Agenda item - Residents Question Time

35.1           1) Leaseholder charges

·       Residents stated that they had asked a range of questions to officers previous to the meeting that had not been answered and had received contradictory responses, these included: why the proposed works would span over so many years, why the work was different on different blocks and how the costings were calculated.  Residents added that it was not true, as stated, that they had been aware of the proposed works from 2014 and that the council had failed to produce the formal document that reports this when requested.

·       Officers responded that the extended time frame was due to issues with the scheme, for example the refusal of planning permission, and was unlikely to be completed before the termination of the Mears contract. Officers stated that they would communicate with residents and move forward with the key concerns to decide on what works, agree on specifications of works, agree basis for tender and provide dialogue on the basis of the estimated costings.

·       Residents asked if Officers were withdrawing the costings estimate and stated that it should have been evaluated more robustly before the figure was released. Residents added that leaseholders deserve to know the situation and the description of the works; it should not take action groups to gain transparency.

·       Officers responded that the costings were an estimate which may have been higher than the actual figure and that in the past they only wanted to provide an estimate on consultation stages however there were legitimate criticisms on needing to give residents more say. Officers added that with the end of the Mears contract, the council could look to work with more contractors in the market.

·       In response to residents, officers responded that there would be a meeting and a survey before the end of the year to generate an estimate of a financial figure that all parties could support. Officers added that there had been criticism in the past for doing all the works in one go; however this practice was cost effective in terms of the scaffolding.

·       In response to Residents, Officers stated the council did not operate as a private landlord with access to sinking funds.

·       The Chair noted that there were strong feelings on the charges and accepted that there were past failures; there was now space for clarity and resident involvement which would be supported by a follow up meeting with Martin Reid, the Head of Housing Strategy Property & Investment, to continue discussions.

35.2           2) Estate Development Budget – Main bids

·       Residents raised concern for fencing services being removed from the Estate Development Budget (EDB) because some areas did not have open spaces and had little else to bid for. Residents added that the EDB was supposed to be a community budget and fencing seemed logical to be provided on the Housing Revenue Account.

·       The Chair stated that there was not enough information on what had been planned and proposed on estates in the long-term. He added that there needed to be expanded methods of identifying schemes and funding and that information and discussion groups were needed on estates of future works.

·       Officers responded that they had committed to do so and that information was available online, however they recognised that the record should be more transparent and up to date.