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.
It is a fair concern, and certainly with eyes on this subject at the moment, the council will be judged accordingly on how housing stock is tackled.
The bird blocks were always going to reach end of life eventually, and pragmatically, I’d be in the mindset of thinking what is more cost effective in the long run, a regeneration or repair?
Then considering either, how are residents managed whilst that work is being completed, as it is likely to displace a fair amount of people for a length of time.
Just on those blocks, the more you think about all the aspects, the more it becomes a quite complicated task.
I also note that the Labour councillor Gill Williams deflects blame from her administration by saying they “had inherited an ageing housing stock affected by under-investment and it was no surprise that it had been found wanting”.
But it’s been a Labour council for about 7 of the last 10 years, and since Brighton and Hove joined together nearly 30 years ago, it’s been a Labour council for around 2 thirds of that time. Who exactly is she suggesting they inherited an ageing housing stock from?
This problem was created over decades, and the councils in Brighton have been mostly Labour for much of that time – more than any other political party by a long way. If the current Labour administration has inherited an ageing housing stock, current Labour councillors can’t deflect any blame for allowing the problem to grow when previous Labour administrations previous Labour administrations have played a significant role in where things are now.
Not saying that others have failed to tackle the problem either, and of course Tory austerity is a factor. That comment just struck me as pretty disingenuous given the decades long decline of the housing stock, and the history of who has controlled the council for most of the last nearly 30 years. The rest of her comments about what actually to do now are also alarmingly vague given she’s the council’s housing lead – it’s a Labour Government, so I suggest that she speaks to them and insist that it her colleagues in Westminster are committed to ensuring people are not forced to live in dangerous homes – and that they give councils the resources to sort it. Why she hasn’t thought of this option is beyond me. Politicians talk about what a scandal Grenfell was but don’t seem to push back when they need to actually tackle the problems and do the work to fix things.
However, resolving this isn’t just about identifying past failures. What’s most crucial is ensuring that both the council and the national Labour government push for adequate resources and policies now, in my opinion. Deflecting blame won’t fix the structural issues; meaningful pressure and concrete solutions will, if you pardon the pun.
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.
To be fair, there are some shocking slumlords out there that leave their properties in some extremely dire states, then abuse legal powers to remove anyone who dares complain about the conditions.
Whilst it does not excuse poor performance from the council, using a tu quoque doesn’t justify the poor performance of some private landlords.
I take on board what you say Benjamin but the tu quoque is relevant to an organisation that enforces standards by sanctioning and fining those who do not meet the very standards that they have failed to meet themselves. For instance; you would not have a Doctor who has broken the hippocratic oath on multiple occasions chairing a medical disciplinary committee. Organisations that set a bad example should not be given powers of enforcement.
It’s an interesting point.
While it may appear contradictory for an organisation to enforce standards it has previously failed to meet, the ability to regulate and implement is not inherently dependent on a flawless track record. A regulatory body might be best placed to understand the impact of failures and ensure they are addressed effectively, using their past mistakes to inform better practice.
Furthermore, using the doctor analogy, it is not unusual for professionals with prior disciplinary issues to contribute to regulatory bodies once they have reformed, offering valuable insight into the problems they regulate.
I always enjoy a debate with you Benjamin but I am afraid very little of what you say is credible in this instance.
A small blemish on a person’s (or organisation’s) record may be acceptable but we are talking about dire and wilful neglect with respect to the failures in implementing regulatory requirements to approximately one third of BHCC’s housing stock. Similar problems in privately rented accommodation will affect a much lower proportion of properties. Without wishing to be overly dramatic, this is literally a case of the lawless policing the lawful.
I would not agree with your assertion that people with a poor disciplinary record are likely to make contributions on professional disciplinary panels. My professional bodies would absolutely not endorse this approach. That is not to say that people are beyond redemption but a significant period of time must elapse to demonstrate this. May I ask which examples you relied upon to suggest this may be the case? The difference with BHCC is that they are implementing a rigorous licensing policy upon private landlords at the very time that they have been shown to be neglectful with their own responsibilities. I cannot imagine any credible professional body supporting such a situation.
Whilst I do see that a degree of care appears to be employed in your comments generally, there does appear to be a degree of nuance. May I ask if you are affiliated to the current local administration in any way?
Regarding disciplinary records, I was drawing on examples where reform and improvement have been acknowledged, such as public figures or institutions evolving after sanctions. A really basic one would be criminals utilising their skills and experiences to improve security and structures within the custodial and justice system. While BHCC’s neglect is inexcusable, my point was about the potential for change within frameworks, not endorsing failures – we’ve agreed on that!
As for affiliations, I am not aligned with the current administration, and I try to aim for a balanced view, although I certainly have my leanings. Cllr. Lyons recommended I participate more actively and stand eventually, and I suppose when it comes to that day, I’ll stop commenting on here under a pseudonym!
This hasn’t happened overnight but has been endemic since the maintenance service was outsourced. However the Authority has been unforgivably slow to address the issue. Nearly all the high-rise council blocks are nearing the end of their useful life. I don’t see any foresight planning going on. It does beggar belief what the Council employees have been doing for the previous years whilst drawing their wages and topping up their gold-plated pensions. It starts at the top and trickles down. Complete lack of oversight and dereliction of duty.
The problems at BHCC are across the whole Council and are manifold. The Council is staffed with wasters and skivers and senior officers are incompetent and profligate.
I wonder if it’s because the lazy s hits are always working from home, and do there best not to answer any phones…you’d never believe that Councils are in place to the residents…
One aspect to pick up about the energy banding. Some properties, especially the old style cottages and listed buildings, can’t have the energy-saving interventions put in place to bump up their rating due to their design and protected aspects.
Those kind of properties will never be energy efficient.
I’ve seen several of high rises being tested recently. If you see any abseiling, that’s what is going on!
I still take issue with councillors calling this an investment. They are just trying to catch up with their legal obligations, in which they have been delinquent, putting their tenants lives at risk.
Do you feel the semantic changes the outcome?
I agree, this is not an investment but day-to-day spending. That’s a key point as everyday spending, meeting legal and moral obligations to maintain properties to a safe and fair standard, was not being done despite there being huge budgets to do it. They have been delinquent, B&HC has only made a change when an external audit has picked them up and heavily criticised them. Calling this “investment” looks like part of a cover-up and we need to ask why there is a culture to do this, rather than serve tenants.
Quite so Nick.
Theres been a dereliction of public funds from this council for many a long day ,how do they justify spending millions on roads and footpaths, yet we never see any results except the narrowing of every road and corner, every road becoming a parking bay ,for council coffers,cycle lanes wider than car lanes restricted traffic flow ,money for inappropriate changes to the town centre ,and Stein projects,and controversial building along the kingsway,overspend on the hove town hall and on public toilets, that are never open ,its been waste ,waste,waste,and then theres i 360,that and all the other things ,like the Madeira arches, it’s not rocket science when it come to priority ,there landlords,as well as temporary city keepers,and we expect a whole lot more from them to take care of running the place,instead of into the ground.
So we discover that the council has a budget of £50m allowed for repairs and health/safety on their properties. A devastating report is published by a regulator and £15m is required to fix the key issues in it – issues that the council would prosecute a private landlord for.
So money is not the issue here. The council has the money, indeed three times the money by these figures
Yet thousands of council tenants are living in homes now without basic safety certificates. Many more with long-overdue maintenance. This report talks about homes that have energy ratings that would be illegal for private landlords to rent out, but council tenants have to live in. Poorly insulated, inefficient, expensive homes.
If it’s not about money, then it must be about competence. The housing stock has been allowed to decline while the council raked in money and sat on £50m.
I can’t see any reason for senior staff at the council not to be sacked and for councillors to resign or be sacked too. Talking about “learning” isn’t an answer – that really is disrespectful to tenants. If a private landlord did this the fines would be over £100m for the electrical safety failures alone (just to show the scale of the issues and how seriously they are taken). This is a long-term issue. It is not a money issue. So people need to change – and fast.
While competence is certainly a factor in managing public housing, the issues are often more complex than individual culpability. Councils operate under far more bureaucratic and regulatory constraints than private landlords, which can slow down decision-making and the allocation of funds. Simply having the money available doesn’t mean it can be spent efficiently or immediately, given the various legal, procedural, and political layers that councils must navigate.
Firing senior staff or demanding the resignations of councillors may seem like swift action, but it doesn’t necessarily address the systemic issues that caused the problem in the first place, such as outdated procurement processes, strained workforce capacity, and other operational challenges.
The focus, in my opinion, should be on holding the council accountable to implement rapid reforms and ensure the funds are directed where most needed, rather than rushing to blame individuals, which may only distract from the urgent task of improving conditions for tenants.
Yes, but what will stop this happening again? If you know that your job is on the line then you make better decisions. This failure is a massive one. Many people must have been aware and senior managers should have had monthly reports with major sections in red. If they didn’t – then are they really senior managers.
Yes, we can be nice about it. Learn lessons etc – but it will all happen again. These senior managers are very well rewarded. As you say there are more steps to negotiate in larger organisations. But there is also more backup, more knowledge and more support than is available to private landlords. The scale of any organisation can be a problem, but it can also be a huge benefit.
We need to look at outcomes, not the issues. Just as smaller landlords are judged, so should larger ones. We should not and must not accept lower housing standards for public rather than private tenants. The outcomes from the council here are terrible – a huge percentage of their housing stock is not meeting minimum and legal or legal equivalent standards. To say no individual is to blame is unreasonable. There may be more than one – but go they should and must so that future job holders know that if they make huge errors, they can also be fired.
You raise a very fair point about accountability. I’d argue that focusing solely on individual culpability risks oversimplifying a systemic issue. Yes, senior managers should be held accountable, but their dismissal won’t necessarily fix the entrenched problems of bureaucracy, outdated processes, or workforce limitations. Instead of only punitive measures, we should push for a culture shift to improve transparency, decision-making, and responsiveness. Public sector housing should indeed be held to the same standards as private, but real reform comes through structural change, not just scapegoating.
At least in my humble opinion.
Let’s see how they ignore EPC requirements. That’s the next violation of laws that will manifest in BHCC housing. The majority of council housing has pitiful EPC ratings – <30% is C or above.
I would suspect an element of that may come from the age of some of the buildings can’t be improved, or they are listed buildings. I’m aware that a lot of the seafront properties fall into that category.