Housing bosses faced a grilling on how much work and money was needed to bring council homes in Brighton and Hove up to standard.
The questions came at a special meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee after an official watchdog found that “significant improvements” were needed in thousands of homes.
In August the Regulator of Social Housing said that the council “is failing to ensure that it meets a number of legal requirements in relation to health and safety”.
And “significant improvements” were needed including fire and electrical safety reports for thousands of council homes.
At Hove Town Hall yesterday (Monday 23 September), Conservative councillor Anne Meadows, a former chair of the housing committee, asked where the council had found £15 million to tackle the “serious failings”.
She was told that the money was from the council’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA), a ring-fenced account largely funded by council tenants’ rents.
The council’s interim housing chief, Martin Reid, said that the HRA budget included £50 million set aside for the type of work required to deal with the health and safety concerns.
He said: “We are making significant investment in our homes. There’s over £15 million in this year’s budget.
“There’ll be more in future budgets to make all the necessary improvements to our existing housing as a direct response to some of the issues raised in the reports and also issues that we’ve picked up.
“We’ve been relooking at all our fire risk assessments. We’ve been doing new fire risk assessments across the board to make sure we’ve got the most up-to-date position for all our homes both at high-risk high-rise blocks and lower-risk blocks.”
More contractors have been brought in to work alongside council staff, he said. The short-term contractors were dealing with the backlog of routine repairs while council teams were focused on emergency repairs.
Councillor Meadows asked about energy performance certificates (EPC) and the number of homes that did not meet the minimum “band D” standard, with one even in “band F”.
She said: “That’s quite ridiculous. And (there are) several band E properties. They are apparently not liveable standards in the private sector – but we have people in them. And that’s not acceptable.
“Why is that? That shows our properties are well below habitable standards for anyone to live in and if that had been a private landlord, we would have taken them to court by now.”
Mr Reid said that the council was investing millions in energy efficiency, including doors, windows and roofs, and the council was held to a different standard compared with the private sector.
Labour councillor Gill Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing and new homes, said that social landlords like the council were being held to a higher standard since new laws were introduced in April in response to the Grenfell fire.
Councillor Williams said that the Labour administration had inherited an ageing housing stock affected by under-investment and it was no surprise that it had been found wanting.
Green councillor Ollie Sykes asked what the council had learnt – including what it had learnt about how it got into this situation – because the response appeared to be lacking in analysis.
He recognised that covid had had a significant influence because during the coronavirus pandemic, the council’s repairs team focused on emergencies only to avoid entering homes.
Councillor Sykes said: “Looking at the authorities that have had judgments against them under this new legislation, there have been about 35 since April, and we’re in the bottom 11.
“We do need to think about how we got into this situation, try to learn from it and reflect and analyse to avoid that happening in the future.”
He touched on a cycle of repeatedly patching up older buildings versus a broader approach to regenerating the council’s housing stock.
Mr Reid said that the council had brought in contractors to deal with the basic repairs backlog and tenants appeared to be satisfied.
The council was looking at more preventative investment so that fewer repairs would be necessary, even though these are efficient.
Councillor Williams said that a regeneration programme would enable the council to solve some of the more persistent problems with its housing stock.
She said: “For some particular buildings, the repairs never end as something else breaks something else – and that’s just age.
“So, partly, regeneration could take into account where we invest in the buildings that we already have and do we spend money on refurbishing?
“These are questions we’re going to have to ask – and we need everybody involved because everyone’s got tenants and residents.
“Or do we look at, well, demolishing and starting again? These are the questions that are going to come up over the next few months that are really important.”
Labour councillor Amanda Evans, who chairs the committee, said that the area did not get a “fair shake” for fire regulation funding, given how the “burden” had increased since the Grenfell fire.
Councillor Evans also chairs East Sussex Fire Authority which covers East Sussex and Brighton and Hove – an area with the sixth-highest number of high-rise blocks in the country.
She said: “That’s quite a lot considering we’re quite a small county. If you add in medium-rise buildings it is second only to London.
“Everyone is always astonished by this. Surely Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, wherever? No, it’s East Sussex. Most of that is in Brighton and Hove.”
Councillor Evans said that the fire authority was working with MPs and council leaders across the county to try to obtain more financial support from the government.
The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee will receive regular updates on actions to address the regulator’s report.
The council’s cabinet is due to discuss the report at Hove Town Hall on Thursday (26 September). The meeting is scheduled to start at 2pm and to be webcast on the council’s website.
Good. The big worry is though that this Labour council really won’t do enough to push the new Labour Govt for more funding and resources to address the urgent safety issues in the housing stock. If they fail to do that they really are not looking after the wellbeing of residents in the city.
I hope I’m proved wrong, but with the Labour Govt nationally talking about tough decisions and bracing us for austerity part 2, and Labour councillors seemingly bracing is for local funding cuts too (with no real push back from them) them, then how on earth are they going to address essential and urgent defects that need addressing immediately. It’s all alarming stuff and I’m worried that Labour locally will just accept poor local government settlements which leave then far short of what they need to address safety risks.
BHCC demonizes and obstructs private landlords when BHCC itself is the worst landlord in this city. Ignores the rules, fails on all metrics, and looks the ther way. Corrupt hypocrites.