Agenda item - Residents Question Time

-       15:45

-       25 Minutes

Responses to items raised at the Tenant Only Meeting held on 26.03.24

7. RESIDENTS QUESTION TIME                                                            39-60

7.1 C3.1 Regarding cleaning standards at Craven Vale. RJ & Craven Vale representatives made clear they thought the answer to be unsatisfactory. Chloe Mclaughlin confirmed they would follow up individually to action. Residents suggested methods to alleviate their concerns.

7.2 C3.2 Regarding the Hampshire Court roof replacement. GG provided a verbal explanation of the answer given and noted it was in the 2025-6 programme and the carpark would be brought into 24-25 if possible due to structural issues, hopefully bringing the block into the programme for next year as opposed to 26-27. Residents queried how vulnerable residents would access their own vehicles due to larger residents’ vehicles, also noted a lack of disabled spaces, they also queried options under review for rebuild. GG confirmed there was no fire risk, with regard to disabled spaces that it was being considered for the works programme, with a paper released the previous week regarding the matter.

7.3 C3.3 Regarding the Housing Budget Consultation. ES noted the item was too large for C-HAP and needed a separate meeting. GR referred to the fact that C-HAP no longer was attached to committees and changes in governance had led to a gap in consultation. Residents raised that they would prefer a separate meeting regarding the consultation due to the intensity and depth of the subject. Panel agreed unanimously, officers confirmed area based for budget. RJ noted that consultation should include leaseholders not just tenants.

7.4 Sam Warren (SW) suggested earlier engagement before area-based meeting to take conversations to tenancy associations to gather widest range of views. GR affirmed this and noted budget considerations began in September ahead of February decision. Hannah Barker (HB) suggested meeting with resident only & co-chairs to consider timeline to ensure there was not missed engagement/consultation.

7.5 C3.4 Regarding windows in Essex Place. ES confirmed no works done during their residency, noted repair backlog, and requested full survey for Essex Place, they also noted not just Essex Place would be requesting survey. GG confirmed plan for a survey was in place. GR affirmed that the contractor for windows should not have that much of a backlog. RJ raised queries regarding Orbis partnership framework and how this impacted procurement and how planned works were impacted by this– GG clarified on this.

7.6 PB raised similar concerns for residents in other blocks such as Warwick Mount, affirmed this was concentrated and not the entire building. Somerset Place Residents raised concerns regarding newly installed doors malfunctioning, and queried if materials to be used were in the spec. GG confirmed this. RJ raised concerns that Craven Vale residents were raising concerns of newly installed windows and doors not being able to deal with the weather.