Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)       Petitions: to receive any petitions presented to the full council or at the meeting itself;

 

(b)       Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the  10 January 2019;

 

(c)   Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 10 January 2019.

 

(a)  Petitions        

 

51.1     There were no petitions.

 

(b)  Questions

 

51.2     Michael Jenkins asked the following question:

 

“I am deeply grateful for the home that I am given to live in, and I love where I live.

The Outdoors Condition of Stanmer Heights breaks my Heart and deeply saddens me.

Each Year, all the people who live in Stanmer Heights pay £670,000, for living there.

Please can The Chair and The Executive Director, of Brighton and Hove City Council Housing create A Care Plan for Stanmer Heights, please, so that during this year everything is made nice in Stanmer Heights, and please can I assist you with the attention to detail needed for this Care Plan?”

                    

51.3     The Chair replied as follows: 

        “The Housing team would love to hear your ideas for ways the outdoor areas of Stanmer Heights can be improved.  Resident involvement is at the heart of everything we do in Housing. There are many ways residents can get involved in decision making and planning. We have Local Area Panels, the City Conference, and the Estates Development Panel. I have passed your question to our Resident Involvement Team who will be in touch with you to arrange a meeting so that we can hear your ideas. Your idea of having a Care Plan for a specific area is an interesting one which the Housing team would also like to explore.”

 

51.4     Mr Jenkins asked the following supplementary question as follows:

 

            “Please may I make a series of appointments with the Chair and the Executive Director over the coming weeks in order to begin to address all these concerns for the condition of Stanmer Heights.”

 

51.5     The Chair replied that she was sure that the Executive Director would be very keen to meet up with Mr Jenkins. As there was an election pending the Chair was not the best person to contact.

 

51.6     RESOLVED- That the Public Question be noted.

 

51.7     Jane Thorp on behalf of Graham Dawes asked the following question:

 

“At the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing on Leasehold Reform, on December 10, Executive Director, Larissa Reed, stated that there have been 500 leaseholder disputes over 10 years, and the council has “taken only four to tribunal....It is healthy.” There are 2380 leaseholders, so 500 represents 21%.  If 21% of leaseholders have shown extreme dissatisfaction, why is this considered healthy? My question is limited to 100 words so please limit your answer to 100 words?”

 

51.8     The Chair stated that if Ms Thorp wanted a full response it would not be limited to 100 words. She replied as follows: 

 

“Larissa Reed, gave oral evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s leasehold reform inquiry. She said that over the last ten years, due to the effectiveness of our own internal Leaseholders Disputes Procedure, the council had only attended four tribunal hearings over service charge disputes.

 

That is a creditable record.

 

The point Larissa was making was about the effectiveness of our own efforts to resolve disputes between the parties. I’m sure you would agree that a robust and successful disputes procedure that minimises the extent to which we need to seek external formal adjudication is a ‘healthy’ position to be in.

 

I would also challenge your interpretation of the statistics. Dealing with 500 service charge disputes over the course of 10 years does not mean that 21% of leaseholders have shown ‘extreme dissatisfaction’.

 

50 service charge disputes a year represents less than 2% of leaseholders challenging items or costs they find in their annual charge.

 

Service charge disputes can cover a wide variety of issues. For instance, our Leasehold Team verify over 5,000 individual common way repairs jobs every year. With the best will in the world, no operation on this scale can be undertaken without challenges to costs contained within the service charge. On top of this, by no means are all disputes sustained. And many are resolved quite harmoniously, without contention.”

 

51.9     As a supplementary question Ms Thorp asked “given that a dispute process is a formal and recorded process could we not have some figures that are not massaged, that are real about what actually goes on with disputes with leaseholders because we do not receive any of that information.”  

 

51.10  The Chair replied that she was sure figures could be sent to Ms Thorp but she also assured Ms Thorp that she had every faith in officers not to lie which was what was being suggested.

 

51.11  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.12 Jane Thorp asked the following question:

 

“In every case, until quite recently, major works undertaken on Brighton & Hove estates have done everything -windows, roofs, doors, cladding, cavity wall insulation - all at once, regardless of the need for the works, and without any consideration of the impact on the leaseholders who have to pay such high bills. As a simple example, a building survey on a block of 15 flats costs a cool £5000 - one survey. Why has this abuse of leaseholders been allowed? My question is limited to 100 words so please limit your answer to 100 words?”

 

51.13    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“It is not correct to say that the council has carried out all the works listed in your question at the same time in every case. However, when we are looking at blocks – particularly where scaffolding is a large cost - it is prudent to consider what works may need to be undertaken over the next few years. The council is extremely mindful of the impact on leaseholders and will look at options to spread works over a number of years where this is possible.

 

You have given an example of a building survey cost of £5,000. The council will estimate costs of surveys to ensure that tenants and leaseholders are aware of all of the elements of a project. However, any survey which is required will be tendered through the council’s Dynamic Purchasing System for building consultancy. This involves asking a large number of providers to tender for the survey work. This competitive process ensures we achieve the best value for money for the council, tenants and leaseholders.”

 

51.14    Ms Thorp replied that she had contacted a surveyor herself for one block which has 32 flats and not 15 and that one block for a full specification survey would cost £1,200 in his estimation.That was a far cry from the £5,000 quoted for a block of 15 flats. Ms Thorp stated that her question still stands as it had not been answered.

 

51.15  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.16 Dave Croydon asked the following question:

 

“At the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing on Leasehold Reform, on December 10, Executive Director, Larissa Reed, stated, “The highest bills are around £37,000”. There are estimates in existence for £39,000, £40,000, and £46,000. Acceptably these were estimates, not bills - not yet. This is known as bending the facts. Why can the council not acknowledge their own estimates?

 

51.17    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“I disagree entirely with your description of ‘bending the facts’. An invoice or bill is not the same thing as an estimate. Very far from it. For major works the council and Mears establish an ‘Agreed Maximum Price’. Many high cost works end up lower than the estimated cost. Sometimes much lower. We are happy to acknowledge estimated costs we make. But this is simply not what was asked of Larissa at the evidence session.”

 

51.18  Mr Croydon replied that he thought that the whole truth should be told. Selecting facts to fit a question to make the council look in a better light than perhaps it was - was spin. He asked if he could look forward one day to not have to listen to this spin.

 

51.19  The Chair thanked Mr Croydon for his question. His comments were noted.

 

51.20  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.21    Tony Camps-Linney asked the following question:

“At Crown Hill, a block of 16 flats, a cost estimate has been provided of £46,774 per leaseholder. There is no building survey in existence for this block and the estimate is based on two other blocks on the estate that had surveys done 5 years ago. This estimate will be quoted by the council for conveyancing searches. The 5 year old surveys were obtained by leaseholders on a Freedom of Information request. The council did not offer them when asked for information. Is this early consultation?

 

51.22    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Leaseholders from Crown Hill have asked a number of questions at Area Panels, this committee and directly to council officers regarding their concerns around potential works to the estate over recent months. Council officers attended a meeting organised by the residents association on November 21^st 2018 to answer questions and talk about the potential works. The council has been working to set out how it will engage with both tenants and leaseholders affected by potential works and has committed to engage transparently. The council has provided estimated costs as requested by the residents association and will work with the association to commission or carry out further surveys if required.”

 

51.23    Mr Camps-Linney asked the following supplementary question:

                                   

            “These figures quoted were provided after the meeting on the 21^st November”. Ms Thorp stated that the relevance of the question was that these figures had been provided since the meeting that the council had spoken about at length. The meeting was irrelevant to this question. The question was “why can the council not acknowledge their own estimates at the parliamentary select committee hearing.”      

 

51.24    The Head of Housing Strategy, Property & Investment explained that when officers had previously answered questions on this matter at Area Panels and in this Committee meeting, they had offered to meet with residents to run through what the estimated costs were, as residents did not understand where they had come from. Officers acknowledged that issue needed to be redressed. Officers then offered to procure an independent survey to re-look at all the works that were proposed on the estate. Officers had worked with residents and sent emails to the effect that a full re-estimate for the works would be carried out. Officers circulated this re-estimate and provided it to residents at the meeting.  A report had been provided for residents on how officers would be engaged going forward. Residents were given an undertaking at the meeting that there would be an independent survey to pare down the costs as to what they would be on a tendered basis. Officers also discussed how residents would want those works to proceed - whether they were carried out incrementally or all at once. That was still an open conversation. There was nothing in the budget for works on that estate. The conversation is all pre-budget and pre what was agreed. At the moment officers sought to outline where the estimates had come from and had undertaken to have an independent survey and had invited residents to be involved in the procurement process of the survey and also in the decisions around how the council will take forward the works - whether they were carried out all at once or element by element.

 

51.25    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.26    Charlotte Rogers was not in attendance at the meeting and the following question was taken as read:

 

“At the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing on Leasehold Reform, on December 10, Executive Director, Larissa Reed, stated, “We do provide all the evidence of leasehold charges if it is requested.” So, in the instance of the 5 year old surveys obtained on a Freedom of Information request, does this mean that we have to know about the existence of the information in order to request it? Because the surveys were not offered when we asked for costs. My question is limited to 100 words so please limit your answer to 100 words?”

 

51.27    The answer to the above question is as follows: 

“Larissa was asked about providing the evidence for the service charges we pass on. This relates to the accounts, receipts and other documents that support the charge that has been made. A structural survey is something entirely different from this obligation. If a survey leads to works being proposed at a building then the council has committed to working with tenants and leaseholders from the earliest stage, and this will include transparently sharing any structural condition report with tenants and leaseholders in the building affected who may wish to see it.”

 

51.28  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.29    Councillor Mears stated that it would be helpful if it could be made clear before the beginning of the meeting if people wanted to delegate another speaker to ask their question. This would avoid a great deal of misunderstanding. Councillor Mears suggested that when members of the public applied to ask a question through Democratic Services, there could be some process whereby they were asked if they wanted to delegate another person to ask their question.

 

51.30    Judith Watson asked the following question:

 

“What detailed arrangements have so far been made for forthcoming environmental impact assessment at the Whitehawk Hill JVP high rise development site? What are the dates for commencement and completion of the field work and presentation of the results? In detail, what kinds and categories of wildlife will be recorded and monitored?”

 

51.31    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“The Homes for Brighton & Hove Board has requested a review of the feedback from the public consultation, and a further review of technical, legal and viability issues concerning the development of the Whitehawk Hill site before any further environmental assessments are undertaken.  Once these reviews are complete, the Board will then consider what further assessments are required.  The development team therefore have not yet considered the commissioning of further ecological and environmental assessments or their timing and scope.”

 

51.32    Ms Watson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“The people of East Brighton have an enormous amount of knowledge of the ecology of Whitehawk Hill. There had been many studies conducted over the recent decades, not to speak of the centuries and millennia since Whitehawk Hill has been inhabited and as you know it goes back before Brighton itself. What practical steps are you taking to involve the community in the environmental impact assessment? (I am not talking about consultation)  

           

51.33    The Chair replied as follows:

 

“This is something that the Homes for Brighton & Hove Board will consider once this work is complete. The Board meets on a quarterly basis with the next meeting scheduled for March 2019. It will be up to them to decide how to progress”  

 

51.34    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.35    Dave Bangs asked the following question on behalf of Anne Glow:

“What will be the form of general public consultation on the forthcoming JVP site on the Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve and Race Ground? Who will be consulted and in what way? When will the consultation take place, in terms of its beginning and end? We are concerned with detail here and wish for the names of organisations and individuals who will be consulted, and details of the area over which the consultation will take place.”

51.36    The Chair replied as follows:     

“The Homes for Brighton & Hove Board have asked for the feedback from the first round of public consultation to be reviewed along with technical, legal and viability issues, before further consultation is planned or undertaken.  The form and target audience for future consultation will therefore not be agreed by the Board until this work has been completed.  The consultation approach used to date has involved public exhibitions of the design proposals, as well as web based information and an online survey. This has been targeted at local people and community groups.  If a planning application is submitted consultation will be undertaken with local residents and a number of statuary and non-statutory consultees.” 

51.37    As a supplementary question Mr Bangs remarked that Whitehawk Hill had local significance, regional significance and national significance and so the potential trawl of any kind of real consultation must involve consultation at all those levels. Mr Bangs was particularly interested in the kind of consultation the council would exercise with interested parties at a county level, a regional level and a national level. Could the Chair shed any light on that?

 

51.38    The Chair replied that she did not deal with Planning but as she understood the development team in planning did deal with county and national organisations. The Homes for Brighton & Hove Board will also consider this issue.  

 

51.39    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.40    Amanda Bishop asked the following question:

“What work, legal and administrative, has been done so far to remove the covenants over the Whitehawk Hill JVP housing site set up under the terms of the 1822 enclosure deed? Who is being consulted vis a vis this removal of the protective covenants? Has the local Access Forum been consulted? Have concerned local, regional and national recreational, sports and access organisations, such as the Open Spaces Society, been consulted, and, if so, which ones? If they have not yet been consulted, then which organisations and individuals are to be consulted?”

51.41  The Chair replied as follows: 

“The council has commissioned an external legal review of the 1822 enclosure deed which has advised that whilst there are covenants that affect the area, they should not prevent development of this site. 

The project is at an early stage and the Board has asked for a review of the first round of public consultation before further work is commissioned, work on identifying further consultees has not yet been undertaken.  A number of consultees are potentially consulted through the planning process including:

·       County Ecology

·       County Landscape Architect

·       County Archaeology

·       Ancient Monument Society

·       Brighton & Hove Archaeological Society

·       City Parks

·       Council for British Archaeology

·       Environment Agency

·       Historic England

·       Natural England

·       South Downs National Park Authority

·       South Downs Society

·       Sport England

51.42  As a supplementary question, Ms Bishop stated that the Chair had not really answered the first question about the 1822 enclosure deed but had just said it was being dealt with.  How far had the covenant been overturned?

 

51.43  The Chair replied that she had answered the question and had stated that the council had commissioned an external legal review of the 1822 Enclosure Deed which has advised that whilst there are covenants that affect the area, they should not prevent development of this site. As soon as further information was known to the Board then that could be made public.

 

51.44  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.45 Maria Garrett-Gotch asked the following question:

 “The minutes of the last Housing Committee stated: "Question Item 38.40: (in reference to Whitehawk Hill) in response to a question on the Hyde/BHCC proposed property development the Chair said “Public consultation has taken place on all three sites with planning applications due by the end of this year."   Upon what basis was this claim made?  In detail, what was the nature of the public consultation?”

51.46    The Chair replied as follows:     

 

“Public consultation has been undertaken on the first three sites proposed to be taken forward by Homes for Brighton & Hove.   This has included public exhibitions of the proposed designs held in local community rooms, as well as an online consultation with a web site showing the designs and an online questionnaire.  For these events flyers were posted to local households and posters put up in the local area.  The projects in Coldean and Portslade are at a more advanced stage so an additional public consultation event and online consultation has been held with the updated designs following changes to the design in response to the first round of consultation. 

 

For the Coldean Lane site the team held a public exhibition in The Larches Cafe, Coldean on 16th and 17th of July with exhibition boards showing early design proposals for the and a questionnaire available for members of the public to complete. These were also made available online. A follow up event was held at the same venue on the 4th of October with the revised plans which were also made available online.  Consultation on this proposal is also taking place through the statutory planning process.

 

For the former Belgrave Centre site the team held a public exhibition in The City Coast Centre, Portslade on 18th and 19th of July with exhibition boards showing early design proposals and a questionnaire was available for members of the public to complete. These were also made available online. A follow up event was held at the same venue on the 3rd of October with the revised plans which were also made available online.  Consultation on this proposal is also taking place through the statutory planning process.

 

For the site in north Whitehawk the team held a public exhibition in the Valley Social Centre on 10th and 11th of October showing early design proposals which were also made available online.  The applications for the Coldean and Portslade proposals are at a more advanced stage and planning applications were registered in December.  The Homes for Brighton & Hove Board have asked that the feedback from the consultation is reviewed, along with further review of technical, legal and viability issues. No further public consultation will be planned or take place until this work has been completed.”

 

51.47    As a supplementary question Ms Garrett-Gotch firstly stated that her question related to Whitehawk Hill and not Coldean. With regard to the consultation of the Whitehawk Hill development she asked how public it was and how it was publicised. As a local resident Ms Garrett-Gotch stated she had not received any invitation to it. Neither did she know of any local residents or any local people in the area who had received any form of email, seen any public notice/flyer, or been invited to the consultation. Ms Garrett-Gotch asked the Chair who exactly it was from the local community that she had invited.  

 

51.48    The Chair replied that in relation to Coldean, Ms Garrett-Gotch had asked in detail what was the nature of public consultation. In order to be transparent she was given the detail for all three sites. (At this point Ms Garrett-Gotch left the Chamber).

 

51.49    The Executive Director stated that an independent public relations company had leafleted all of the area of Whitehawk. The consultation events were well attended by Councillors and members of the public. The events were also advertised online and posters were put up in the Whitehawk Centre.   Officers did know that people often did not come to consultation events like this, but the events were well advertised and a good number of local people attended the events.     

         

51.50    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.51    Jim Deans asked the following question:

“In Sept 2018 the Chair announced the Buying Back Former Council House Scheme "A two-bedroom flat and three-bedroom house have been purchased and are already providing new homes for families. Three more flats are in the process of being bought and offers have been made on two other flats." A month later the council’s newsletter states "9 new homes have been brought back into stock"

How many new homes have been completed & how many families/individuals have moved into them.

What was the purchase price individually.

What was the cost in bringing up to "move in standard" 

Are these properties set at "Social Rent"?”

 

51.52    The Chair replied as follows: 

           

“Thank you for your questions relating to buying back former council properties and the answers are as follows:

 

·                  8 properties have been brought back into council ownership – 5 are to be used as general needs and 3 for temporary accommodation.  5 of these properties have now been let to households.

 

·                 The properties back in council ownership cost £152,386,  £237,000,  £177,000, £225,000, £245,000, £205,000, £175,000 and £250,000.

 

·                 Refurbishment costs varies according to individual properties but so far £29,507 has been charged to date.

 

·                 None of the properties are let at a social rent.  Each property is assessed against different rent levels to determine which rent levels would ensure the purchase is viable.  To date the general needs properties have been let at Living Wage 37.5% Rent and temporary accommodation at Temporary accommodation Housing Benefit rates.”

 

51.53    Mr Deans asked the following supplementary question.

 

The homeless numbers are growing. The numbers in temporary accommodation are growing. The city housing plan shows a large deficit of housing just to deal with the natural population growth. It seems clear that some major house building project must be taken on directly with the council to guarantee social and affordable rents. Would this Committee today agree it is time for a crisis meeting to be held between Brighton professionals and the community to join together as an idea think tank? This could possibly avoid the demonstrations we have seen today over the Whitehawk suggested development.” 

         

51.54    The Chair replied that she did understand Mr Deans’ concerns about the housing situation in the City. It was extreme and that was why the council had gone into partnership with Homes for Brighton & Hove and with Hyde Housing. The council did understand that more affordable homes were needed in the city. The rented homes on those properties would be at 37.5% of income. The council were constantly talking to all the organisations it worked with. The council would be regularly reviewing how this was progressed.          

 

51.55    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

51.56    Jill Flowers asked the following question:

"Hidden homes project, Council news letter dated 6 Nov 2018 states "The Hidden Homes project refurbishing and converting under-used and unused spaces in our housing buildings into new homes. Nine new homes have been completed so far, with a further six due to be ready this financial year and around 30 more in the pipeline."

What are the addresses of the 9 new homes,

Are they 1,2,3 bedroom

how many are now occupied

what has the cost been on the project so far

are the rents set at social rent.” 

51.57    The Chair replied that the council had delivered 9 homes on the Hidden Homes Project although the Council had delivered 8 on the new home purchase policy which was about buying back leasehold properties. She further replied as follows: 

           

As reported at November 2018 committee; 9 homes had been completed under the hidden homes programme to date as follows.

 

Location	Unit number	Bedroom number
St James House, high street, Brighton	3	1,2 & 3
Normanhurst, Grove bank Brighton	2	2
Rugby place, Brighton	2	4 & 5
Whichelo Place, Brighton	1	4
Lewes Road, Brighton	1	3

 

The costs incurred on the project to date are £1.012m

This type of project which utilises existing space and/ or buildings owned by the council which  represents value for money and enables new homes to be created at social rent levels. All the properties are now occupied.

 

51.58    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

(c)  Deputations

 

51.59    RESOLVED:-

There were no deputations.