Issue - meetings

Question 1

 

We are the Save Ekin Road community group, and we are writing to you regarding Cambridge City Council's proposals for Ekin Road. We are a group of 60 council tenants, leasehold and freehold residents. As done in the past, we wish to express our concerns regarding the investigation work and potential development of our estate.

 

We note the release of the “Ekin Road Options Appraisal” report by JLL, and associated statement by the Council accepting those findings, on 26 February. We completely disagree with the conclusions of that report, and strongly object to the Council only taking forward the full demolition option to public consultation. Indeed, the JLL report itself describes that option as being the “least worst” option, which is hardly a compelling case for it.

 

We do, however, wish to express our tentative support for the partial demolition option, as presented in the JLL report. That option preserves 24 of the 32 houses on the estate, and achieves the same outcomes desired by the council in a near-identical way. We believe that this should have been the starting point for the public consultation, and that this option could, under an “emerging designs” approach and with close engagement with affected residents, be made to work well, for the residents, and for the council.

 

Nonetheless, we remain concerned by many aspects of the JLL report, by the option being taken forward for public consultation, and by the overarching processes within this project. As such, we wish to ask the following questions to you today:

 

Who made the decision to proceed with a public consultation on (only) a full demolition option, and why was this not brought to the Housing Scrutiny Committee to decide on? The council statement accepting the findings of the JLL report was unsigned.

 

Given the £300,000 expense to the Council of these investigatory works and reports, why is the Council not consulting residents on all of the investigated options from the JLL report, or at least the two “viable” options of partial, and full, demolition? It seems illogical, and wasteful, to commission all this costly work and then not make full use of it.

 

Why do the remaining options for the estate have no provision for additional social housing above current numbers? One of the main selling points of this project, and justification for the massive ensuing resident disruption, was the creation of additional social housing. But neither the full, nor partial, demolition option adds a single extra social-let dwelling.

 

How is it acceptable that the preferred option reduces the number of social-let 3 and 4 bedroom houses on the estate from 22 to just 6? There is an acute shortage in Cambridge of council houses of that size, and yet the preferred option proposes to slash the number on the estate. By comparison, the partial demolition option would retain at least 14 such houses.

 

Given the long timescale of this project, what urgent repair work and resident rehousing is taking place in council housing on the estate? A decant of residents in stage 1 of either option would take years, and for those in stage 2 could extend to 2030. That is far too long for many of the residents to wait; those in sub-standard or overcrowded dwellings need repairs or rehousing immediately.

 

Councillors, it seems clear that there are now two distinct choices for the final direction of the project. One of these presents a future for the estate that is acceptable and appreciated by practically all residents, while at the same time addressing the key issues and concerns that brought the council to consider works on Ekin Road in the first place. The other presents a future for the estate marred by conflict, delays, legal challenges, political turmoil, and ultimately uncertainty for everyone - residents and the council alike.

 

The Council now stands on this precipice, and thus now is the final opportunity to act. The next time we meet, a final decision will have been made. We pray that it is a good one, and that the Council uses the coming months wisely.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness responded:

i.    It was agreed by the Leadership Team and Executive Councillor to consult residents on an emerging mixed tenure full redevelopment option.

ii.  Thanked JLL for producing their report, which had considered the outcome of the consultation with residents on the estate.

iii. The report noted that none of the options available to the council were financially risk-free.

iv.The JLL report assumed a net gain of social housing for the partial redevelopment (55) and full redevelopment option (114) in the 100% affordable options.

v.  The report also recommended that the council should consider alternative development or delivery options with a development partner.

vi.The emerging design for Ekin Road which was currently being consulted on had 46 3 and 4 bed council homes, and the tenure mix was still being considered.

vii.   Officers planned to bring a report on Ekin Road to the June Housing Scrutiny Committee. Officers were meeting with tenants and leaseholders to understand individual circumstances.

 

Supplementary Question:

        i.       Remained concerned by the Executive Councillor’s response. Queried who was leading the Ekin Road project the Executive Councillor or Officers. Did not want a bad decision – full demolition / redevelopment – to occur. If this option was pursued, residents would fight the council’s decision. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness responded:

        i.       Wanted new homes for tenants who were on the housing waiting list. There were over 2000 people waiting for a property.

      ii.        When redevelopment was being considered the council spoke with residents to ensure that they understood the process.

    iii.        They had met with the member of the public and attended Liaison Group meetings. They were due to attend further meetings later that week.

    iv.       Noted there were tenants who wanted to move out of accommodation at Ekin Road.

 

The Assistant Director of Development responded:

        i.       As public servants, officers make recommendations to the Executive Councillor based on considered advice. Reports are brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee to be publicly scrutinised. The Executive Councillor can then choose to make a decision at this meeting.  

 

Question 2

 

1.    on 23rd January Cllr Bird reported that of the 72 flats damp and mouldy on Ekin Road, 5 were vacant (void works) and 67  were occupied, could she please update the meeting on how many are currently vacant and occupied.

2.    on 3rd December it was reported in the Cambridge News based on information supplied by the "Action on empty homes" campaign group that within the city there were 2,437 properties classed as second homes and 131 houses that are categorized as long term empty, does the city council agree with these figures? Can the city council supply accurate current numbers for second homes and long term empty houses in the city?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness responded:

        i.       There were 70 flats at Ekin Road and Ekin Walk in Council ownership; 67 were occupied and 3 were vacant.

      ii.        The figures quoted of 2437 second homes and 131 long term empty homes in the Cambridge News article were correct but were a snapshot of data on the 2 October 2023. These figures changed constantly so on 31 January 2024 they had changed to 1353 second homes and 224 long term empty.

    iii.        The Council’s second home figures were affected by the number of student accommodation properties which changed category once occupied for the student year. This notification was not always immediate, hence the figures from 2 October 2023 being much higher than in January 2024.

    iv.       A long-term empty home is defined as one which has been empty for 6 months or more for Council Tax purposes. The Empty Homes Officer has been working with many of the owners of these long-term empty homes and has advised 12 are being refurbished, 5 are awaiting planning permission, 3 will be going to the market and 4 are sold subject to contract. It was the Council’s intention to work with owners to get long-term empty homes back into occupation.

 

Supplementary Question

        i.       Sought clarification that there were 224 long term empty houses in Cambridge (as at January 2024) and there were residents living in damp and mouldy flats at Ekin Road. These residents should be able to be moved out of their flats into the second homes. The Council should pursue the owners of the second homes to take these properties into council ownership.

      ii.        During the last 3 months none of the tenants had been moved out of the damp and mouldy flats at Ekin Road.

    iii.        Asked for the redevelopment proposals to be stopped.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness responded:

        i.       Noted the comments made by the public speaker.

      ii.        Options for tenants would become clear once a decision had been made regarding the area.

 

 The Assistant Director of Development responded:

      i.         The Council could explore purchasing empty homes as an option. There was a legal process to follow which incurred expenditure and would take time. It was more practical to consider options over the council’s existing estate as the council already owned the land / properties. 

    ii.         Some of the tenants at Ekin Road were actively looking on HomeLink to be rehoused, some weren’t, and some were waiting until the council made a decision regarding Ekin Road, which was expected at the June Housing Scrutiny Committee.

   iii.         If the redevelopment option was approved, tenants would be given emergency band status giving them a priority housing need.