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 7 June 2018;

 

(c)   Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 7 June 2018.

 

Petitions

 

5.1       There were no petitions. 

 

Questions

 

5.2       Barry Hughes asked the following question on behalf of Jane Thorp:

 

Park Court

“Residents at Park Court flats were given an estimate for a replacement roof in 2014 of £30,000. In 2018, the work is being done and the cost is £70,000. How is it that a cost can rise by more than 100% in such a short space of time?”

 

5.3       The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. There has been no question that the roof at Park Court requires replacement.  As part of our commitment to more openly engage with leaseholders we have been sharing our costs for this work prior to our formal consultation.  Our present cost for Park Court roofing works as an Agreed Maximum Price is £70,160.00; this cost includes works to balconies.  It needs to be made clear that this price is an estimated maximum and actual final billed costs may be lower.  This follows a formal tendering exercise and checks on costs made by council quantity surveyors. 

The Agreed Maximum Price is based on tender responses checked by our quantity surveyors.  Earlier estimates made some years ago were based on different specifications and a view of market availability of contractors and / or rates at that time.

I understand that observations on this cost received to date from a surveyor acting on behalf of a leaseholder has commented on the inclusion of balconies in these works but not on costs of roof replacement or the necessity of works.”

 

5.4       RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.5       Maria Garrett-Gotch asked the following question on behalf of John Hadman:

 

Solar Panels on Council Property

“Households across the UK had money added to their energy bill to be used to improve efficiency of homes.

I would like to know when a council property or home is built or improved, why solar panels are not put in place.

This would provide many savings, lowering energy bills for tenants and lowering energy bills for the running of council properties. Hove Town Hall is one example of a recent renovation which has not taken the opportunity to reinstall solar panels.

What are the Councils plans around ensuring this money and environment saving solution is taken up and how are such plans to be an integral part of the HRA Energy strategy?”

 

5.6       The Chair replied as follows: 

“Thank you for your question. The Council has a track record of successfully installing solar panels on our housing stock, with approximately 400 installs in place. These have been funded in part by the feed in tariff.As the subsidy has reduced the programme of install on existing properties has had to be slowed down. However, we are continuing to look at ways to carry out installs that maximise the benefits to residents and prove to be value for money for the Council, we have recently been successful in applying for EU funding for the Solarise project that will allow us to explore, through 3 pilot installations, different technological solutions to help us examine this. This approach is aligned to the recently approved HRA Energy Strategy which aims to tackle high and increasing energy costs for residents. Solar panels are installed on new builds where feasible, such as the recently opened Kite Place where a large array has been installed.

 

I am advised that there was an additional 15KW array installed at Hove Town Hall when it was refurbished, bringing the total capacity to 43KW.”

       

5.7     RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

           

5.8       David Croydon asked the following question:

 

Housing computer system

“May I ask why the IT procurement report does not mention the fact that a software professional of some 40 years experience, along with another tenant also with some decades experience, offered to help in the scoping of the new system through the Business & Value for Money SIG and that this input was refused?”

 

5.9       The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. You are correct that the report does not specifically say that support was offered by a leaseholder. I was, however disappointed that you feel that tenants and leaseholders are not involved with the IT procurement. We are working closely with the Business and Value for money Service Improvement Group to identify what tenants and leaseholders want from the new service and will have tenants and a leaseholder on the panel to evaluate the bids, test the system and will be involved in letting the contract. In addition we have accepted the kind offer of a leaseholder who has significant IT experience to work alongside our technical teams in relation to the technical side of the contract.”

 

5.10   RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.11   Sophie Hudson asked the following question on behalf of Steve Parry:

 

Independent review of existing partnering contract for housing repairs, maintenance, planned and major works

“This report and the full publication of the 31ten report are to be welcomed.

There are, however, questions (of many) that require attention at this stage; will the Committee agree

·         That discussion at this meeting is the start of a process that involves the widest possible number of residents, councillors, and experts with a final response made at a future meeting?”

 

5.12     The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for welcoming the report and the publication of the review.

 

As agreed following reports to Housing & New Homes Committee, the council undertook to commission a review of the Repairs & Improvement Partnership to identify improvements that would benefit the partnership, residents and stakeholders. The review included consideration of the current working arrangements, reporting processes and interactions between Council and Mears staff and potential recommendations as to how the partnership can be improved and strengthened moving forward.

 

These recommendations and progress against them are detailed in the action plan appended to the report.

 

In addition to sharing this report and its recommendations with Housing & New Homes Committee, the report is clear that the review will be shared with the Partnership Core Group, including residents, for consideration along with the agreed action plan and ongoing review.”

 

5.13   RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.14     Charles Harrison asked the following question on behalf of Clare Hudson:

 

The future of repairs and maintenance of council properties

“This report provides the remarkable and eye-opening revelation that “The primary options detailed in the report are set out as follows:

Direct delivery of the services

Outsourcing

Wholly-Owned Subsidiary/Managed Service model

Joint Venture Company”

Would it be possible to explain why consultants are paid to tell councillors and residents something of which they are aware and why this agenda item is not part of item 11?”

 

5.15     The Chair replied as follows: 

 

          “Thank you for your question. The budget for and procurement of resources to support consideration of options for the future delivery of housing repairs and maintenance once the Mears contract ends were agreed by Committee for inclusion in the 2018/19 Housing Revenue Account Budget.

 

The delivery of an effective repairs, planned maintenance and capital works service is hugely important to all councillors and residents. The independent review of the current contract was clear that the council needs to carefully consider all available options before making a decision on how the service should be delivered in the future.  All parties have been effectively engaged with the programme to date and have met with the consultants supporting this work to ensure that all the options available are fully understood and assessed.

 

The consideration of delivery options do have significant legal, financial and procurement implications and the consultants, alongside our own officers, have provided excellent input in these areas alongside sharing their insight on the current market for these services through both their report and their discussions with the Procurement Advisory Board as detailed in Agenda Item 12 today.”

 

5.16     Mr Harrison asked the following supplementary question:

            “Are we right in assuming that there is a detailed specification for this report and a list of deliverables.” 

 

5.17   The Executive Director for Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing explained that there was not yet a detailed specification for what would be going forward. This was because the council were working with tenants, leaseholders, trade unions, technical staff and councillors to come up with that detailed specification.  There would be a report submitted to a future committee which would detail options on delivery. However the report which Mr Harrison referred to (agenda item 11) was about the current council contract. Agenda item 12 set out what the council were intending to do with consultation and the position statement going forward. The council did not yet have the information Mr Harrison requested because officers were still working with residents to define what that specification looked like. 

 

5.18    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.19     Nicky Harrison asked the following question on behalf of Kenny Lloyd:

 

Borrowing to build

“Could the committee please explain why a potential £30 million permitted within the amount allowed by the current government limits is not being accessed by B&HCC?”

 

5.20     The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. As at 1^st April 2018, the HRA had an estimated £31m of permitted borrowing ‘headroom’. The council has been developing its capacity to deliver new homes and has now successfully delivered 11 new build projects; with further projects onsite, in planning and at the design stage. 

The Council is developing a pipeline of projects for the next phase of the programme and undertaking initial assessment and feasibility analysis of sites.  These plans have been reported to the Estate Regeneration Member Board and the potential to increase delivery capacity in the Estate Regeneration and Housing teams is also being actively considered.

With the prospect the HRA cap being lifted and some Members concerns at the higher cost of delivering smaller constrained sites, officers are developing the direct pipeline further with a focus of larger sites (10 homes and over). This work is ongoing and projects will be reported into the Board as they progress. Current schemes in progress and pipeline schemes will mean that the HRA breaches its borrowing cap beyond 2022/23 and will need to bid for borrowing levels to be increased, once the Government announces the method for doing so.”

           

5.21    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.22     Sophie Hudson asked the following question on behalf of Daniel Harris:

 

          Evictions from Emergency Accommodation

“Could you confirm the breakdown showing the accommodation providers responsible for the following evictions?

1. 1/4/17–30/6/17 (Reported 7 cases) and the same for previous period. (Reported 9 cases)

2. 1/7/17 –30/9/17 - (Reported 7 cases) and the same for previous period. (Reported 8 cases)

3. 1/10/17 –31/12/17 - (Reported 9 cases) and the same for previous period. (Reported 12 cases)

4. 1/1/18 –31/3/18 - (Reported 10 cases) and the same for previous period. (Reported 21 cases) 

Of these eviction cases how many have registered disabilities? Could you also explain why the Baytree is not included the report?” 

 

5.23     The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. I can confirm the following.

 

Period 1       Baron Homes had 5 evictions, , Helgor Trading had  2 evictions, Colgate and Gray had no evictions

Period 2       Baron Homes had 4 evictions, , Helgor Trading had  3 evictions, Colgate and Gray had no evictions

Period 3       Baron Homes had 1 eviction, Helgor Trading had 2 evictions and Colgate and Gray had 6 evictions.

Period 4       Baron Homes had 5 evictions, Helgor Trading had 3 evictions and Colgate and Gray had 2 evictions.

It would take us some time to extract the breakdown of the figures in this way for 2016/17 as we do not hold the information in this format but would need to manually search. Overall the numbers of evictions as against placements have reduced since 2016/17.

We do not hold records of whether those evicted were registered disabled. This would require manual searching through the records of those who were evicted. However the needs of each household are fully taken into account at the time of the eviction as part of the assessment to determine whether the housing duty is discharged and or whether there are any on-going duties under the Care Act.

 

The Baytree Hotel is included in the report as it is part of Helgor Trading.”

 

5.24     Ms Hudson referred to her own personal circumstances and the Chair informed her that she could not discuss personal information in a public meeting and Ms Hudson would have to have a personal discussion with the appropriate officer outside of the webcast meeting.

 

5.25     RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.26     Maria Garrett-Gotch asked the following question:

 

Malnutrition among residents in temporary and emergency accommodation

“At the committee meeting on 14 March 2018 a question was asked regarding cases of malnutrition of residents in temporary and emergency accommodation provided by B&HCC or agencies contracted by the Council? The response was that “The Housing Needs Team has had no reports of malnutrition amongst residents in temporary and emergency accommodation”

I understand that the council is now aware of such cases. Could the Chairperson explain what action is being taken to remedy this situation?”

 

5.27     The Chair replied as follows: 

           

“Thank you for your question; this is something which is of great concern to me. I have asked our staff for information about specific cases, however the support workers we have working in emergency accommodation and housing staff have not been made aware of any cases of malnutrition. I am aware that members of Brighton Housing Coalition have been made aware of a list of residents and I would strongly urge them to share it with me or officers so the residents can be referred to relevant service and helped.” 

 

5.28   Ms Garrett-Gotch commented that when residents had shared information they were told it was a breach of data. She asked a supplementary question: 

          “It has come to our understanding that the meals on wheels contract had come to an end with BHCC. What would replace this and were there any provisions for the city’s food poverty action plan for people who were living with malnutrition in your accommodation?”

 

5.29   The Chair replied that meals on wheels was the responsibility of Adult Social Care. Ms Garrett-Gotch’s supplementary question would be referred to the Health & Wellbeing Board.

 

5.30    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

5.31     Barry Hughes asked the following question:

 

Sheltered Accommodation/Allocations Policy

“At one time tenants in the council’s sheltered schemes could move when vacancies occurred.  Recently a scheme tenant on the third floor (who was unwell) heard that a ground floor flat had become vacant. Upon enquiring if she could move to the ground floor she was told to apply via the Homemove scheme. She was unsuccessful.

Allocations Scheme changes in 2016 included “10% council interests”. Would the Committee please rule that moves within a community qualify under this change, thus allowing tenants to identify a vacant property and apply to move to that property without going through the Homemove process?”

 

5.32     The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question

A Local lettings plan (LLP) was in place up to December 2016 whereby if an applicant has to have an assessed “need” to move they would qualify for a move under the Local Lettings Plan.

As part of the allocations policy review all transferring sheltered cases were reassessed and there was only one case that qualified under the old local lettings plan and they have successfully moved under the new allocations policy. I am not able to comment on the case mentioned; however we have a cross party working group reviewing the allocations policy and I will ask that local lettings plans for sheltered accommodation is considered as part of this.

 

In respect of the 10% council interest queue.

The council’s interest queue is within the allocations policy and is for cases nominated by Children’s and Adult Social services only. The queue is allocated 10% of properties. All allocation of accommodation must to be done via the policy and applicants must be on the Homemove scheme. This is a legal requirement when allocating properties.”

 

5.33   As a supplementary question, Mr Hughes asked that given that there was a Cross Party Working Group; would it be possible for tenants who identify a vacancy within a community (not just sheltered schemes) to be provided with guidance to avoid the added anxiety of the rather random system of the Homemove Scheme? 

         

5.34   The Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing explained that the Homemove Scheme might appear random; however, it used a banding process. When a number of people would like a particular property, the fairest way of allocating the property was to do this through the allocations scheme. If people had concerns they could always phone up the Homemove Customer Services Team who could advise them. Officers were also working with the Sheltered Scheme Managers for people who were already in sheltered accommodation and who would like to move. Officers could support them in explaining the scheme to them. The council wanted to encourage the maximum number of people to understand the scheme so it could ensure nobody had to go through unnecessary anxiety.   

         

5.35    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

Deputations

 

5.36   The Committee considered the following deputation which had been submitted by David Croydon – (presenting), Charlotte Rogers, David Green, Michael Green, Michael Bushby, Madeleine Sailani, Keith Marston, Ghebrat Kahsay, Violeta Belogaska, Shula Rich, Alan Bryan, Barbara Roberts and Stewart Gillies.

 

Deputation - Bristol Estate

“Brighton and Hove City Council leaseholders and tenants throughout the City, particularly in blocks of flats, have been subject to costly major works that in some cases is of poor quality and unnecessary. Individual leaseholders have been presented with demands for payment of sums in excess of £30,000 with similar sums being paid from the Housing Revenue Account for each property.

‘Justice for Tenants ’, an affiliate of the Brighton and Hove Housing Coalition, is aware of residents who have lost their homes or have sold at a loss. Others have suffered serious health issues as a result of the stress or the effect of the work on their day to day living conditions.

The Council has spent tens of thousands of pounds on aggressive legal action against all leaseholders in 5 blocks (known as “phase 2”) on the Bristol Estate.

At the initial hearing of the Tribunal, as well as beforehand, the leaseholders urged the council to meet with them to discuss grievances or to go to mediation. Many were still involved in following the council’s own disputes procedure. At the hearing the presiding Judge highlighted the mediation facilities available. The Council representative refused to talk, to go to mediation, or even to complete the council’s own local dispute procedure.

We urge councillors to make every effort to discuss the present dispute with leaseholders and request that officers be instructed to exhaust the BHCC dispute process and mediation prior to any tribunal hearing.”  

5.37     The Chair responded as follows:

 

          “We acknowledge the Deputation.

 

As we have previously stated at this committee all but 12 of the 39 leaseholders involved have already made arrangements to meet the charges which they have been asked to pay.

 

The outstanding sum of money is approximately £400,000 and was due to be paid over two years ago.

 

This is money that has been spent by the Housing Revenue Account and money that would otherwise be of benefit to the tenants of Brighton and Hove City Council, in a difficult financial period. All leaseholders disputing payment have been given the opportunity to deal with matters through a dispute resolution process.

 

As outlined in the deputation the council’s position was put forward at the initial meeting of the tribunal. Mediation was not appropriate at that stage as the council needed a binding decision in respect of all the long lessees which would be difficult to obtain via mediation.

 

The tribunal process is now underway and the tribunal issued their directions in March. A hearing is scheduled for September but there remains scope to seek to come to an agreement ahead of the hearing if that is possible.”

 

5.38     RESOLVED:-

 

(1)                That the deputation be noted.  

 

5.39   The Committee considered the following deputation which had been submitted by Michael Fitzpatrick – (presenting), Diane Montgomery, Sheila Rimmer, Caroline Hinds, John Hadman, and Duncan Moore.

 

Deputation from the Living Rent Campaign on using borrowing available to build truly affordable council housing

 

  “Given that the council has only used  a quarter of the money available under the HRA borrowing cap in the last 3 years the living rent campaign are urging housing committee to “get on with it” and  use this large resource of over £30 million that is still available to tackle the city’s housing crisis.

 

We are dismayed to discover that an average of only £3.5 million net borrowing has been used over the last 3 years from a potential of £40 million. It is no good campaigning to raise our borrowing cap, if the council don’t use the borrowing already allowed up to the cap limits!

 

Over the last 20 years, on average, around 80 council homes a year have been lost to the right to buy in Brighton and Hove and it is vital that these homes are not only replaced, but more are made available.

 

There are over 15,000 households on the waiting list. Brighton has the 2^nd highest number of rough sleepers in the whole country and 1 in 69 people are rough sleeping or in temporary homeless accommodation. Homelessness is being fuelled by high private sector rents. An average 2 bed private rented flat is estimated to cost around £15,500  a year which swallows about 60 % of the median income of households living and working in the city. People are being driven out of the city they grew up in. Low income households urgently need new homes at Living rents and social rents and only the council will be able to do this

 

The number of affordable homes provided in Brighton and Hove has dropped from 239   in 2014/15 to   an estimated 131 for   2017/18 and as housing associations do less, the council is increasingly central to providing affordable homes for the city. It must get its act together better.

 

It is a scandal that as of the 1^st of April this year the council still has over £30 million available to put toward building new homes. The council are sitting on a goldmine. We urge you to show the will and competence to get on and spend this money over the next 2 years. If you don’t the people of Brighton will not forgive you.”

 

5.40     The Chair responded as follows:

 

          “Thank you for your deputation.  This is similar to the question we have received and a notice of motion. You are correct that on 1^st April 2018, the HRA had an estimated £31m of permitted borrowing ‘headroom’. The council has been developing its capacity to deliver new homes and has now successfully delivered 11 new build projects; with further projects onsite, in planning and at the design stage. 

The Council is developing a pipeline of projects for the next phase of the programme and undertaking initial assessment and feasibility analysis of sites.  These plans have been reported to the Estate Regeneration Member Board and the potential to increase delivery capacity in the Estate Regeneration and Housing teams is also being actively considered.

Current schemes in progress and pipeline schemes will mean that the HRA breaches its borrowing cap beyond 2022/23 and will need to bid for borrowing levels to be increased, once the Government announces the method for doing so.”

 

5.41       RESOLVED

 

(1)        That the deputation be noted.