Question
Lilly May Court is an affordable development in my ward under a shared ownership arrangement. It has emerged that these properties weren’t constructed in accordance with planning conditions and mitigation intended to reduce the impact of noise from haulage yards was not installed. Furthermore, a covenant regarding the yards and the mitigation wasn't disclosed at the point of sale.
When residents complained to their provider about intolerable noise and pollution from the haulage yards, they were treated with contempt and told that they were ‘not allowed’ to complain about the hauliers and should ‘keep their windows closed’.
It has finally been accepted that a breach of planning has taken place and the provider is now pressurising the residents to accept the mitigation. However, the majority of residents would never have bought into these properties had they been given the full facts at the point of sale and have requested the properties are bought back by the provider, who has refused.
The provider, Housing Solutions, is a ‘Preferred Registered Provider’ of WBC, so my question is - what pressure can WBC exert to encourage this provider to buy back these flats to enable these families to move on with their lives?
Minutes:
Lilly May Court is an affordable development in my ward under a shared ownership arrangement. It has emerged that these properties weren’t constructed in accordance with planning conditions and mitigation intended to reduce the impact of noise from haulage yards was not installed. Furthermore, a covenant regarding the yards and the mitigation wasn't disclosed at the point of sale.
When residents complained to their provider about intolerable noise and pollution from the haulage yards, they were treated with contempt and told that they were ‘not allowed’ to complain about the hauliers and should ‘keep their windows closed’.
It has finally been accepted that a breach of planning has taken place and the provider is now pressurising the residents to accept the mitigation. However, the majority of residents would never have bought into these properties had they been given the full facts at the point of sale and have requested the properties are bought back by the provider, who has refused.
The provider, Housing Solutions, is a ‘Preferred Registered Provider’ of WBC, so my question is - what pressure can WBC exert to encourage this provider to buy back these flats to enable these families to move on with their lives?
Answer
As you are aware, the Council has been in close contact with the residents of Lily May Court and Housing Solutions, and we are committed to doing all we can to improve their living conditions.
We have ensured that the developer is in a position to retrospectively take steps to comply with the original planning conditions to mitigate against noise. We have served Notice on the haulage company adjacent to the dwellings to ensure that the best practicable means are taken, at all times, to minimise the escape of dust from the site and minimise air pollution. We have also installed air quality monitoring equipment adjacent to the property to ensure that the air quality is suitable, and we’ll be getting the results of that monitoring at the end of January.
It would not however be appropriate, nor possible, for the Council to interfere with the contractual position between the residents and the Housing Association who are the joint owners of the properties.
We would be happy to explore and discuss with Housing Solutions the future management options of these properties given the issues, whilst not wanting to interfere with the contractual agreement with residents.
I would also add that we will be reviewing all the registered providers, this year, who provide affordable homes in the Borough and this will be one of the issues on the table.
Supplementary Question
As a member of TLIP I know that our housing officers provide a very high level of service, especially when it comes to listening to tenants and resolving complaints. They also conduct regular monitoring via the Star survey. It seems to me that we set a higher standard for ourselves than we do for preferred providers. Shouldn’t all the Borough’s tenants, residing in affordable social housing, irrespective of the provider, have the same expectations?
Supplementary Answer
I fully agree with you. In fact the registered providers should have a head start on us as they are supplying brand new homes. We are putting tenants into older properties. We manage to maintain 100% decency and, yes, it is a question that will be asked of them when we speak to them again. We cannot do much more – our hands are tied. An interesting fact of life is that everyone goes on – the Liberal Democrats go on - about building 300,000 homes each year. The Labour Party goes on about 250,000 homes. At the end of the day, that has not happened since councils were stopped from building homes.