Issue - meetings

A member of the public asked a question, as set out below.

 

Question 1:

i.      Had received a letter from the City Council in August 2021 advising that a new maintenance contract was in place for 5-8 years. It also advised that asbestos would be removed.

ii.    Received another letter dated 16 September, which advised that Hanover Court may be demolished.

iii.   Asked that there was a pause on any works being carried out to Hanover Court if the buildings were going to be demolished. Felt it was not a good use of money to pay for repairs if the building was going to be demolished.

iv.  Questioned if there were any risks if repair works were not carried out.

v.    Confirmed he had spoken with officers.

vi.  Felt that the Council felt obligated to keep the building in as new a state as possible.

vii. Felt that no amount of money could change the layout of the buildings.

viii. Raised concerns about anti-social behaviour at Hanover Court.

ix.    Noted CCTV was used as a deterrent.

x.    Stated they did not feel safe at Hanover Court.

xi.  Stated that the building had a strange vibe.

 

The Head of Housing responded:

      i.         Noted that the August letter was about works to the estate and that the letter dated 26 September was regarding agenda item 12.

    ii.         Following a discussion with tenant and leaseholder representatives’ about agenda item 12, it had been agreed that a letter would be sent prior to the Housing Scrutiny Committee meeting to tenants and leaseholders whose estates were highlighted in the report. No decisions were being taken at the meeting.  Officers wanted to engage with tenants and leaseholders as they were vital stakeholders.

 

The Asset Manager responded:

      i.         The Council had entered into a new planned maintenance contract and a letter was sent out to all leaseholders to advise them about this.

    ii.         A further letter would be sent to residents at Hanover Court advising them about structural works which needed to be carried out.

   iii.         A consultation would be carried out.

  iv.         There were concerns about structural concrete and lintels.

    v.         Advised that only necessary works would be undertaken and this would be reflected in the works specification.

 

Question 2.

      i.         The gas had been disconnected to Hanover Court.

    ii.         The Council had advised that if there was a gas explosion the site might not withstand it.

   iii.         Felt the Council was not appropriately assessing risks and consequences when deciding when to undertake works.

  iv.         Felt that the Council had lost sight of the main issues which was to provide affordable housing.

    v.         If the Council wanted to do works then the Council should pay for them.

  vi.         Did not feel that the Council should dictate to residents that their gas should be disconnected.

 vii.         Felt that the Council was trying to eradicate risk beyond a normal level.

viii.         Felt that the Council needed to stop drug taking, violence and deaths in the area. They did not know of a worse place to live in the city. The site should be demolished.

 

The Tenant and Leaseholder Vice-Chair asked the member of the public to discuss the issues raised with them.

 

During the discussion of agenda item 12, Councillors noted that the council had a responsibility to their tenants and could not ignore potential safety problems. The gas safety issue, was an immediate concern and needed to be addressed.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the comments the public speaker made but following receipt of the structural report, it was clear that the Council had to act to comply with statutory requirements.