Issue - meetings

1.      Clare Blair

 

Mrs Blair addressed the committee and made the following comments

 

·        With reference to Water Lane and Green End Lane the process had been a disaster, and previously agreed policies for managing the consultation had been disregarded.

 

·        Consultation had been insufficient and the meetings organised had not provided an opportunity to discuss the process. It was explained that residents had been encouraged to speak at the Scrutiny Committee if they wished to discuss the proposals. It was highlighted that many of the residents were vulnerable and old, and either not able or willing to appear and speak at a public meeting.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded and acknowledged that the process was not satisfactory. The Executive Councillor explained that it was difficult to find a balance between advising residents too soon and creating undue distress, and too late where the process appears to be complete. The Executive Councillor clarified the arrangement details for the residents meeting, but again acknowledged that the process wasn’t satisfactory.

 

Mrs Blair made the following comments in response

 

·        The EQIA supplied is inadequate and doesn’t meet the required standard. It was questioned whether an EQIA had been prepared for the schemes proposed.

 

·        Questioned whether the tenant consultation could actually influence the process.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded that an EQIA should be produced. The Executive Councillor highlighted the successful development projects undertaken with sheltered housing schemes.

 

At the request of the Executive Councillor, the Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that the scheme was covered by an EQIA produced for the Enabling and Development Service.

 

2.                Leah Arnold

 

Leah Arnold addressed the committee and made the following comments

 

·        She was supportive of the proposals, although was aware that some residents were against the proposals.

 

·        Ms Arnold explained that the existing units at Aylesborugh Close were unsuitable for families with young children for the following reasons.

 

o      The un-secure gardens

 

o      Lack of adequate storage

 

The Executive Councillor thanked Ms Arnold for attending and speaking, and explained that the issues raised would be addressed in the plans.

 

Ms Arnold welcomed the response,

 

3.          Michael Bond

 

Mr Bond addressed the committee and explained that he was Chair of Old Chesterton Residents Association and Age UK Cambridge. Mr Bond made the following points

 

·        The site was already of a low density compared with equivalent private sector lead developments, and the proposals would further reduce the density of the development.

 

·        There were already in excess of 8,000 people on the waiting list, and the proposals would result in a reduction of a further 9 homes.

 

·        The site (Aylesborough Close) was currently car free and enjoyed a large green open space. The proposals would result in the green open space becoming a car park.

 

·        Reconsideration of the proposed decision was urged.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing explained that the plans were indicative, and that there was still opportunity to influence the site plans. It was explained that whilst the number of units would be reduced, the units proposed were larger and could each accommodate more people. The Executive Councillor agreed that green open space and building at an appropriate density were really important considerations.

 

At the request of the Executive Councillor, the Head of Strategic Housing explained that the proposals were designed to increase the floor space (40m2 to 60m2 for 1 bed room units) and improve the accessibility.

 

Mr Bond responded to the response from the Executive Councillor with the following points

 

·        There was a need to be smarter with the use of land, and ensure that a range of options were available.

 

·        Noted that only 3 equivalent properties would be provided for the current 24.

 

The Executive Councillor re-iterated that the layout and designs were still indicative and subject to planning approval.

 

4.      Dr Guskov

 

Dr Guskov spoke in objection to the proposals for Aylesborough Close and made the following comments

 

·        The project was not in the interest of leaseholders, tenants, neighbours, Cambridge citizens and British Public, nor was it financially realistic.

 

·        Clarification was requested whether any officer or Councillor had declared an interest in relation to the project.

 

Dr Guskov tabled an un-validated petition in objection to the proposals for Aylesborough Close.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that no declarations had been made by officers or members involved in the project. The Executive Councillor also explained in response to questions regarding finance, that the budget would be re-fined and included in the budget process. It was confirmed that the figure stated for home loss payments was incorrect and would be update through the budget process.

 

5.      Mr Hinton

 

Mr Hinton addressed the committee and made the following comments regarding the proposals.

 

·        Mr Hinton explained that he had moved to Aylesborough Close in 1976, and had lived there ever since.

 

·        His property had received significant investment in recent years and this would be wasted.

 

·        The majority of the tenants were against the proposals.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that the improvements had been undertaken under a different funding system, and that without the change to the housing revenue account projects of this nature would have not been possible. It was explained that the exact details of the changes were not known until very recently.

 

Mr Hinton suggested that the properties would continue to be suitable for 20/30 further years, if investment was undertaken.

 

Councillors Bird, Todd-Jones and Price addressed the committee with the approval of the Chair.

 

Councillor Bird

 

Councillor Bird spoke in opposition to the proposals for Water Lane and Green End Road and made the following comments

 

·        Residents were very upset about the proposals.

 

·        Consultation was insufficient.

 

·        Only three of the existing residents would be allowed to return.

 

·        An EQIA had not been completed for the project despite the proposals affecting the most vulnerable members of society. Based on the insufficient EQIA, the Councillor requested a suspension of the project.

 

·        An un-validated petition was presented to the committee in opposition for the proposals for Water Lane and Green End Road.

 

·        The process was progressing too fast and provided inadequate opportunities for challenge.

 

·        Concern that the proposals would result in elderly residents feeling forced into moving into White Friars.

 

Councillor Price

 

Councillor Price spoke in opposition to the proposals for Water Lane and Green End End Road and made the following comments

 

·        Not against development per se, but the proposals were progressing too fast.

 

·        There had insufficient consultation, with only 10 days notice given for the residents meeting and insufficient opportunity at the residents meeting to question the proposals.

 

·        The development would not result in an increase in the number of units available.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones

 

Councillor Todd-Jones spoke and made the following comments

 

·         Previously raised concerns were re-iterated.

 

·        Clarification was requested on how a guarantee could be given to existing residents, if there were going to be fewer units in the new proposals.

 

·        Clarification was requested on residents would receive support if their new rent was higher.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that the guarantee had related to the sheltered housing programme, but whilst there was no guarantee it was likely that existing residents would be able to return if they wished.

 

Councillor Price in response expressed concern about the lack of consultation and other shortcomings in the process.

 

Matter for Decision: To consider scheme approvals in the Council New Build Programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

i.        Note the indicative mix, design and layout of the schemes and that they are subject to planning approval.

 

ii.          Approve the scheme capital budget highlighted in the report to cover the Construction Cost of the scheme; Home Loss Payments to tenants and leaseholders and professional quantity surveyor fees.

 

iii.          Approve that delegated authority be given to the Director of Customer and Community Services following consultation with the Director of Resources and the Head of Legal Services to seal a Development Agreement with our preferred house-builder/developer partner.

 

For the following schemes

 

a. Aylesborough Close Ph 1 (1-8a and 39-50 Aylesborough Close and adjacent garages)

 

b. Water Lane (6-14a Water Lane and 238-246 Green End Road)

 

c. Stanesfield Road Scouts Hut

 

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Housing regarding the Affordable Housing Scheme.

 

The committee made following comments

 

i.          Councillors were encouraged to vote against the schemes for Water Lane and Green End Road.

 

ii.       The proposals were presented as a done deal.

 

iii.      The use of affordable rent levels as the method for calculating rents would result in significant increases in rent levels vis a vis the existing stock.

 

iv.      A “life changing” decision should not be made until sufficient information was available to make a properly informed decision.

 

v.       In comparison to the information supplied to Councillors in other forums such as through the planning policy process, the information supplied was insufficient to make an informed decision.

 

vi.          Concern that some residents had already resigned themselves to moving.

 

vii.     The process was flawed and adversely affected the most vulnerable members of society.

 

The Executive Councillor addressed the comments received, and explained that it was a tricky job for Ward Councillor to balance the needs of their residents against the wider needs of the city. The committee were reminded that it had the responsibility for scrutinising the strategic overview of housing in the city.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that she didn’t normally attend residents meetings, because her attendance didn’t assist residents but was willing to attend when requested by residents.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that an equalities assessment was not produced for each scheme, but had been for the programme of 146 new homes. The Head of Strategic Housing and the Director of Customer and Community Services outlined the steps undertaken to support residents.

 

viii.    It was noted that the existing units at Aylesborough Close were difficult to let and sometimes refused by prospective tenants.

 

ix.          Clarification was requested on how the scheme compared with similar schemes.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that strenuous efforts were made to ensure that all tenants were appropriately supported to find the best possible outcome for them. The Director of Customer and Community Services outlined the housing developments needs in the city, and current rent policy.

 

x.       The assertion that the committee had to consider the strategic housing implications of the proposals was challenged.

 

xi.           Further information was requested regarding the position of leaseholders.

 

xii.     The EQIA was inadequate.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that it would not be appropriate for tenants to have a veto on scheme proposal, but that it was important for tenants to have a say in the development of proposals. The Executive Councillor also re-iterated that she didn’t normally attend residents meetings, because her attendance didn’t assist residents but was willing to attend when requested by residents.

 

xiii.          General support was expressed for the Stanesfield Road scheme.

 

xiv.          Clarification was sought on the implications; specifically the financial implication if a decision was deferred.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing explained that that grant funding had to be spent by March 2015, and that £17,500 would be the penalty for each incomplete unit and that any delay could prejudice the ability of the City Council to deliver the schemes without penalty.

 

The committee were asked to consider the implication of deferral in terms of what positive outcomes could be realistically delivered. The committee discussed the implications of deferral.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to defer schemes “a” and “b” (Aylesborough Close and Water Lane) for further consultation and a re-assessment of the suitability of the scheme. The Scrutiny Committee voted four votes in favour of the amendment and four votes against the amendment. The amendment was defeated on the Chairs casting vote.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and voted as below

 

Aylesborough Close	Four votes in favour and four votes against   The proposal was endorsed on the Chairs casting vote.
Water Lane	Four votes in favour and four votes against   The proposal was endorsed on the Chairs casting vote.
Stansfield Road	Unanimously in favour

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A