Issue - meetings

Question 1.

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

 

We note Agenda Item 10 of this meeting, where it is noted that the Ekin Road project has now been added to the Housing Delivery Programme, following the decision by the Council at HSC on 18 June 2024. However, no further details as to the design, layout, or construction stages on the estate have been provided to residents since then.

 

We welcome the redevelopment of the flats on Ekin Road. We welcome the fact that emergency Home-Link banding has been given for those council tenants, several of whom have already found new housing. And we welcome the rehousing prioritisation of tenants whose living conditions are the worst on the estate, and hope that those worst-affected can be rehoused before the onset of winter.

 

However, although we welcome the retention of the 14 houses on the southern edge of the estate, we maintain that this does not go far enough. We continue to advocate for the retention of the 6 houses in the north-east corner, so as to preserve the health and wellbeing of those living in them who continue to express a strong desire to stay.

 

We are also concerned that, as rehousing progresses for residents on the estate, there is an increasing number of void properties. This could lead to the estate giving the appearance of being abandoned, which may attract anti-social behaviour and is thus a concern for both those residents whose homes are being retained, and those who might not be rehoused for many more months.

 

Having reviewed the current status of the development project, and having consulted our members, we now wish to make the following three requests to the Council, which we believe are reasonable and justified, with reasons to follow below:

 

Request 1:

Request 1

We again request that the 6 semi-detached houses in the north-east corner of the estate (odd numbers 13-23 inclusive) be retained in the redevelopment of Ekin Road, in addition to those 14 houses on the southern edge of the estate (odd numbers 33-59).

 

Request 2:

We request that the Council provide the number of households in the redevelopment area who have reported damp and mould issues in the past 2 years but have yet to be rehoused, and to provide a clear outline of how it intends to rehouse these residents before the onset of winter.

 

Request 3

We request that the Council provide a plan for dealing with the vacated dwellings, outlining if any will be used for temporary housing and the criteria for deciding which, and what will be done with dwellings that are not to be used for further housing, including how they will be made secure while vacant.

 

Our reasons for Request 1 are as follows:

·      The majority of the residents in those houses have expressed a strong desire to keep their homes, and some have been in theirs for over 40 years. These are well-loved family homes, and there are no intrinsic reasons to take them down.

·      Several of the residents in those houses have physical, or mental, health issues, for which their house is their lifeline. To forcibly remove them from their home will substantially reduce their quality of life, in ways that, for many, will be irreversible. We will not articulate their (very personal) circumstances here; the Council has already been made aware directly from them, in a meeting as recently as last week.

·      There is a strong sense of community even within those 6 houses. Many residents are very close, and have been family friends for decades. There is also a community connection to the remainder of the estate, with some of those residents having relatives who live in the retained 14 houses on the southern edge of the estate.

·      Our full analysis (available at x.com/SaveEkinRoad/status/1805253143019630612 ) of the Council’s current documentation for the project, shows that the Council will suffer a net loss of homes in its housing stock as a result of demolishing these 6 houses.

·      We are aware of various protected species which live in the gardens of the houses in the north-east corner, whose habitats would be destroyed if those houses are demolished.

·      There has to date been no compelling reason given by the Council for including those 6 houses in the project. All the main aims of the project can be achieved without the demolition of these houses.

 

Our reasons for Request 2 are as follows:

·      One of the main reasons given by the Council for proceeding with this project, and one of the reasons so many residents supported it, was that it was put forward as a way to rehouse those living in dreadful housing. If that cannot be achieved in a timely manner, then it undermines the entire basis for the project.

·      The worst period for damp and mould is over the colder months, and so the Council should aim for that as a final deadline for rehousing those affected residents, so as to avoid them suffering through yet another winter cycle of damp and mould.

·      The 6 months between the HSC vote in June and the onset of winter in December should be ample time to find new housing for those affected households. If that deadline cannot be met, then the council should not have relied on a redevelopment project to secure adequate rehousing, and should have instead or concurrently explored other remedial strategies.

 

Our reasons for Request 3 are as follows:

·      As well as being informed of what the end outcome for the estate will be, current residents should be kept up to date with how the street will evolve leading up to construction. It is ultimately these residents who will need to live on the street in those intervening months.

·      The Council needs measures to deal with any untoward activities arising from having a high vacancy rate on the estate. Residents have the right to live in a safe and secure environment, and should not be put at risk because of a project being carried out by the Council.

·      If the Council could maintain an up-to-date list of which dwellings have been made permanently void, then this would enable remaining residents to point out any vandalism or break-ins that may otherwise go unreported.

 

We make these suggestions to you, the Council, to guide the project towards an outcome that we can all support, and a process that is both fair and reasonable for all those impacted. With the design changes outlined in Request 1, and the execution steps outlined in Requests 2 and 3, this might become a project that our group can openly support. Unfortunately, as things currently stand, it remains not.

 

Kind regards,

Save Ekin Road

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    Details of the latest proposals to redevelop Ekin Road would be available at the public event on 1 October 2024 at Barnwell Baptist Church. Residents and the local community are invited to look at the plans and speak with the design team.

ii.  As the design has evolved it has become clear that the initial decision to include the six houses is the right approach. This is consistent with what was said at Housing Scrutiny Committee in June 2024 and to the residents at the Liaison Group meeting in the same month. To avoid creating false expectation to residents, it is important to make clear that the planning application will include the redevelopment of 108 homes at Ekin Rd including the six houses to the east. 

iii. There were 28 reported cases of damp, condensation and mould (DCM) on the estate.  We expect there to be further low-level cases of DCM where residents have chosen not to report this to the Council.  Of the 28 reported cases, 8 of these had now moved and 4 were in the process of moving.  The Council’s Regeneration Policy gives priority to households where DCM had been reported.  All tenants should be reassured that each case is considered carefully by Officers before a property is allocated.

iv.Encouraged all tenants to continue bidding on properties using Homelink and to report any DCM concerns to the Council for further investigation.

v.  Void properties would be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. When temporary accommodation was not suitable due to the condition of the property, the council may take the decision to keep a property as a void until redevelopment. When a block or house was empty, it would be secured with hoarding.

 

Supplementary question:

i.    Expressed concern about properties becoming void on the estate and asked the Council to ensure when this happens that the estate is properly maintained.

ii.  Urged the Council to rehouse the people in the 16 properties which still had DCM before Christmas.

iii. Stated that the residents in the 6 properties to the northeast of the Ekin Road estate had difficult personal circumstances and maintained that these houses should not be redeveloped as it would cause harm to the residents. Believed that no compelling explanation had been given as to why these houses needed to be redeveloped.

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    Had met with Save Ekin Road Group and had also met with some of the tenants from the northeast corner to explain what was happening.

ii.  Had encouraged the residents to keep in contact with Officers.

 

Assistant Director (Development):

i.    Officers would continue to work with all tenants on the Ekin Road estate including those in the northeast corner.

ii.  Progress had been made in terms of interactions with tenants and leaseholders. Encouraged tenants who had not contacted officers to do so, so they could understand their options moving forwards. 

iii. Noted the concerns raised regarding properties becoming void as redevelopment progressed.

 

Question 2.

1.        On the 23rd January and subsequently on the 12th of March Cllr Bird reported that of the 72 flats damp and mouldy on Ekin Road, 2 were vacant (void works) and 70 were occupied, could she please update the meeting on how many are currently vacant and occupied.

2.        Has the council performed a risk assessment of Ekin Road flat residents in receipt of a pension who may well have had their winter fuel payment withdrawn in flats which are known to be damp, mouldy and difficult to heat in winter.

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    There were currently 15 properties unoccupied, comprising 14 households that had moved and 1 leasehold property that had been bought back.

ii.  The Council would not normally undertake a risk assessment of this type.  However, would like to reiterate that all cases of DCM are given priority when bids are placed on Homelink.  In addition, the Council’s Financial Inclusion Team works with tenants in financial hardship, and will be reporting any cases that come to our attention so that support can be provided.  

 

Supplementary Question:

i.    Had been attending Housing Scrutiny Committee meetings for the past year asking similar questions.

ii.  Asked how many of the flats (72) were currently empty. Thought at the last meeting there were 2 vacant; thought the Executive Councillor was now saying that 15 were now vacant.

iii. Felt there had been no progress in the last 12 months to empty these flats which had DCM.

iv.Asked how many of the flats were occupied and vacant.

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    15 properties (flats) were unoccupied. 14 households had moved and 1 of the flats was a leaseholder.   

 

Question 3.

I would like to ask the Executive Councillor for Housing to think about what it is like to be a leaseholder at Davy Road at the moment.

Let us first remind ourselves that leaseholders are people who have focused resources and intentions on creating a stable and long-lasting home for themselves and for their families and who contribute considerably and regularly to Cambridge City Council in terms of income. 

 

Since this time last year the leaseholders at Davy Road have received two letters having a heavy impact on their lives:

- one letter stating that the building in which they have set up their homes is now marked for redevelopment (future demolition)

- one letter stating that they will soon be charged for repairs on that same building; charges that will cost thousands of pounds to each leaseholder.

 

This week we can confirm that two leaseholders received three copies of the same letter dated 10^th September requesting different payments of £1664.43 and £1829.97 for the first instalment of the work.

 

Notwithstanding carrying out charged repairs on a site earmarked for redevelopment, the repairs themselves have caused confusion and disbelief from the leaseholders and tenants alike.  The structure and stability of the blocks and the balconies appear sound and good and when asked about the detail of the ‘planned works’, no detailed explanation has been given.  Without proper evidence given for claiming thousands of pounds from the leaseholders for seemingly “pointless and unnecessary” repairs makes this area of the council appear dishonest in its lack of transparency.

 

Also there is no breakdown of the costs amounting to £1664.43 and £1829.97.  The leaseholders deserve to know how these figures have been arrived at.

 

In the meantime, the leaseholders have no idea what the future holds for their homes and the experience is making one feel “nervous, angry and unsure what the future holds” and it is “all out of their hands.” 

 

Please could the Executive Councillor for Housing explain in detail what is the justification for these extensive works costing thousands to leaseholders at Davy Road, bearing in mind that one leaseholder works in property maintenance and knows that the explanation given is not up to standard.  Also, could the Executive Councillor explain in satisfactory detail how the costs have been arrived at?  Finally, please can the same Executive Councillor give more information to the leaseholders and the tenants of Davy Road on how development of this site can be justifiable given that the flats and the building are in good working order?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    Structural repairs and associated works to the flats at Davy Road were approved in January 2021 following a report to the Housing Scrutiny Committee.  The Council owns several blocks of flats built in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of these flats have structural concrete elements that need to be repaired from time to time.

ii.  In view of the re-development proposals that were under consideration at the time, the works at Davy Road have been reduced to a minimum required to maintain the building in a safe condition. 

iii. The Council has not requested any payment towards the works. The total cost incurred by the Council has currently been split between the three blocks. However, as two blocks have 12 flats and the third block,18 flats, the costs are divided equally between the number of flats in each block, which is why they differ.

iv.The costs will be accurately defined per block once all works have been completed, and costs verified by the Council. A full breakdown of the costs will be available once all the works are completed on site, costs verified, and accounts signed off. The costs will be carried forward to 2024/2025 accounts to be issued in September 2025. No payment is expected from leaseholders this financial year for the structural works carried.

v.  As indicated in the officers’ report, the standards of the existing flat blocks and maisonettes are poor and do not meet the current new build design standards. Residents were asked their views on the estate in a survey in July 2024, and the results include:

a.    60% of respondents said that they have damp, mould or condensation in the home.

b.    60% said their home is too cold in the winter.

c.    100% of respondents said that they have experienced anti-social behaviour at Davy Road and around half indicated dissatisfaction with the safety and security of the estate.

d.    Accessibility - There are no level access properties and a third of respondents said that their home is not fit for their accessibility needs. Only 25% of residents agreed that the flats are fit for their wider network’s needs and residents reported family members cannot visit them because of the difficult access.

vi.           The above examples of lived experiences from residents of the estate provide a compelling argument for redevelopment. In addition to these required improvements, we will also improve water use, energy use, ventilation and air quality for residents.

vii.          There are many people in need of a new home in the city, and by redeveloping we can significantly increase the number of homes on the site as we approach 3,000 people on the housing register.

 

Supplementary Question:

        i.       Davy Road and Fanshawe Road were earmarked for redevelopment.

      ii.        They lived at Fanshawe Road, and the redevelopment proposals there did not fill residents with hope.

    iii.        Observed the lifelessness of the Ironworks site. The green space has been abandoned, the care of the trees and plants had not been given priority and the area resembled a car park. Referred to a news article regarding this estate.

    iv.       Asked the Executive Councillor what plans would be put in place to improve the living area of the grounds so it was a priority and that the upcoming development of Fanshawe Road and Davy Road (if approved) would be carefully maintained. 

 

Assistant Director (Development)

        i.       Mill Road was a complex site. It wasn’t just about the area being handed back to the council to adopt the open space. The area also includes management by others including a Management Company and there is a cycleway which wasn’t completed yet which is managed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

      ii.        There have been problems with bollards and the Council was working to a solution with Hill, residents and the Estates and Facilities Team. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) had been applied for to control parking.

    iii.        Each development had different requirements, and the council would take on board lessons learnt.

    iv.       It is expected that the open space on Fanshawe Road would be managed by the City Council.