Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by councillors:

 

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

 

(b)       Written Questions: to consider any written questions (copy attached);

 

(c)       Letters: to consider any letters (copy attached;

 

(d)   Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Council or submitted directly to the Committee (copy attached).

 

6(d)      Notice of Motion – Capacity and Resources to Expand Public Housing

         

(1)            That the Notice of Motion be noted.

 

(2)            That a report be brought to the Housing & New Homes Committee which:

 

1.       Investigates obstacles to using available borrowing;

2.       Explores additional capacity needed to achieve spending;

3.       Provides a timetable which sets out how the current borrowing plans can be achieved across the next two years, without re-profiling.  

(a) Petitions

 

6.1     No petitions were submitted by Members.

 

          (b) Questions

 

6.2     The following question was submitted by Councillor Gibson:

         

          “For the HRA Capital Programme for each of the years 2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18, please can you provide the total expenditure that was re-profiled?”

 

6.3     The Chair replied as follows:

 

“Thank you for your question. I have assumed from your question that you mean the total budget that was re-profiled as we do re profile spend.

 

In the year 2015/16 the budget re-profiling was £16.4 million. This was made up of works to Existing Stock -  £8.975million, New build homes -  £6.958 million and conversions - £508,000.

 

In the year 2016/17 the budget re-profiling was £12.746 million, this was made up of works to Existing Stock - £6.387 million, New build homes - £6.020 million and conversions - £331,000.

 

In the year 2017/18 the budget re-profiling was 17.954 million, this was made up of Works to Existing Stock - £4.932million, New build homes - £9.714 million and conversions -  £1.395million. In addition the home purchase scheme re-profiled £1.763.million.”

 

6.4     RESOLVED – That the question be noted.

 

6.5     The following question was submitted by Councillor Gibson:

         

          “For each of the years 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/2018 please can you provide the net cost of (i.e. less Housing Benefit income) of spot purchase and short term emergency accommodation?”

 

6.6     The Chair replied as follows:

 

“Thank you for your question, the Net Costs of short term Temporary Accommodation is the following

 

2013/14   £516,000

2014/15   £1.04 million

2015/16   £1.472 million  

2016/17   £1.939 million

2017/18  £2,768 million”

6.7     Councillor Gibson stated that it was very concerning that the net cost had increased by fivefold over the period. He asked the following supplementary question “What confidence can we have and what measures are being taken to reduce the cost as in line with the intention of the Trailblazer scheme”? 

 

6.8     The Executive Director for Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing explained the two areas that had affected the council’s spend on short term temporary accommodation/emergency accommodation. The intention of the Trailblazer Scheme was to reduce the number of people entering short term temporary accommodation and that had had some excellent early results in helping people so that they did not reach a position of crisis. That piece of work was time bound, however, the Homelessness Reduction Act, which came into effect in April 2018 set in stone the ideas the council had put forward as part of its Trailblazer Scheme, concerning early prevention/early intervention. The council was aware that there would always be people who ended up in a crisis situation and requiring the council’s help. However, the council was confident that with the work it was carrying out it would be able to ensure that for the people affected, nothing could have been done sooner and that their time in short term accommodation was reduced. The other area of work to reduce the short term accommodation was providing more council temporary accommodation to stop the requirement to need the spot purchase of short term expensive accommodation.

 

6.9     RESOLVED – That the question be noted.

 

6.10    The following question was submitted by Councillor Gibson:

         

          “Please can you list the schemes for new council homes provided in answer to Councillor Lewry’s question to full council on 19th April 2018 which were being actively considered and developed by the estate regeneration board under the previous administration prior to May 2015 (and which were not)?”

 

6.11    The Chair replied as follows:

 

“Thank you for your question. Of the 5 projects detailed in the response to Cllr Lewry’s question to Council in April 2018, one of the schemes - Lynchet Close had not being considered prior to May 2015. The other 4 projects (Brookmead, Kite Place, Hobby Place, Kensington Street) were all in the pipeline before this date. 

 

However, the schemes which have been or are being considered and delivered since 2015 are

 

New Homes for Neighbourhoods

 

-                   Eastergate Road -  24 homes

-                   Victoria Road -  35 homes

-                   Swanborough Drive -  40 homes

 

 

In addition we have taken forward the following projects to provide council owned temporary accommodation:

 

·                 Stonehurst Court conversion which has delivered 10 family homes (opened May 2018);

·                 Housing Committee have also agreed the purchase of Tilbury Place from Orbit Housing Association and the conversion of the former Oxford Street Housing Office both of which are underway.

 

Under our Hidden Homes Programme we aim to make sure we make best use of our Housing Revenue Account assets through conversions / refurbishment of under used or unused spaces within our existing stock into new homes.

 

Under our Hidden Homes programme we have previously completed 9 new homes.

 

The conversion of two redundant store rooms at Normanhurst (Albion Hill Estate) into two, two bedroom four person flats, was completed earlier this year.

 

We are currently working on Hidden Homes delivery at:

 

·                 Swallow Court, Whitehawk, conversion of a former community office into two one bedroom flats and one two bedroom flat;

·                 Woods house, Sackville Road to covert the former public toilets into a community room and then convert the existing community room into a 1x one level access bedroom for seniors housing;

·                 43 Manor Hill, a former Mears office, proposals include part conversion and part new build to deliver new council homes.

          In addition we have identified the following land for the Living Wage Joint Venture.

 

Homes for Brighton & Hove:

 

-                   Whitehawk Urban Fringe - c. 150 homes

-                   Coldean Urban Fringe - c. 120 homes

-                   Belgrave centre - c. 100 homes

-                   Further site review work continues

 

And finally as I mentioned in chairs communications, we have delivered our first purchase under our buy back policy”.

 

6.12    Councillor Gibson asked the following supplementary question:

          “Over the last three years compared to the previous three years, has there been an increase or a decrease in the number of affordable homes provided?”

 

6.13    The Chair thanked Councillor Gibson for his supplementary question and stated that he would receive a written answer.

 

6.14    RESOLVED – That the question be noted.

 

          (c) Letters

 

6.15    The Committee considered the following letter from Councillor Wares as set out on page 39 of the agenda.

         

“I am submitting the following letter under Council Procedure Rule 23.3 to be included on the agenda for the Housing & New Homes Committee meeting of 13^th June 2018.

In May 2017 point of use water heaters were installed in flats at Elwyn Jones Court to alleviate the risk of legionella’s disease associated with the communal heaters. Following those installations residents queried why they were still being charged via their service charge for communal hot water when the point of use heaters were being supplied by electricity that residents paid directly for to their own electricity provider.

On the 29^th September 2017 the Council confirmed that the service charge would be reduced.  The Council have further confirmed that insufficient consultation with residents took place, that lessons needed to be learnt and that a meeting to explain this would be held with residents. The Council offered to reduce the service charge by 20% but have yet failed to provide any justification to this arbitrary value.

For over a year the Council have dragged their heels in dealing with this matter, have yet to adjust the service charge, yet to have the meeting, yet to explain the discount offered and yet to refund any residents.

It is scandalous for this situation to exist and for elderly and vulnerable residents in the Council’s care to be treated this way. It is entirely unacceptable for the Council to procrastinate over the discounts due and the refunds to be withheld.

In a letter copied to me by a resident they signed off by saying (name withheld), “aged 86 and trying to stay alive long enough to get my refund and reduced charges”. It is a shameful and disgraceful situation that compels residents to say this.

To that end, I respectfully request that The Executive Director – Neighbourhoods, Communities and Housing be requested to bring an immediate end to this protracted debacle, provide residents with a fully justifiable discount to their future bills and refund all monies improperly and inappropriately taken from pensioners in this Council’s care together with commensurate compensation.

It is further requested that The Executive Director – Neighbourhoods, Communities and Housing prepare a report for Audit and Standards Committee fully explaining the background to this matter, consider the lessons learnt and consider appropriate changes to prevent a repeat of this wholly unacceptable situation.”

6.16    The Chair replied as follows:

 

“Thank you for your letter.

 

I am sorry that the residents of Elwyn Jones Court have suffered as a result of the service they have received from the council. I was aware of this before I received your letter and instructed officers to act to resolve matters.

 

I am aware that the Head of Housing Strategy, Property and Improvement sent a letter on 21 February 2018 to the residents at Elwyn Jones Court following an initial review of this matter.

 

The works to install individual water heaters at Elwyn Jones Court were undertaken to mitigate a potential health & safety risk.

 

However, we recognise that we should have undertaken a much wider consultation and impact assessment exercise with residents prior to moving forward with this solution.  

 

In our letter, we formally apologised that this did not happen.

 

We have always accepted that residents impacted are due a credit on their rent account from the time when the individual water heater was installed.  Reduction in the heating charge has now been applied to the relevant rent accounts at Elwyn Jones Court.

 

These adjustments have generated a credit amount depending upon the installation date. 

 

The delay in rent account adjustment is not acceptable but arose from:

 

·                 Some time being taken to review, estimate and agree the reduction in service charge for those residents with point of use heaters in their flats;

·                 The need for the Rent Accounting Team, who credit the accounts, to prioritise sending out the new 2018/2019 service charges to all tenants at the turn of the financial year.

 

The service charge for those residents with point of use water heaters in their flats has been reduced by 20%, a reduction of £2.06 per week for a one bedroom property and £2.18 per week for a two bed property. 

 

As agreed, and having made the rent account adjustments, we met with residents at Elwyn Jones Court on 6 June to directly convey our sincere apologies, discuss the new water heaters and lessons to be learned going forward.

 

While not all residents may have concerns with the new point of use hot water heaters, the majority of residents who we engaged with at the meeting raised issues.  These are summarised below. 

 

·                 Residents are seeking a lump sum credit rather than an account adjustment;

·                  Residents are querying the calculation of the 20% reduction;

·                 Issues of poor customer service were raised.  In particular, why have we taken so long to acknowledge and sort issues out;   

·                 Lack of consultation and equalities impact assessment on both works themselves and the wider impact of works, was a concern.  In particular, the effect on resident electricity bills;

·                 Issues with the operation of the point of use heaters themselves were also raised.

 

Officers have collated these comments, and will respond with a further letter to all residents and return for another meeting at Elwyn Jones Court to further review matters, actions and lessons learned.

 

In addition to responding to residents at the meeting, officers have also undertaken to discuss matters further and/or visit individual residents as requested.

 

I am aware that lessons have been learned from this unfortunate incident and I would like to personally thank the residents of Elwyn Jones Court for their patience and sincerely apologise for the inconvenience and distress caused to them.”

 

6.17    RESOLVED:

 

          That the letter be noted.

 

          (d) Notice of Motion

 

6.18    The Board considered the following Notice of Motion, submitted by Councillors Gibson and Druitt:

 

“This Committee notes that over the last three financial years £10.5m (net) of the HRA’s allowable £41m borrowing capacity has been used. This equates to an average of £3.5m a year. This leaves £30.5m of resources available to housing that has not been used.

         

          This Committee further notes it is proposed in the current financial year to borrow over £20m. Yet last year, only £3.2 million was actually borrowed and by month 7 £7.6m spending had been re-profiled into future years’ expenditure.

 

          This Committee wishes to maximise the use of existing resources available to expand council housing.  It is therefore requested, that as a matter of urgency, a report be brought to Housing & New Homes Committee, which:

 

1.   Investigates obstacles to using available borrowing;

2.   Explores additional capacity needed to achieve spending;

3.  Provides a timetable which sets out how the current borrowing plans can be achieved across the next two years, without re-profiling.”

 

6.19    Councillor Gibson stated that the council were not committing to use the resources provided by the Government, and by the council’s projections those resources would not be used until 2022/23. That was too slow given the extent of the housing crisis. Meanwhile the council were not spending the borrowing it had agreed. The council had not got the capacity and were not able to deliver in the middle of a housing crisis. Councillor Gibson stressed that the city had the second highest level of rough sleeping numbers in the country.  Meanwhile, social rented housing was being lost to Right to Buy. The council should be using the money available.

 

6.20    The Notice of Motion was seconded by Councillor Druitt.

 

6.21    The Chair responded to the Notice of Motion as follows:

 

“Projects are considered by the Estate Regeneration Member Board from an early stage so the time span between being first discussed and a project completed can take a number of years. The complex and constrained nature of many of the sites means that different proposals for individual sites may also be considered by the board at different times. For example Buckley Close and Patchdean where a range different delivery options have been considered by the Board over time.  

 

The HRA Borrowing Cap has meant that officers have needed to focus resources on developing the Joint Venture as an alternative delivery option as well as developing the direct delivery pipeline. This has now successfully been agreed and launched and the first three sites are being progressed that should deliver over 350 of the 1,000 planned homes.

 

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.”   

 

6.22    The Chair agreed that a report back to Committee would be useful. Councillor Hill concurred. She stressed that the council were carrying out excellent schemes such as Lynchett Close, which had come in under budget. She hoped that as part of the review, officers would look at the process of how these schemes were reviewed. It was not right that schemes were reviewed by the Estate Regeneration Members’ Board then forwarded to the Committee where members decided that they were not acceptable. She stressed the importance of working collaboratively and stated that there needed to be acceptance that the cost of schemes would not always be as low as the committee would like.

 

6.23    Councillor Bell stated that he did not disagree. However, he had a problem with schemes that were unrealistic and cost too much for people to live in. There needed to be a realistic price and realistic liveable rent for tenants.

 

6.24    Councillor Hill made the point that the projects were discussed multiple times before they came to committee. There needed to be a process whereby concerns were raised a good deal earlier, so schemes were not developed that the committee were not happy with.

 

6.25    Councillor Moonan stated that Estates Regeneration Members’ Board was clearly not working. This was the Forum whereby members would plan in a cross party way.  If schemes were presented to the committee and rejected at that last stage then there would be a need to re-profile. There might be a need to re-think how the Estate Regeneration Members’ Board worked. There was a desire to build homes in the city and a need to work together to achieve that aim. 

 

6.26    Councillor Janio made the point that there were discussions taking place in many sub-groups in the council but in the end it was the executive Committees that made the decision. He felt that there was a failure to brief councillors adequately on items that were being submitted to committee. He suggested that if there was a contentious issue, members of the Committee should be briefed before the meeting. The Chair replied that this was exactly what happened already. 

 

6.27    Councillor Druitt stated that there was £30 million worth of work that could have been achieved. He stressed that there was a growing homelessness problem and an urgent need for work to progress.

 

6.28    Councillor Gibson welcomed the debate. The fundamental problem was the extent to which the schemes were being re-profiled. He stressed that the Estates Regeneration Members’ Board was not a substitute for the Housing & New Homes Committee. Three schemes had been delayed. These included Lychett Court where lower rents had been achieved. Rotherfield Crescent had yet to come back to Committee. The Living Wage Joint Venture had been delayed to make the scheme more affordable. Councillor Gibson was proud to be part of achieving lower rents on these homes and welcomed the opportunity to work together on this issue.

 

6.29    RESOLVED:

 

(1)            That the Notice of Motion be noted.

 

(2)            That a report be brought to the Housing & New Homes Committee as outlined in the Notice of Motion.