing Managers use their discretion for best use to maximise the impact for the neighbourhoods they work in.
The type of situations we will consider vary and depend on a number of factors but for example we would want to ensure a safe space for children to play by providing an effective boundary from a busy road. Enable a tenant to prevent their dog from escaping their garden to avoid tenancy breach situations or provide a secure environment for an elderly resident concerned about intrusion into their garden.
In all situations affordability checks are made by the team and a level of scrutiny around the circumstances before the landlord agrees to complete the work.
If there are situations you feel we should explore, please advise tenants to make contact with our Housing Customer Service Team who will carry out the initial assessment and referral.
Housingcustomerservices@brighton-hove.gov.uk or Tel: 01273 293030 |
|
Action |
N/A |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
North |
|
Star rating |
3 Star/ City wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
4th April 2024 |
|
Week of Area Panel |
10th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Janet Dowdell |
|
Officer job title |
Tenancy Services Operations Manager |
|
Contact Details |
janet.dowdell@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
Residents in Bates Estate, Hollingdean, Coldean, Highcroft Lodge all reported serious cases of ongoing anti-social behaviour and crime in the area, none of which are being dealt with – not by the Police, nor by the Council.
|
|
Background |
Resident reps are deeply concerned for the safety and mental well-being of residents in their areas. Hollingdean A flat has been cuckooed and taken over by young people who are dealing drugs on the estate. The group of young people are also committing burglaries and threatening, intimidating and attacking local residents. A resident reported that he was surrounded by a group of teenagers who threatened to set fire to his house and claimed they knew where he lived. St Richards Church & Community Centre was attacked on Good Friday: items were stolen and the property was vandalised. There is CCTV evidence of some of these incidents and resident reps have been keeping a log. These incidents have been reported. Promises have been made by Justine Harris (Brighton & Hove City Council) to deal with this, but nothing has happened so far. The Police have claimed there is insufficient evidence and have not followed up on the incidents. Bates Estate A resident was assaulted, stabbed and taken to hospital. There has been no attempt by the Police or the Council to check up on the resident or follow up on the assault. Coldean Local residents are being terrorised by some Council tenants dealing and taking drugs in the area. They have threatened to set fire to people’s homes, and a tenant also set fire to his own home. This has been reported in the local news (https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24206917.brighton-nightmare-neighbours-terrorise-people-street/) Neighbouring tenants are having nervous breakdowns as a result of this behaviour, and one of the victims has said he wants to kill himself. These tenants are clearly in breach of their tenancy agreement, but nothing is being done by the Council. Highcroft Lodge There are long-term noise management issues in the block. Notices have been put up but the problem persists. Rubbish and other things are being regularly thrown out of windows. This is anti-social behaviour that is extremely wearing for residents affected, and has major impacts over the long term on people’s mental health. Action: 1) Mireille to put Donna in touch with Craven Vale CA as they have dealt with a lot of anti-social behaviour in their area and may have useful information. 2) North area residents to pull together a list of all the ASB & criminal activity in their areas, and present jointly to the Police and the Council. 3) For dealing with minor crimes and offences, Donna suggested using the Immediate Justice scheme (https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/pcc-priorities/partnership-working/immediate-justice/). They are based at the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner Office. Contact number: 01273 481561
|
|
Request or Question |
It was agreed to raise the following questions at Area Panel: The Police and the Council should be working together to resolve issues of anti-social behaviour and crime. Both are responsible for residents’ safety. · How are the Council and Police working together to tackle anti-social behaviour and crime on estates? · Why has there been no support and no action taken to resolve the anti-social behaviour and crime issues affecting and reported by Council residents?
|
|
Response |
|
· How are the Council and Police working together to tackle anti-social behaviour and crime on estates?
A key aspect of managing ASB casework is multi agency working and experience has shown that joint working with other agencies and partners substantially increases the likelihood of effective action.
We work alongside Sussex Police in many cases and have joint case meetings. We also work with any other appropriate organisation including for example: Environmental Health (noise), Brighton and Hove Youth Offending Team, Community Safety Team, Brighton and Hove Mediation Service, Community Mental Health Team, Social Services, Health Authorities, Drug and alcohol services and Probation.
How we work together depends on the individual case but includes formal contact, sharing of information, joint visits, case conferences and joint action plans.
· Why has there been no support and no action taken to resolve the anti-social behaviour and crime issues affecting and reported by Council residents?
Complaints about nuisance and ASB are managed by our Area Housing Teams who initiate an investigation into the alleged behaviour. The aim and purpose of the investigation is to use whatever tools, powers and support measures are needed to bring an end to the ASB/nuisance. This can take some time depending on the nature of the case and people involved.
The actions depend completely on the facts of that particular case and the intention is to create solutions which are appropriate for that individual situation using a combination of enforcement and support measures which are intended to alter a person's behaviour and bring an end to the nuisance being caused to other people. The reason for this approach is that it can produce more sustainable and long-term solutions and it is an expectation of the court should we present a case before them.
So far this year we have recorded the following formal actions - Closure orders – 1 Community Protection Warnings – 10 Community Protection Notices – 4 Cuckoo case – 5 Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) - 8 Injunctions - 1
This does not include informal warnings which are the first step in most ASB/Nuisance case.
|
|
Action |
N/A |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
North |
|
Star rating |
3 Star/ City wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
4th April 2024 |
|
Week of Area Panel |
10th June |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Grant Ritchie |
|
Officer job title |
Head of Housing Repairs and Maintenance |
|
Contact Details |
grant.ritchie@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
The rules around the replacement of fencing, and what the Council is and isn’t responsible for, needs review.
|
|
Background |
Various residents reported a range of problems around the replacement of fencing. Issues raised: 1) There is a lack of clarity about who is responsible for boundary fencing between properties. Given that damage to boundary fencing can affect residents on both sides of the fence, but only one of the residents is responsible for its replacement, this can cause difficulties. · Jenny at Coldean has been struggling to get the boundary fence between her property and her neighbour’s property repaired. She does not know which resident is responsible for the repair. 2) There is a lack of consistency in what, when and for whom fencing is repaired by the Council (whether it’s a left or right boundary fence, whether it’s located at the front or back of the property etc). · Barbara in Moulsecoomb reported that it took ages for some boundary fencing to be repaired, and that the rules around fencing replacement and who is responsible for this are not clear. She was originally told that she would have to pay for the replacement herself, at a cost of £2,000. She was eventually successful in getting the fencing replaced as the fence had become a health and safety hazard and caused an obstruction, and because she was deemed to be ‘vulnerable’. 3) Council tenants cannot afford the cost of replacing fences. If they are to be responsible for fencing, a more affordable scheme should be available, e.g. “Rent a Fence” 4) Fencing can be crucial for ensuring tenants’ security and safety, and the Council should take this into account when considering whether fencing replacement is their responsibility or not. The Council is putting residents’ lives in danger by not repairing such fencing. The Council has a responsibility for the health and safety of their tenants. · Ian B in Hollingdean has had young people (see N3.1 about anti-social behaviour) entering onto his property via the back garden because the fence there has been damaged. These young people have been very aggressive and made threats of physical violence to him and Ian fears for his safety. He asked the Council to repair his fence but was told he would have to replace this at a cost of £1,500. He was also told to put up private CCTV. 5) More frequent instances of extreme weather and winds is increasing instances of damage to fencing. Are there options for alternatives, i.e. walls made of breeze block?
|
|
Request or Question |
It was agreed to raise the following at Area Panel: · What are the current rules and policies around repair/replacement of fencing around and between individual properties? What kind of fencing will the Council repair or replace, and under what circumstances and for whom? · Are there plans for a review of the rules and policies around fencing repair?
|
|
Response |
|
Thank you for your question. Currently the maintenance and repair of boundary fences are a tenant's responsibility. We will maintain fences to common areas such as gardens around blocks of flats. We will also repair fences when a property is empty and being refurbished for re-letting.
We are intending to review the works undertaken by the repairs service later in the year, however, we.do not currently have a firm date.
|
|
Action |
As above |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
West |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ City wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
18th April 24 |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June 24 |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Sam Nolan |
|
Officer job title |
Community Engagement Manager |
|
Contact Details |
sam.nolan@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
Residents’ Associations elect the person who they think is best suited to represent them in the Resident Engagement structure and at the Area Panel. This could be a council tenant, leaseholder, private tenant or homeowner. Whoever is entrusted with this role by their Association should be able to vote and participate fully at Area Panel and at other resident engagement meetings. |
|
Background |
At recent resident engagement meetings leaseholders and homeowners were told they were not able to vote as they are not Council tenants. There is some confusion about why the same representatives have been allowed to vote at previous meetings for some years and why there is a sudden change about this. People were also upset about the way this was raised at meetings, and that there was no communication or consultation before the meetings. |
|
Request or Question |
West Residents are asking that anyone who is the elected representative of their Association is allowed to vote and participate fully at Area Panels and other resident engagement meetings. |
|
Response |
|
Thank you for the question. In 2022/23 there was a detailed review of Area Panel that involved workshops with residents and an online survey, as well as input from the Housing leadership team. One of the outcomes of this work was to review the Area Panel Terms of Reference (TOR) which included looking at membership and voting. The new TOR agreed the Area Panel would be open to any tenant and that anyone from a Tenant & Residents Association (TRA) that was nominated by their TRA, could be a voting representative on Area Panel regardless of whether they were a tenant, leaseholder or private homeowner. The exception to this is voting on Estate Development Budget; it was agreed as part of the AP review that voters on EDB projects would be council tenants only. I have attached the Terms of Reference. |
|
Action |
N/A |
|
Start date |
N/A |
|
End date |
N/A. |
|
Area in city |
West |
|
Star rating |
3 star/ City wide issue |
|
Date question raised |
18th April 24 |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June 24 |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Sarah Carlisle |
|
Officer job title |
Operations Manager (West) |
|
Contact Details |
sarah.carlisle@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
There needs to be a better solution to deal with green waste from parks, communal gardens and green spaces. |
|
Background |
Grass cuttings and pruning are not collected and removed but are left scattered around. Sometimes this is part of a recycling/composting process which has some benefits but this does not work with larger pruning from bushes and trees. At Ingram Crescent branches have been thrown over the garden and they do not decompose but make the garden very untidy. |
|
Request or Question |
It was suggested that machines are used to mulch down larger
pruning and green waste. |
|
Response |
|
Cityparks do not collect grass arisings, grass shrivels up very quickly and blows away. Any that is left on the lawns is a nutrient.
Prunings are piled and periodically collected. We should not be composting prunings. If the arisings or prunings are from work that Cityparks gardeners have done, Cityparks should be removing them, and we will speak to our gardening team who cover Ingram Crescent to check that is the case. |
|
Action |
As above |
|
Start date |
|
|
End date |
|
|
Area in city |
West |
|
Star rating |
2 star/ Local area issue |
|
Date question raised |
18th April 24 |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June 24 |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Keely McDonald |
|
Officer job title |
Senior Community Engagement Officer |
|
Contact Details |
keely.mcdonald@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
There is continuing dissatisfaction amongst West residents about changes to the Estate Development Budget process. There was also criticism of the way decisions were made at a recent meeting. |
|
Background |
· West residents have asked for evidence that proper consultation was carried out about changes to the Estate Development Budget terms and conditions, to include minutes and Area Panel reports. This has not been received.
·
Residents from West were invited to a recent EDB meeting, where the
allocation of grants was discussed. When they arrived they were
told they could not vote, either because they were not an elected
council tenant representative or they were not council tenants.
They did not feel able to participate properly in the debate and
wondered why they had been invited. |
|
Request or Question |
· Ask for requested information to be sent to the Chairs of the West Resident Only meetings (Muriel and Alison) · Ask for a meeting between West representatives and Keely McDonald and Sam Warren, where these issues can be properly aired and discussed (Muriel Briault is the contact for this). · Any unresolved issues to be raised at the next West Area Panel. |
|
Response |
|
I’m sorry to hear that there is dissatisfaction about the Estate Development Budget (EDB) process. I can confirm that at the recent EDB decision making panel for West held on 13 March 2024 to decide on main bids, there was enough remaining of the amount allotted to the West area to ensure each bid was able to receive funding. As is the case when this happens, the attendees agreed that there was no need to hold a formal vote and each bid would be discussed in detail with a consensus of the room being taken to confirm there were no objections to the funding being awarded. All attendees were encouraged to ask questions of the bids to ensure the bids were robust and ensured good value in delivering projects which would benefit tenants and leaseholders. In line with the Area Panel Terms of Reference, any voting to be made in awarding EDB funding is the role of council tenants only. As there was no vote held, all contributions were equal and there were discussions held which all members participated in.
There is no quorum for the Panel meetings and we welcome all representatives to take part in the meetings to award funding to EDB bids.
I have contacted Muriel to arrange a meeting to further discuss these issues as requested as soon as possible.
|
|
Action |
Arrange meeting with Muriel Briault and other West representatives to discuss the points raised.
|
|
Start date |
21/05/2024 |
|
End date |
18/06/2024 |
|
Area in city |
West |
|
Star rating |
2 star/ Local area issue |
|
Date question raised |
18th April 24 |
|
Week of Area Panel |
17th June 24 |
|
Deadline for officer response |
Monday 13th May |
|
Name of officer responding |
Sam Nolan |
|
Officer job title |
Community Engagement Manager |
|
Contact Details |
sam.nolan@brighton-hove.gov.uk |
|
Issue |
The following feedback was given on the March West Area Panel, which was held in the conference room at Hove Town Hall. · The sound was bad: the majority of residents present at the meeting were not able to properly hear reports or contributions. The hearing system was on quiet and the microphones were also on quiet. · The presentation of reports was so rushed that residents couldn’t take in what was on one slide before the next one appeared. This meant they missed a large amount of the content and weren’t able to comment and felt that they had not been consulted in any meaningful way. The following suggestions were made: · Look at how the seating is set out and if this can be improved to make the sound clearer · Ask everyone to speak more slowly and clearly. · Look at how any hearing loops/aids are working and what can be done to improve them. · Ask the Chair and officers to ensure time is taken on reports and recognise that a lot of people attending are elderly and hard of hearing. · Think about the relationship between people on remote link and those actually present at the meeting and make sure communication is clear.
|
|
Background |
|
|
Request or Question |
Ask for this feedback to be taken into account when organising the next Area Panel. |
|
Response |
|
Firstly, apologies that all the above were issues that impacted on how residents would participate in the last Area Panel meeting. This is definitely not what we want as involvement from residents is vital to housing and the improvement of services. Secondly, thank you for the helpful feedback, all the points will be taken on and put in place for the next round of Area Panels and all other meetings. We will have a check list of points so anyone setting up the meeting can check accessibility for all. |
|
Action |
Sam Nolan
|
|
Start date |
May 2024 |
|
End date |
June 2024 |