Issue - meetings

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

Question 1

i.               A resident of Ekin Road attended the meeting to speak to agenda item 12 and referred to a letter which was circulated to Committee Members on 19 September from the Save Ekin Road Group.

ii.             The Save Ekin Road Group was a community group of over 50 people from the Ekin Road estate. They opposed the proposals to demolish their estate.

iii.            Asked the Council to investigate and pursue an upgrade and refurbishment plan for the estate.

iv.           Felt the demolition option being presented by the council was disproportionate as they felt it:

a.    Was an example of gentrification and social cleansing;

b.    Would create significant disruption to their lives and families;

c.    Would substantially impact many vulnerable members of society, such as the elderly and disabled;

d.    Would displace a vast number of people who had no desire to leave their homes.

v.             Explained that the community on Ekin Road was a strong and long-standing one, they had friends and essential support networks nearby (childcare, help for the elderly).

vi.           Many of the residents had been in their homes for over 30 years; some as long as 60 years.

vii.          Felt the adverse impacts of demolishing Ekin Road outweighed the purported benefits.

viii.        Noted that some of the residents had protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

ix.           Did not feel that this was a project of national significance; it simply added more housing.

x.             The increase in new homes was not vast compared to the number being demolished.

xi.           Felt the investigation and consultation process was rushed and that only demolition options had been presented to residents.

xii.          Noted that there was no steering committee and felt that it had been difficult to get information or updates from the council.

xiii.        Felt the resident’s questionnaire was inadequate as the questions were leading and biased, all presupposed a full demolition. Felt the language was misleading. Residents understood the term redevelopment to mean fix up and repair but felt the council interpreted this as completely demolish.

xiv.        Felt the statistics collected had been misrepresented.

xv.         The questionnaire was poorly advertised and poorly circulated and noted that a copy was not posted to all residents. Noted 57 out of 250 estate residents completed it.

xvi.        Commented that they felt the consultation process was defective as several groups had been indirectly excluded, and the questionnaire was inappropriate and ineffective. Commented that the council must not rely on any consultation work done to date as it was not representative of the estate.

xvii.      Requested a restart of the entire consultation process, with refurbishment options investigated.

xviii.     Felt a vote on Ekin Road should not be taken by this committee in January 2023 as it was premature.

xix.        Asked for an update on:

a.    Steps taken by officers to explore refurbishment as an option for the estate;

b.    What information officers had regarding the existing demographics of the estate;

c.    What work had been done by officers to understand the full impact of demolition on their community as well as any mitigation measures.

xx.         Requested the following action:

a.    A revised resident consultation, with due consideration given to the points raised above;

b.    A programme of work commissioned to explore the feasibility and specifics of the refurbishment option. The Save Ekin Road group was prepared to cooperate on such work.

c.    A programme of active engagement with residents which sought their views and communicated information in an effective manner.

 

The Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development responded:

                                              i.     Confirmed that no decision on Ekin Road would be made at the committee meeting that evening.

                                             ii.     Noted that the consultation referred to was a very early voluntary consultation.

                                           iii.     The Council appreciate that the houses are people’s homes, but we also need to work to develop homes for the circa 2500 people on the housing register that need homes too.

                                           iv.     Before an option for possible development is identified an extensive review process was undertaken. This included looking at the existing condition of properties, longer term repairs needs/capacity and the potential for upgrade. Noted that sometimes the level of works required meant that residents would need to move out of their properties whilst any work was undertaken.

                                            v.     Noted that a number of options were being considered. Retrofit was also being considered this would also carry a substantial cost.

                                           vi.     Noted that some tenants did not think their homes were up to modern standards.

                                         vii.     The consultation was at the very early stages and a report would be brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee in the future.

 

The Member of the public commented that they accepted that there were 2500 people on the housing register who needed housing but noted that 250 people on Ekin Road would be sacrificed to meet that. Felt that those who were worse off in Cambridge were being asked to solve a Cambridge wide housing issue.  Noted that there were 55 signatures of people from Ekin Road who said they did not want their properties to go. The number of people referred to in the survey who stated that they wanted redevelopment was based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by the term redevelopment. Asked for clarification of what would happen to tenants and leaseholders if redevelopment went ahead. Thought that people could not return to live at Ekin Road if the redevelopment went ahead.  

 

The Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development responded:

i.               Noted that current proposals were looking at Abbey Ward but there were a number of new homes being built in other City Council wards.

ii.             For other developments for leaseholders, the City Council paid the market value for their property and helped them move to another home, which was equal to or potentially better than the one they left.

iii.            The Council is investigating space for new homes in every ward, this included Abbey ward. 

iv.           Some of the detailed responses given as part of the initial consultation regarding Ekin Road detailed such extensive repair works which would necessitate residents to move out of their homes for these works to be undertaken.  

v.             Would work with all residents regarding any proposals put forward for Ekin Road.

vi.           Noted some residents wanted the redevelopment of the Ekin Road flats.

 

Question 2

        i.       A representative of Acorn Cambridge attended the meeting to demand that the City Council properly regulated Homes in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the city.

      ii.        Stated that it was a legal requirement for a person renting out a HMO to be licensed. This was to protect tenants and ensure decent, safe housing. Noted that the council stated there were over 600 unlicensed HMOs in Cambridge.

    iii.        Felt the Council’s failure to enforce this basic regulation put tenants’ safety at risk and left them vulnerable to exploitation which was unacceptable.

    iv.       HMO landlords who rented out unlicensed properties were breaking the law. By not properly enforcing these standards, the City Council was sending the message that it was ok to offer people substandard living.

      v.       ACORN Cambridge demanded the City Council:

1.  Commit at least two full-time staff to identifying the unlicensed HMOs;

2.  Publish a timeline to achieve full licensing of HMOs;

3.  Get all HMOs in Cambridge licensed.

 

The Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities responded:

        i.       There are 9.6 full-time members of staff undertaking proactive and reactive work in the Private Sector Housing Team. The team was increased in 2018 and since then an additional 414 HMOs have been licensed. 

      ii.        During the Covid-19 pandemic officers were redirected to other duties in addition to having to undertake their day-to-day roles.

    iii.        Targeted proactive work was being undertaken in particular wards.

    iv.       Residents were directed to report suspected HMOs via contact details on the city council website. An article about HMOs would be in the next issue of Cambridge Matters.

      v.       It was a challenge to identify HMOs, but a significant amount of enforcement was being carried out. Recognised there was still more work to be done.

 

The Member of the public requested that a timeline be published to achieve full licensing of all HMOs in the city.

 

The Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities advised:

i.               That the Council was working towards a more proactive approach of identifying unlicensed HMOs and hoped to be able to come back with a date.

ii.             Wanted to focus resource on getting landlords to licence HMOs with the City Council where necessary.

iii.            Invited the member of the public to attend a Landlord Forum which was taking place the following week.

 

Question 3

i.               Within a city that had declared a climate and ecological crisis questioned why they were not aware of a well organised and effective insulation and retrofit scheme.

ii.             Had lost hope with national government to 'Insulate Britain' and their last grain of hope was that the City Council would step in to protect the most vulnerable in society and put pressure on landlords to do the same.

iii.            National government was doing nothing effective regarding the cost of greed crisis.

iv.           Asked what the City Council was doing to Insulate this part of Britain.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded:

i.               With regard to the Council’s existing housing stock, there were a number of planned works programmes to insulate existing Council homes, which included:

a.    a programme to externally insulate around one hundred Council homes every year, prioritising older solid-walled houses;

b.    an upgrade to loft insulation to 300mm in all Council homes;

c.    the extraction and refilling of old cavity wall insulation where existing insulation needed replacing;

d.    an ambitious “net zero retrofit pilot project” to get fifty Council homes as close to net zero carbon as possible;

e.    carrying out trials of internal wall insulation to properties where external insulation was not possible;

f.     working toward a target for all homes to be at least Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) “C” rated by 2035.

 

Question 4

i.               Saving Ekin Road would be the worst thing the City Could do. In the last 7 days the resident had had to have their kitchen sink plug and overflow replaced after it started leaking.

ii.             Their family had no heating over the weekend and had a leaking boiler.

iii.            The flat was horrible and not up to family living.

iv.           A list of some of the issue the resident faced included:

a.    damp and mould

b.    silver fish

c.    plaster falling off the inside wall due to a leak happening from outside after months of different things being replaced or repaired was finally resolved.

v.             Would be glad to see Ekin Road flattened, and new updated houses and flats put in its place.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded:

i.  The City Council would be undertaking consultations regarding Ekin Road and potential proposals and a Steering Group would be set up.