Issue - meetings

Question 1

      i.         Was a resident of Ekin Road and wanted to speak to agenda item 9 – Update on New Build Council Housing Delivery.

    ii.         Was speaking on behalf of ‘Save Ekin Road’ community group which had over 60 members.

   iii.         ‘Save Ekin Road’:

a.    Continued to oppose any proposals to demolish their estate.

b.    Wanted the council to investigate and pursue an upgrade and refurbishment plan.

c.    Felt that limited / no progress or update had been provided by the council since September 2022.

d.    Noted the Hanover and Princess Court report which was also on the agenda had a completion timeframe of 4 years.  Felt the Ekin Road project may take the same amount of time or longer.

e.    Asked the council to provide a timeline to residents including consultation steps.

f.     Felt the project was affecting the life stability and mental health of the residents. 

The Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development responded:

      i.         Appreciated for schemes like this that it created uncertainty for residents, but the council did its best to keep residents informed. A Residents Liaison Group had been set up and officers had responded to feedback submitted by residents both at the Liaison Group meeting and from other engagement.

    ii.         At the Residents Liaison Group in December 2022, Officers provided an indicative timeline for progression of the project.

   iii.         Officers had spent time addressing the immediate needs of residents (including repairs and other issues) since the Liaison Group meeting in December 2022.

  iv.         Advised that the Residents Liaison Group would meet quarterly, and it was unlikely that much information could be provided to residents in between meetings. Minutes of the meetings were available on the council’s website. 

    v.         Had responded to email communication from the public speaker and noted that a significant number of points had been raised.

  vi.         Noted that a further Residents Liaison Group meeting was due to take place in 2 days’ time. The timeline for the project would be discussed at that meeting, including the impact on the timeline of the various options being considered for Ekin Road.

Supplementary question

        i.       Asked for a high level timeline for the project as residents were worried and wanted to be able to plan their lives and have a level of certainty about the proposals. 

The Executive Councillor reassured the public speaker that they would be kept informed about the progress of the matter and that residents should continue to live their lives as no decision had been taken on the project yet. The project was still in the early stages and no detailed design had been produced.

Question 2

        i.       In relation to the Hanover and Princess Court report, was a resident leaseholder for thirty years.

      ii.        Did not question the Council's valuation on their home but felt it was nothing near other neighbouring properties off the estate.

    iii.        Hoped to exercise the right to return, would need a home to be genuinely affordable.

    iv.       As a pensioner could not raise a new mortgage or take on a costly part-buy, part-rent option.

      v.       Asked if the committee would approve compulsory purchase to remove leaseholders.

The Senior Development Manager responded:

        i.       Officers had been working closely with residents of Hanover and Princess Court and had had contact with 114 / 127 residents.

      ii.        Recommendations were detailed in a report which was due to be considered by the Committee later that evening. If the recommendations were approved there was the potential for compulsory purchase of flats within the development.  The process would be carried out in accordance with the adopted Housing Regeneration Policy. 

    iii.        Did intend to retain the right to return, and the resident was right to raise the issue of affordability. Discussions with residents would take place on a case-by-case basis.