Issue - meetings

With the agreement of the Chair, Councillors Price and Bird addressed the committee.

 

Councillor Price

 

Councillor Price made the following points regarding the item;

 

·        There continued to be a lack of consultation with the affected residents.

 

·        It was acknowledged that whilst there had been a public meeting, many residents particularly the most vulnerable felt intimidated or didn’t like to leave their properties after dark. It was also noted that the weather was poor on the day of the public meeting.

 

·        Better use of the garage sites was encouraged, rather than the apparent “cherry picking” of the most attractive sites.

 

·        Members were encouraged to withdraw support for the Water Lane development.

 

Councillor Bird

 

Councillor Bird made the following points regarding the item;

 

·        The issue was not political, and that it was important to fight for peoples interests.

 

·        A questionnaire had been sent to all residents at Water Lane and 75% had been returned. The issues highlighted include lack of consultation; poor treatment and associated problems. It was highlighted that whilst moving back was an option, the rents were thought to be too high. It was also highlighted that as a result of the stress one resident had been hospitalised.

 

Public Speakers

 

The committee received a number of representations from members of the public.

 

1.      Clare Blair

 

Clare Blair raised the following points regarding the item

 

·        The inclusion of the report on the agenda was welcomed, however concern was expressed that it had required significant persuasion for the process to be undertaken.

 

·        It was suggested that greater details should be provided on the impact on specific welfare reform changes.

 

·        The assessment relied too heavily on self-identification of issues.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that officers were carefully monitoring the impact of welfare reforms. It was explained that once the impacts were clear the assessment would be updated.

 

2.      Mrs Bennison

 

Mrs Bennison raised the following points regarding the item

 

·        Consultation and engagement had been insufficient.

 

·        Residents didn’t want to move and many of the properties had been recently refurbished.

 

·        Clarification was requested on who was responsible for the incidental costs of moving such as the re-direction of mail.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that the cost of mail re-direction was covered in the disturbance costs covered by the Council.

 

3.      Mr Patman

 

Mr Patman raised the following points regarding the item

 

·        Spoke in objection to the proposals for Water Lane.

 

·        A petition of 15 residents had been raised in objection to the development, and that the petition would be sent to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Eric Pickles)

 

·        Limited opportunity to challenge views expressed in the report.

 

·        The decision had already been made.

 

4.      Dr Guskov

 

Dr Guskov addressed the committee and made reference was made to recent research, which suggested an enhanced mortality rate following forced moves.

 

The Director of Customer and Customer Services explained that she had not had sight of the research, but indicated that similar research had been focussed on sheltered housing. The Director encouraged Dr Guskov to forward her a copy of the research.

 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Affordable Housing Development Programme - Equalities Impact

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved

 

        i.            To agree the Equalities Impact Assessment for the Affordable Housing Development Programme.

 

      ii.            To bring an EQIA on each new scheme considered for redevelopment to Community Services Scrutiny Committee, prior to a final decision being made to go ahead

 

    iii.            To hold a public meeting with residents at each new scheme proposed for redevelopment, at least 1 month prior to the Scrutiny Committee, and to incorporate views into the final report.

 

   iv.            To endorse the composition of the steering group, as set out in paragraph 3.10 of the committee report to include additional membership to that agreed by Council in October 2012.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Director of Customer and Community Services.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report.

 

i.        It was suggested that the schemes with the most vulnerable residents should not be progressed at the beginning of the program.

 

ii.      The public meetings should provide opportunity to influence the outcome, rather than just supplying information.

 

 

iii.    The report was welcomed and the importance of the steering group to provide human diligence of proposals at the earliest possible stage.

 

iv.     The successful implementation of the 8-year refurbishment programme for sheltered housing was highlighted as good practice.

 

 

v.       It was suggested that in future every effort should be taken to ensure that residents receive all consultation letters, even if they did not agree with the principle or specific proposals and that sufficient time was allowed to respond to the points in the letters. It was also suggested that the letters need to be very clearly written.

 

vi.     Whilst the EQIA was welcomed it was suggested that there should be a detailed assessment of individual residents needs prepared on a house by house basis. The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that detailed schedules were prepared as part of the process but didn’t form part of the EQIA.

 

 

vii.   Further information was on the weight assigned to the schooling of children. The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that every effort was made to rehouse appropriately, and that a number of tools were available to the Council to ensure that appropriate housing was found.

 

viii. The difficulty of consulting at the right time was acknowledged in order to give enough notice, but without causing undue concern. It was also highlighted that many elderly and vulnerable residents may have difficulties managing post, and may require additional assistance, and that the absence of a response should not be taken as acknowledgement of receipt or acceptance.

 

ix.     The limitations of the EQIA process were highlighted in providing an assessment of individual needs, as they were focussed differently.

 

x.       The leaseholder representative welcomed the opportunity to attend the consultation events and participated. The concern and distress of residents was highlighted, but that this needed to be balanced against redeveloping the estate.

 

xi.     The importance of the steering group in providing an informal setting for residents to discuss concerns was highlighted.

 

xii.   It was suggested that the EQIA should form the basis of a set of principles for future developments.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendation by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A