Eight council-owned blocks of flats look likely to be demolished, leaving more than a thousand tenants in three areas of Brighton in need of a new home.
The decision – due to be taken by Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet next month – would affect those living in 558 flats in Kemp Town, Hollingdean and Whitehawk.
If the demolition plan is approved, the council would aim to put up more homes on the same sites in an ambitious building programme that could cost more than £500 million.
In contrast, the council’s housing revenue account budget for this year is £80 million, plus capital projects worth £111 million, making £191 million in all.
The council is contacting tenants and leaseholders and holding meetings and information events – but budgets, timelines and many practical details are still at a very early stage and the whole project will take several years.
The decision is having to be made for safety reasons after a series of inspections of the flats which were built in the 1960s and 1970s using “large panel systems”.
The large panels were made of pre-cast concrete and the buildings relied on these concrete panels or walls – rather than columns – to be the main load-bearing parts.
The buildings are at greater risk from fires, explosions and high winds than more modern flats. Building methods have evolved, including following the collapse of Ronan Point after a gas explosion in 1968.
Since the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, when 72 people died, housing providers including councils have been required to take a more rigorous approach to safety.
The eight blocks of flats facing demolition are St James’ House in Kemp Town, Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court, both in Hollingdean, and five blocks at the top end of Whitehawk – Falcon Court, Heron Court, Kestrel Court, Kingfisher Court and Swallow Court.
The council said: “Structural surveys last year found that the buildings no longer meet current safety standards for withstanding a collapse in the case of an explosion or large fire.
“Since then, the council has been working closely with residents to introduce extra measures to ensure the safety of everyone living there.
“The council has also been carrying out a detailed review of the future options for the buildings and a report going to cabinet on Thursday 17 July will recommend that work begins on developing plans to regenerate the sites.
“The other options looked at were to strengthen and refurbish the buildings. However, research found that strengthening work only guarantee the building’s safety for a further 20 years and requires significant investment. It would also be seriously disruptive for residents.
“The report sets out that strengthening the building is not seen as a viable or affordable long-term solution for residents or for the council.
“If the decision is agreed at cabinet, the council will begin working with residents on the plans for the next steps.
“The council has been in regular contact with the residents of the eight buildings to keep them updated as the work on the options has developed.
“Resident days in all three areas are being held in the next week to give residents the opportunity to talk to housing teams about the recommendations in the report.
“Resident advisory panels are also being set up for each area to help the council plan future resident engagement and work with us on the designs of the new homes.”
Labour councillor Gill Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing, said: “Since October last year, I have been working with officers and meeting with householders to explore the options about the future of these blocks.
“We recognise that these buildings have happy memories, in some cases for three generations of families.
“We honour that history. And it’s precisely because we care so deeply about the safety, quality and future of the homes that our tenants live in that we must now look ahead with clarity and courage.
“We explored every option – including strengthening and refurbishing the blocks. But that would only buy us 20 more years, at great cost and disruption, without solving the core safety issues.
“We believe our tenants deserve better than a short-term fix. This is about building homes that will last the next 60 years – not just the next 20.
“By creating more family-sized homes in the city, it should reduce wait for a three-bedroom home down from the average of eight years.
“If cabinet agrees to move forward, we will begin working hand in hand with residents on every step of the journey.
“Resident days are being held in each area and we’re setting up resident advisory panels to ensure that the new homes reflect the needs, the voices and the vision of residents. Most importantly, it’s about creating great homes together.
“If cabinet agrees then we understand that this would mean residents moving out of the homes that they have created and, given that the proposed programme of works will not all start at once, this will be unsettling.
“So, we will ensure that no one will go through this alone. We will support every resident through the rehousing process and we will do everything we can to help them stay in their local community if that’s what they want.
“We are fully committed to supporting residents during every step of this process, to listening to them and to building a better future – together.”
In March, the council’s cabinet approved a £20 million scheme to buy out up to 44 homeowners, 23 of whom still live in the flats that they bought from the council. The rest are rented out.
The demolition proposal is due to be discussed by the council’s cabinet at Hove Town Hall on Thursday 17 July. The meeting is scheduled to start at 2pm and to be webcast.
The key question is where will people live as each site is improved? Hopefully, the council can be ambitious and build one or two new blocks at another site. This would provide interim accommodation (or long-term for those who wish to stay) and also contribute to a long-term increase in much-needed social housing. Difficult to do with planning and financial challenges. But let’s hope the council can manage it.
It’s definitely bold. Decanting is going to be the tricky part, and this will be a long-term project, likely taking several years. Whitehawk is well overdue for regeneration, and there is plenty of opportunity for that area. A good line of communication is going to be vital as well.
I’m guessing decanting will be a gradual process, starting with one block and this will leave empty flats. There may be a temptation to fill these with temporary agreements until the final move out date.
An attrition-based approach at the moment I believe is in effect. Basically, not replacing residents as they leave and move.
Although, you are spot on, the empty sites are being used for temporary accomodation whilst they can.
I live directly over the road from st James house. Will this mean years and years of building work meters away from my front door? It’s a highly built up area on High Steet. What happens to everyone else on the street packed around St James house?
Demolish and rebuild is healthier than waiting for them to explode \ burn down \ collapse? An unplanned rapid deconstruction would be quicker, but would be more disruption of your health and likely collapse on your house.
At least it will be something interesting to watch out of your window.
I think it’s a fair question, and it will likely take a few years from start to finish. Cubix in Whitehawk took ~18 months. Not all of that will be the noisy aspects of construction, but there will be disruptions during the day, most definitely.
I grew up in the Whitehawk flats. My family moved in when they were new, in 1966. Right from day one there were subsidence problems (the flats were built on an old pig farm, I was told, and the piles weren’t sunk deep enough).
I believe they were originally designed to last 30 years – they’ve managed twice that – but they are long past their use-by date.
50 years was the plan, originally from Kampsax Denmark design but as usual “made in england” is not what should have been done, Scandinavian, German, Dutch pre-cast concrete panels not a problem, Brits never really cared for the concept, that being said most of the pre fab concrete towers in Denmark from then are gone or highly modified.
Thanks for sharing that – the design life was a question I had.
Hmmm….. Any bets on these “unsafe” towers being sold off to a private company, who will somehow magically “make safe”……?
Is this why the government recently passed the law that’s it’s okay to sleep in tents-Labour the way to go!
I’ve lived in Brighton for nearly 35 years and was moved out of a council home in London for this exact same reason!!!!!! Why on earth is Brighton nearly 40 years behind London???? Even worse why on earth has Brighton Council wasted tax payers valuable money replacing windows, endless scaffolding, new windows, bathrooms and kitchens on temporary dangerous buildings they have known have structural issues for decades?
Why is a small city behind the Capital? Because the Capital gets priority, and always has done. Some might say that’s unfair.
And in answer to your other question, it’s the same argument as saying why bother doing any repairs at all on any building, since they all will eventually break down. Although, having a long term plan for buildings in the far future for when they do reach end of life sounds reasonable.
Why does Benjamin ALWAYS have to be the voice of reason and sensible approaches on this webpage!!?? I don’t know how he doesn”t get exhausted by the inane opinions of those ignorant people jumping to the wildest conclusions (often which could be dispelled by reading further than the headline…)
Glad someone is being the “shining light”, not easy disspelling rumours and stupidity,
That is the just about the most glaring logical fallacy I’ve seen in a long time. Obviously, a responsible approach to the management of buildings includes an assessment of their lifespan before investing funds repairing or improving them. I thought you were better than that Benjamin.
Reductio ad absurdum isn’t a logical fallacy, Atticus. It’s a valid form of argument used to expose the weakness of an idea by extending it to its logical conclusion. Ironically, misrepresenting a balanced argument in order to attack it is a fallacy; and a tired one at that.
No Benjamin, the example you have chosen to use is a blatant straw man and you are fully aware of it.
Attempts at belittling and patronising people rarely produces a positive outcome. As a politician you should be aware of that.
Absolutely – chunks of Dudeney Lodge were falling off 15 years ago – millions has been spent patching it up when the building has clearly had serious issues for years.
I heard that some of the tenants will be housed in the new ‘Moulsecoomb Housing and Community Hub’, start date for the build is Sept 2025 (the site is in the final stages of being cleared). So basically it’s going to be a long-term merry go-round for council tenants. Wonder how much they’ve paid people who bought their flats.
I’m guessing they will do Block by Block, and Tenants will be put into Temporary Housing-but what about those who have Bought there property-how will it work for them.
I’ve lived in Whitehawk Estate for 10 years, but have know of them for Years, be intresting to see how it all plans out for everyone.
What will be intresting to to see who goes back into there Original size property-I know a family of 5 in a 2 Bed flat, obviously needs a 3 Bed House/Flat and oldest Child is 22, next is 19 and 9 (2 boys and 1 girl) hopefully Council see that and sort it.
Might be an idea, to sell your flat back to the council and move somewhere else, on a side note, RtoB was and is the most insidious legislation, ever. Should never have been sold off in the first place. It’s one reason so many are waiting for a roof over their head’s. 1.5 council homes across the UK lost to RtoB never really replaced in any large numbers.
Good idea.
I want to see RTB as at least with an overflow prevention. Suspend it when the waiting list for council homes gets too long.
I’m also surprised to hear that something silly like only 25% of the sale goes to the council, the rest goes to central government. That needs to change too, in my opinion.
Because council/social housing is only part funded by councils, the main part is from central government, also when council housing is sold to a renter the bulk of that goes back to central government, councils usually get enough back to replace it but that never seems to work out.
You’re right about the funding split, Stan, but the replacement claim doesn’t hold up. Most councils can’t replace 1:1 because of the restrictions on how RTB receipts can be used. It’s why Scotland and Wales scrapped the policy.
From what I understand Betty, the council are offering to purchase any Leaseholders at the going rate. So they’ll be quids in. I imagine there will be some holdouts, always are.
Good to see the end of Dudney lodge. It has amazing views but unfortunately has been filled with junkies and drug dealers
Residents proberly would say that about the 1s in Whitehawk as at 1 point people were sleeping & living in a Block ( not sure what 1) on the Stairwell.
Outside of them looks awlful-needs a change as they are 50+ years old.
Can’t wait to see any plans on these that the Council draws up.
And the land at the top Whitehawk where the Buses stop that’s being put into flats aswell if I’m correct.
You are correct, Betty. https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/city-regeneration/new-homes-neighbourhoods/swanborough-drive
I’m keen to see what designs are come up with too.
Live at St James House and honestly I hope it does get demolished, the place is a dump and no amount of scaffolding, 24/7 “Security” and all the other sticking plasters are going to resolve anything. Only worry is as a private renter options are very limited so not sure where we will end up if this does go ahead.
As the council are broke wheres the money going to come from?
Most likely, funding will come from a mix of national government grants, Homes England, and borrowing. Labour’s newly announced £39 billion national investment in affordable and social housing announced recently is specifically intended for council-led regeneration and demolition-rebuild schemes like this – I imagine BHCC would be bidding for this, almost certainly.
Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge have always looks out of place when I look out of the window when coming in by train. Any chance that something not quite so jarring could be built in their place?
I want to see strong participatory design in these projects. Getting the community involved in meaningful ways, rather than simple consultation. Personally hate that word.
there is so many issues with this plan
firstly how will the counsil house those who are effectivley homeless .
secondly how will the council pay 200 million for this.
whats stopping the counsil demolishing then selling the prime land to private property managment for profit ?
Decanting is an important step, and it’s already underway, from my understanding. Attrition has been the first part of it, which is basically not replacing empty homes with new tenants. I suspect there will be offers to move locally and further afield made to those whom the council have a duty of care to. I also imagine there will be some homes that are underoccupied as well, which opens up the options to place people in appropriately sized homes. Leaseholders are being bought out at the market rate as well, so they’re quids in, if a bit inconvenienced. Although, as you are alluding too, it will be a massive logistical challenge that most likely is done modularly, almost like a Tower of Hanoi problem!
Most likely, funding will come from a mix of national government grants, Homes England, and borrowing. Labour’s newly announced £39 billion national investment in affordable and social housing announced recently is specifically intended for council-led regeneration and demolition-rebuild schemes like this – I imagine BHCC would be bidding for this, almost certainly.
And in answer to your last question, the Housing Act 1985.
Hmm, a couple of years ago, a proposal was put forward to build blocks of flats in North Whitehawk, namely on the Race Hill behind Swanborough Flats, with new roads going in etc etc. Objections were put forward mainly concerning infrastructure, the impact to the wild life and vegetation of the area and other factors.
The scheme was rejected.
It is very suspicious in my opinion, that these flats in Whitehawk, after being assessed and money spent on them have suddenly become ‘Not Viable’ overnight.
This hasn’t happened “overnight.” Concerns about the structural integrity of the LPS high-rises in Whitehawk have been raised for years, and the fire safety aspects were the final nail in the coffin of these end-of-life buildings.
These types of buildings came under renewed scrutiny following directives and changes to legislation, the same that have taken place across the country. It takes time to gather engineering reports, consider resident impact, and prepare options for the Cabinet.
That’s what due process looks like.
A major fire in the blocks is unlikely to be an issue, unless the fire breaks between the floors have been altered, and or the wrong cladding has been added.
These were the main reasons for the fire at Grenfell, alongside a non working fire alarm system.
The original design at Grenfell was fine, until “improvements” were made, including the notorious cladding, and also new window areas that breached the fire breaks between floors.
The biggest problem there is that the fire service were pre Grenfell excluded from advising councils on housing which used to be mandatory, was optional for councils to include adice from fire experts but was ignored otherwise Kingspan could never have sold the amount of defect products in England as they did for years with no control. The council involved with Grenfell all ran away except for 1 or 2 who kept trying to justify their non conformist actions