Issue - meetings

Public Speakers

 

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

 

1.       Dr Guskov

 

Dr Guskov addressed the committee and made the following points regarding the Aylesborough Close project:

 

·       Encouraged Councillors to not approve the project.

 

·       The project was not reasonable and the report contained errors and inaccurate statements.

 

·       Children would be disproportionately disadvantaged by the relocation, and the proposals are contrary to equalities legislation.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that information regarding the impact on children was included in the exempt section of the equalities impact report. The committee were advised of the efforts made to find suitable accommodation, which did not disadvantage families.

 

Dr Guskov responded to the response from the Director and made the following comments

 

·       Denied that the Council were engaging in constructive dialogue.

 

·       The project was unreasonable and the Council had already been put on notice of judicial review.

 

·       The project is contrary to the public interest.

 

2.       Vidja Magh

 

Ms Magh addressed the committee and made the following points

 

·       Didn’t want to move.

 

·       Leaseholders would not benefit from the demolition, and the properties had recently been re-roofed at taxpayer’s expenses.

 

·       Concerns regarding the process of confirming the value of properties were expressed.

 

·       It was suggested that more resources should have been identified for leaseholders and tenants to liaise with.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing explained that the home loss payments for leaseholders were based on statutory regulations. The committee were advised that leaseholders received home loss payment, plus open market value plus reasonable moving costs.

 

Ms Magh in response suggested additional resources should be identified to support residents.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that whilst Sue Dellar was the principal contact for leaseholders, other officers were responsible for liaison with tenants.

 

Clare Blair

 

Clare Blair addressed the committee and made the following points

 

·       There had been no significant change since the previous meeting.

 

·       Many of the residents were vulnerable and unwell, and resigned to moving.

 

·       The proposals would destroy communities and result in the loss of green space.

 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Affordable Housing Development Programme - Water Lane and Aylesborough Close Project Approvals and Equalities Impact

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

 

i.       Approve that Aylesborough Close Phase 1 (1-8a and 39-50 Aylesborough Close and adjacent garages) is redeveloped

 

ii.     Note the first indicative mix, design and layout of the new scheme to be evolved prior to the submission of a planning application

 

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

 

iv.   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.

 

v.    Note that residents of the current scheme will be supported in line with the Council’s Home Loss Policy to secure suitable alternative housing

 

vi.   Approve that the Water Lane scheme (6-14a Water Lane and 238-246 Green End Road) is redeveloped

 

vii. Note the first indicative mix, design and layout of the new scheme to be evolved prior to the submission of a planning application

 

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

 

ix.   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.

 

x.    Note that residents of the current scheme will be supported in line with the Council’s Home Loss Policy to secure suitable alternative housing

 

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 Head of Strategic Housing regarding Affordable Housing Development Programme - Water Lane and Aylesborough Close Project Approvals and Equalities Impact.

 

The committee resolved to consider the scheme specific equalities impact assessments, which were recommended to be NOT for publication and resolved that press and public are excluded by virtue of paragraph 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report, following the re-admission of the public and press.

 

i.       The need to balance the needs of the housing list against the needs of existing residents was highlighted. It was highlighted that there was an identified need for more family/larger properties.

 

ii.               In response to issues raised regarding home loss payment clarification was requested on the calculations from the officers. It was also highlighted that other authorities provided significantly more information proactively to leaseholders. The Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that leaseholders were eligible to home loss payment; reasonable disturbance allowance and 110% of value (or 107.5% for non-resident leaseholders). The committee were also provided with information on the relative viability of the scheme against others.

 

iii.             The Head of Strategic Housing was asked to comment on the suggestion that the properties were in good condition and that only refurbishment was required. The committee were advised that whilst refurbishment may be possible, it would be difficult to deliver modern accessibility and energy efficiency improvements with existing structures.

 

iv.             It was agreed that the scheme as a whole needed to consider the needs of both existing tenants and future tenants. The opportunity to work through issues at the steering group was welcomed. 

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations for Aylesborough Close by 4 votes to 0. The committee voted 4 votes in favour of the Water Lane recommendations and 4 against, the recommendation was endorsed on the Chairs casting vote.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A