Issue - meetings

Question 1

        i.        The various options put forward for the redevelopment of the Ekin Road estate was causing a lot of anxiety and concern, especially given the amount of time it was taking to choose a direction.

      ii.        Preferred an option to redevelop the flats and which also allowed people to keep their homes if they wanted to stay.

    iii.        The Council and Housing Committee had to do what was best for the wider community and observe the will of the majority of residents on the estate as per the Council’s own survey conducted which showed most supported at least partial redevelopment.

    iv.        The state of the flats was only getting worse, with some residents living in difficult conditions and having to face at least one more winter without being able to afford adequate heating.

      v.        Urged the Council and Housing Committee to prioritise the well-being of the majority of residents and move forward with the best option to make improvements happen, including partial or full redevelopment.

 

Question 2

        i.        Expressed support for option 7 of the Officer’s report on Ekin Road - full redevelopment.

      ii.        Did not believe any of the other options, including option 6, which proposed the retention of the houses to the south and east, were viable as some of those houses were also in poor condition and would inevitably need replacing in the future.

    iii.        Furthermore, this option would mean the residents in the remaining houses would be condemned to living in a major building site for years.

    iv.        Ekin Road had a declining reputation and increased anti-social behaviour and required total redevelopment to bring a fresh start to the community.

      v.        The loudest voices did not necessarily represent the majority and the Council needed to ensure that everyone was given the right to express their opinion privately.

 

Question 3

        i.       Moved into Ekin Road with young family 12/1/91, so had been living within the estate for 33 years. Noted other people had lived in the estate for a longer period.

      ii.        Worked in the homeless sector and their husband worked in Bury St Edmunds, their daughter and son-in-law lived with them. Daughter worked for the NHS and son-in-law worked from home.

    iii.        Questioned why the council wanted to knock down perfectly good 3 bed houses at Ekin Road when there was a shortage of them.

    iv.       Asked if redevelopment went ahead whether their family would get a 3-bed house or flat in Cambridge. If they were rehoused outside of Cambridge this would impact their job as they did not drive, and public transport was unreliable.

 

Assistant Director Development (Places Group) responded:

        i.       If a redevelopment option was chosen, officers would discuss the needs of the tenant and try to find alternative accommodation to meet those needs.

      ii.        The council had sought external advice from an independent company to ensure the council had a full overview of all the issues to consider. 

 

Question 4

        i.       Lived in Ekin Road in a council flat for 12 years.

      ii.        When they were given their flat it was run down, and it took a lot of time and money to turn the house into a home.

    iii.        The Council now wanted to take their flat and demolish it; this was heart breaking. 

    iv.       Wasn’t sure they had the stamina to move out and then move back if redevelopment went ahead in 4-5years.

      v.       Questioned what standard the new flat would be built to.

    vi.       Had heard people previously living at Fanshawe Road had been moved to Ekin Road as part of the decanting process for redevelopment. This was worrisome.

  vii.        Living in a new flat may be nice but was unsure whether they would be able to afford it, especially if the rent was increased.

 viii.        Had found this process stressful.

    ix.       If a replacement affordable property could not be guaranteed asked that improvements were made to individual properties.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

        i.       Understood that the member of the public had spent money on their flat and that it was their home.

      ii.        If redevelopment went ahead, a new property would be available. This could be at Ekin Road or could be somewhere else in the city. Financial contributions would also be made towards moving and disruptions costs.

    iii.        A number of the flats at Ekin Road were in a poor condition and something needed to be done with them.

 

Assistant Director Development (Places Group) responded:

        i.       If a retrofit option went ahead this may still require residents to move out of their property whilst works were undertaken but this would depend on the scale of any works undertaken.

      ii.        It was a balanced decision which option for Ekin Road was progressed.

    iii.        Also clarified that they were not aware that any residents had been moved into Ekin Road from Fanshawe Road.

 

Question 5

        i.       Lived in a council house on Ekin Road with their mum and brother. Their mum had grown up in the local area and their family and local connections were within the area. Had lived in their home for 38 years.

      ii.        People looked out for each other on Ekin Road. There was a great community of neighbours. They did not want to lose their home. Their mum had spent 38 years making it their special place.

    iii.        Had experienced traumas and was very concerned if they had to move and potentially change doctors.

    iv.       Did not want their community to be destroyed.

      v.       Acknowledged that work needed to be undertaken but did not want the community to be taken away. Felt the Council was working against residents.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

i.    Acknowledged how the public speaker was feeling and said they did not want to disrupt their community.

ii.    Confirmed that no decision regarding Ekin Road had been taken.

iii.   Was happy to meet with the member of the public outside of the meeting.

 

 

Question 6

i.    Lived in their flat with their husband and children. Had lived in their flat for 10 years and had outgrown it and needed a 3-bedroom family home. Had strong links to the local area and needed local support network to survive. 

ii.  Could not see how this project would benefit them. A 2-bed flat somewhere else away from their support network was not helpful.

iii. Noted that 3-bed properties on their street had been made available for temporary housing, which did not make sense.

iv.Did not understand the focus on providing flats; it was 3-bed houses which were needed. 

 

Assistant Director Development (Places Group) responded:

i.    Needed to understand the member of the public’s personal circumstances. Could take this away and discuss with a Housing Officer.

ii.  The redevelopment option would include houses but could not commit to numbers at this stage. Was aware that there was a need for 3 and 4 bed housing.

iii. Each person’s individual circumstances and needs would be listened to.