People living in tower blocks under threat of demolition will keep their social housing tenancies and have the right to return when their homes have been redeveloped.
Councillors were given the assurances at Brighton and Hove City Council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting, when senior housing officials were quizzed about the future of eight blighted blocks.
At the meeting yesterday (Tuesday 1 July), councillors were told that doing nothing was not an option and redevelopment would need to start within five years, hence the process was starting now.
The eight tower blocks contain 558 flats in total. They are Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court, in Hollingdean, St James’ House, in Kemp Town, and Falcon Court, Heron Court, Kestrel Court, Kingfisher Court and Swallow Court, in Whitehawk.
People living in the blocks will also continue to a “social rent”, Labour councillor Gill Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing and new homes, said.
Most residents have received visits and attended drop-in events. They are sent a regular newsletter about what is due to happen next.
Labour councillor Theresa Fowler, who represents Hollingdean and Fiveways, said that she went to an engagement meeting for residents in Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court and was concerned about how residents felt.
Councillor Fowler said: “I hope they (the residents) are made to feel happy about this because believe it or not they absolutely love living in Nettleton and Dudeney.
“One resident had only just moved in and was really disappointed this was going to happen to him. Another has lived there 35 years.
“Her worry was going to up and go after living there for 35 years and, after being able to look out over beautiful views, she would be put somewhere dark and dingy. She’s had sleepless nights.”
Councillor Fowler also said that she was concerned about people losing touch with their friends when they are moved on.
Councillor Williams said: “It is very distressing. There’s no doubt about it. We do and we will be proceeding with compassion and care because this is very emotional and there are a lot of ties to the area and their homes.
“Each resident gets an individual visit to assess their needs and we will be careful where we can to be able to place people in a similar area in similar types of accommodation that they are used to.”
She said that it might not always be possible but the council would work closely with residents on their needs.
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows recalled her sister’s home in Whitehawk, which had an outside toilet, which was demolished as part of the extensive redevelopment of the estate in the 1970s.
Councillor Meadows said: “Hundreds of homes were demolished. They were put up in Portslade in beautiful modern homes. But my sister hated it because she was away from her friends and neighbours. She also preferred being near the town centre.
“I’m pleased to hear you’re taking this sort of thing into consideration.”
Councillor Meadows, a former chair of the Housing Committee, said that in her experience it would take eight years for new homes to be ready because council projects such as new homes in Portslade had taken that long.
The committee was told that the 558 households included people living in 90 leasehold flats and 45 housed by Seaside Homes housing association.
Council households have been given the second-highest priority, band B, for seeking new homes in Brighton and Hove.
Councillor Williams said that the buildings were safe and maintenance would continue.
Committee members were told that structural work and buying back leasehold flats would cost a combined £166 million, which would take up a big chunk of the five-year housing revenue account (HRA) budget of £297 million.
Any works would last up to 20 years which was why the council was looking at redeveloping the eight sites with new homes that should last 60 years, starting with St James’ House in Kemp Town, followed by the Hollingdean blocks and then those in Whitehawk.
The council’s director of housing and regeneration Darren Levy said: “We’ve scheduled in January as the target date for consulting on the rehousing policy with a set up team in place – and then by the end of next year to begin the process with Hollingdean and the following year in Whitehawk.
“We need to phase it that way for us to manage the programme but we also need to be cognisant of the wider impact on the housing waiting list.
“I’ve been on site quite a lot and the message I have from residents is similar: people are rooted in their communities and they really like where they live.”
He said that the focus would be on keeping people within their community as far as possible.
An over-arching programme to redevelop all eight sites completely would be phased, should the cabinet approve, and would be likely to cost more than £500 million.
Councillor Williams said that the redevelopment programme would aim to increase the number of council homes overall but she had heard from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that no money was available.
A report on the proposals for the eight blocks is due to go before the council’s cabinet on Thursday 17 July. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
Central government really missing an opportunity to do a major development project to tackle a severe housing shortage.
That’s why Labour councillors should be brave and stick their head above the parapet and have the courage to publicly lobby their Minister chums in Westminster about the desperate need for more local authority funding support – but they aren’t doing this.
I’ve not seen any Labour councillor locally making the case to Ministers about the ongoing housing scandal caused by decades of deregulation allowing developers to cut corners and making it easy for housing providers to neglect their maintenance duties. Like with benefit cuts, their silence amounts to complicity, and it’s not OK for so many residents to be left living in such poor social housing that the council does not have the resources to fix and make safe at speed.
The article literally says they are doing this, Jo.
I have read the article with interest and thank you for posting.the article. I attended the meeting at Dudeney Lodge last Wednesday and did indeed meet a charming lady from the council assuring us that we will receive help.
Your article states we are being moved to band B for any Homemoves bid, strange that we applied in May at Senior Housing, and still have not been given access to system.
I am sorry to say I have no faith in the council at all, this situation should have been considered 2 years ago when debates on the building were started.
What happens to the people who are already in temporary and emergency housing, are they being pushed down the housing list further so these people through no fault of there own get rehoused to allow for demolition ????
They should be looking to double the amount of flats on these sites, certainly Dudney lodge site could go wider and taller. In the long run will save the council a lot of money. But there are a lot of opportunities to tare down old low rise blocks and redevelop, look at Lewes road between the station and the bridge, all low rise, all look grim, it’s a massive bit of land with great transport links and schools
There’s definitely an opportunity; the area in Whitehawk is very underutilised as it is. I think a like-for-like replacement would be a waste, which is why I’m keen on the regeneration language.
Sorry I may have missed the point, but if these flats are safe and tenants like them, why are they being demolished at great expense when the government hasn’t got any money
Because they don’t meet the updated fire regulations, and are at end of life.
So they have to either be retrofitted at great cost, to be redeveloped later, or be redeveloped now to save on retrofitting.
Yes Dave,
Just what we need more massive, eye-sore high rises blighting the cityscape…
Actually it is exactly what we need – higher density housing to house more people, given the geographical constraints of the city. Good design need not be an eyesore.
I agree with Nige here, I think well-designed densification is one of the few ways we can tackle the housing shortage in this city, with all our restrictions on each side.
Is my arithmetic right £500 million spent to replace 580 dwellings that is a cost of nearly £900,000 each! AND this eco friendly council are planning on spending this vast amount of money on properties that “should” last 60 years. Even Georgian properties built with bungarooosh have stood for 300 years.
Bonkers!
Are you also including the leaseholder buybacks? You also have to consider the demolition of the old site, removal of the old material, and you’re assuming a like-for-like replacement. I think your math might be quite a bit off.
So what about any new developments In the city we understand that Sackville is yet to be built whilst private to buy development is already up and housing council tenants from the overflow from grenfell in London will that site ever be redeveloped? One council resident told me that there’s a free gym on site a cinema room and low cost utilities sounds great I wouldn’t mind one of those please! Only been waiting 12 years! Will residents on Brighton’s housing list sent to grenfell! Watch this space, is this just a smoke screen of let’s demolish the old sites (RE DEVELOP) them, make it more aesthetically pleasing and make it look like we’ve redeveloped and added 559 (NEW) properties in the city! Does the 500 million redevelopment cost take away money from the portslade, moulscoombe and Sackville developments, we have a massive opportunity at benfield valley for more much needed social housing as well as black rock near the marina, as well as waterhall which is the most underused space in the whole city you could build 2 estate with schools shops and transport links growing our city whilst providing much needed social housing surely the amount in rent and council take would help fund these schemes!
Well, I know Mousecoombe is still going ahead, the funding for that is secured and ringfenced. These projects are typically separate from every other project in financial terms, so it shouldn’t detract from any other development project.