The council has set aside almost £20 million to buy out up to 44 home owners in eight tower blocks blighted by safety concerns.
The flats were bought under the “right to buy” but the future is unclear for all eight blocks – and for their tenants and leaseholders – at sites in Hollingdean, Whitehawk and Kemp Town.
They were built using “large panel system” (LPS) construction – a method most commonly used in this country in the 1960s and 1970s.
But the pre-cast concrete buildings relied on walls rather than columns as the main load-bearing parts and are at greater risk from fires, explosions and high winds than more modern flats.
Concern about LPS blocks have come into focus since 72 people died as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 although the London high-rise flats were built in a different way.
Next week, Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet is expected to approve a buy-back programme over the coming five years while officials and politicians work out what to do with the blocks.
As with New England House, the council-owned landmark commercial tower block near Preston Circus, in Brighton, refurbishment is one option – or the high-rise buildings could be demolished and the sites redeveloped.
A report to the council’s cabinet said: “The eight blocks do not meet the current safety standards in relation to their ability to resist a disproportionate collapse in the case of an explosion or large fire.
“Interim measures were put in place to ensure that the buildings remain safe to occupy while longer-term decisions are taken on the future of the blocks.”
If the cabinet approves the buy-back programme – which formed part of the council’s budget passed last month – the owners of 44 flats could receive about £300,000 each.
This would cover the cost of the council buying their flat from them as well as funding their bills for surveyors and legal work plus any mortgage redemption fees and stamp duty.
For 23 of the leaseholders, who still live in the flats that they own, the package would also cover their removal costs.
The total for this part of the programme could reach just over £13 million, with the council facing its own costs, while building in an amount for contingencies.
The programme costs also include funding for the initial feasibility work on the future of the eight high-rise buildings.
The report said: “Since residents were advised about the issues with the blocks in July 2024, we have continued to ‘buy back’ properties with vacant possession from leaseholders under our existing ‘home purchase policy’.
“Leaseholder concerns have been raised due to the impact of the current situation on the valuation of their properties together with their inability to sell on the open market as buyers are unable to secure mortgages.
“These impacts also mean resident leaseholders are unable to move home which they may wish to do for a variety of reasons, eg, for work or to fulfil caring responsibilities.
“Although a decision hasn’t been made on the long-term future programme for each block, the likelihood is that residents will need to move out either for a period of time for works to be carried out or on a permanent basis.
“This makes it highly probable that we will need to buy back leasehold interests in the blocks in order to have vacant units.”
The report added: “Given the difficulty that leaseholders now have selling on the open market, it is reasonable to offer the additional financial package alongside the market value at this early stage to ensure leaseholders are not disadvantaged by approaching the council early.
“This policy will also incentivise leaseholders to sell their properties to the council which will facilitate any regeneration or refurbishment programme.”
It also said: Putting in place options for tenants and leaseholders whilst decisions are
made on the future of the blocks provides them with real choice in the face
of extraordinary circumstances
The eight tower blocks contain 559 flats in total. They are
- Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court in Hollingdean
- St James’ House in Kemp Town
- Falcon Court, Heron Court, Kestrel Court, Kingfisher Court and Swallow Court in Whitehawk
Options for the future of the eight blocks are due to be discussed by the cabinet in June. The report said: “These options will be underpinned by the main principles of creating a net increase in social housing.
“We will take a resident-led approach to the options for refurbishment or regeneration of each of the blocks to ensure we maximise the potential of any proposal and will carry out full consultations with residents.”
In the meantime, flats that become vacant could be made available to people who would otherwise be in temporary housing.
The council is not alone in having to deal with hefty bills for emergency and temporary housing and this could save money until any refurbishment or demolition work begins.
The report to the cabinet said that, although there is no immediate danger, some tenants also wanted to move out and were receiving help and advice.
Extra safety measures had been put in place, the council said, in addition to the long-standing ban on gas cannisters and barbecues.
These included a temporary ban on e-bikes and e-scooters, with alternative off-site storage having been made available including power supplies for recharging.
All eight blocks have a mix of on-site security staff and closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to try to prevent people from taking banned items into the buildings.
The Chapel Street car park under St James’ House is closed – and parking has also been suspended under the Whitehawk blocks and in the garages behind Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court.
The cabinet is expected to approve the £18.8 million buy-back programme at a meeting at Hove Town Hall which is due to start at 2pm next Thursday (20 March). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
3rd World Brighton, Another expensive council mess.
Considering these blocks were built about 60 years ago, I think that this is an unfair take.
Having identified the issue the council are looking to rectify the situation while using it as an opportunity to increase the amount of council properties in the city.
How else do you propose that the council deals with a legacy issue from the 1960s?
Surely the things to blame here are the poor construction standards of the 1960s and 1970s and the ideology of “right to buy” was often selling off council properties that would be very expensive for the homeowner to maintain.
£454k for a flat in Dudeney Lodge? WTF!
Someone’s having an absolute laugh
nope, that’s the total budget to be approved. If you read further down it says up to £300,000 each. Including the costs. Probably cheaper than paying them to stay somewhere else while the council builds a new flat for the flat owners. Remains to be seen how much the counci will try to haggle the price down with each one!
Give them back what they were originally sold at not current market value. In the meantime they have enjoyed the benefit of having a roof over their head and the budget will be much less. They knew what they were getting into when they bought just not turned out to be the investment they hoped for!
This is often not true! many of the ex-council flats that are privately-owned have been sold and purchased on the open market since the original right to buy, and the people living in them paid a full market price for them. Last set of figures I heard from the council were that they had about half-and-half original right-to-buy owners and owners who had since purchased on the open market (plus a few who had inherited them). Are you suggesting that someone who bought a flat at full open market price say 10 years ago should only be compensated for what the owner-before last paid for the place maybe 30 years ago? – that doesn’t sound right to me!
If that is the case, then their investment hasn’t worked out. Make them contribute towards any necessary works. That’s what leasehold is all about and due diligence and insurance cover are essential. They didn’t walk into this blind!
Leaseholders are a unique breed. They mainly seem to be struggling with the concept of having to pay maintenance. Why you’d buy a property in a council block is beyond me.
Concern about LPS blocks have come into focus since 72 people died as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire but “there is no immediate danger”: precautionary measures like this are scaremongering. No doubt the council will apply to central govt. for a grant ….
Obviously they’ll apply for a grant from Homes England, because you can’t build social rent housing without.
As an owner occupier and B&H Council tax payer, I approve this buy back scheme, including paying the market rate to those owners who benefited from the right to buy. But if the refurbished or rebuilt replacements are to be council owned, they must not be
sold at a discount under right to buy, but remain as much needed social housing.
That will heavily depend on what grants and contributions they receive to build a regenerated project. It is a fact that social rent homes are too expensive to build without a grant of soone kind.
Why should ta payers have to put right the immense damage caused by Thatchsr and her tory cohort in the right to buy scheme. Councils were for ced to dothis by the tory govt, partial.y causi g the mess we hàve now. Tory. Ps bought 100s of dwellings and now extort rent in the private sector. The tory party should be paying to pht this rjght, they created this mess. It seems a huge a mount to be paying out to owners where are the insurance companies, or were all the possible problems left with the. Ouncil. Make no mistzke, this was a privatisation, zs usual tory cronies and the rich benefited. In the private sector such a sale would have been impossible, insurance cos would never have taken it on, it should never have happened, another corrupt tory disater
What?
He’s just whinging about the tories. He still thinks these is a difference between the parties and not that they are all the same, all corrupt and are happy we keep fighting over which party is betters. None of them are fit for purpose!
I certainly like pointing out when a political party has cocked up, but if we’re talking about Right to Buy; it was the unlimited nature of the quality of homes that could be sold under the scheme.
Although, the figures most recently seem to suggest R2B is diminishing these days.
While threatening Libraries? Who knew the council had so much spare cash to splash on non-statutory stuff?
You don’t believe that they have a legal duty to assess housing needs and prevent homelessness under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017?
Oh boy…
I’ve never seen homelessness reduced in this city. If anything it’s worse than ever so what are this Council spending the money on?
Emaus charity have the best model of end-to-end homelessness rehabilitation and they are nothing to do with the council.
Personal incredulity doesn’t mean anything, Mike.
About time too. So ugly looking, that brutalist style.
No wonder so many are anxious and taking pills.
Knock all the blocks down and build pretty eco homes.
A lot of people like that style. It’s a matter of opinion isn’t it.
St James House should be locked down the site sold to a private developer and many more blocks built in a cheaper location. This block is an eyesore that causes nothing but anti-social behaviour that could be turned into something like the new amex flats. The other option is buy to rent housing for key workers in the police and hospital.
Keyworker Housing is an interesting one, you’d have to get a buy-in from the NHS, and ultimately that comes down to money. The argument there is also, that it’d likely be far more useful to target the current need by having social housing with general allocation. I’ve read about similar schemes in other areas of the UK, but not into their effectiveness. Might be something to bring up with your Ward Councillor?