AGENDA ITEM NO.

REPORT TO:Social Affairs, Health & Housing Scrutiny Committee

REPORT OF:Chief Housing & Public Protection Officer/Chief Transportation & Asset Management Officer

REPORT NO:CHPPO/107/09S

DATE:2 October, 2009

CONTACT OFFICER:Fred Czulowski, Landlord Services Manager (315401)

SUBJECT:Future of Hightown Large Panel System Properties

1.PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To present the Social Affairs, Health and Housing Scrutiny Committee with the result of the Tenant Consultation exercise carried out following the completion of various surveys of the Hightown Flats complex and to make recommendations on the future of the complex and its tenants and residents.

2. SUMMARY

2.1In April 2009, SAHHSC received a report of the Chief Housing & Public Protection Officer (CHPPO/51/09s), which presented details of the current issues surrounding the Hightown Flats complex and the results of various surveys completed.

2.2The surveys have shown that many elements of the buildings should be replaced or repaired.

2.3A Structural Appraisal was also undertaken. The Appraisal recommended that strengthening works are carried out to the buildings.

2.4The report identified and analysed five possible scenarios for the future of the complex.

  • Do nothing
  • Repairs and Maintenance Only
  • Repairs plus Strengthening Works
  • Repairs plus Strengthening Works with Improvements
  • Demolition

2.5At the meeting in April 2009, the Committee recommended that tenants and residents should be consulted.

2.6The consultation indicates that demolition would be a popular option amongst the majority of residents, but that local connections need to be respected and that these should be taken into account in future plans for redevelopment and re-housing arrangements.

2.7The site will require a significant scheme of redevelopment. The two options for consideration are:-

Option 1:Relocate all tenants, demolish and sell the site with vacant possession

Option 2:Demolish and Redevelop the site with a preferred Purchaser/Registered Social Landlord (RSL) to deliver affordable housing

2.8The transfer of a large number of tenants and their families will require significant project management. It will have significant consequences for general day to day allocations.

  1. RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Social Affairs, Health & Housing Committee recommend to the Executive Board that:

3.1The large panel system buildings at Gatefield and Napier Square/Nelson Street are demolished and that the Chief Housing & Public Protection Officerdevelop options for funding the demolition.

3.2Subject to financial viability, the site is redeveloped with a preferred Purchaser/Registered Social Landlord (RSL) to deliver affordable housing, together with the nearby Barracks Field site on Brynycabanau Road.

3.3That consideration is given to the inclusion of the sites in 3.2 above in joint proposals for affordable housing in association with the Welsh Assembly Government.

3.4The permanent decanting of tenants should be commenced immediately and Management Move points awarded to give tenants priority over the general Waiting and Transfer Lists.

3.5Those tenants and residents decanted as a result of a decision to demolish are given first option on any subsequent Council nomination rights for affordable housing on the site.

3.6The Chief Transportation & Asset Management Officer, commences consultation with the Local Health Authority.

3.7The Chief Transportation & Asset Management Officer commences negotiation with the private owners of the flats to acquire their interest.

4. INFORMATION

Previous report to Scrutiny – April 2009

4.1In April 2009, SAHHSC received a report of the Chief Housing & Public Protection Officer (CHPPO/51/09s), which presented details of the current issues surrounding the Hightown Flats complex and the results of various surveys completed on the complex, specifically the two areas of Gatefield and Napier Square/Nelson Street.

4.2These two areas comprised 7 blocks of 3, 4 and 5 storey flats and maisonettes constructed using the Bison Wallframe Large Panel System (LPS) which was a popular method of construction in the 1960’s and 1970’s. LPS buildings consist of large pre-cast reinforced concrete panels, connected together on site to form the floors and walls of the building.

4.3As was reported to Scrutiny Committee in April various surveys have been undertaken to provide information and general conditions at Hightown Flats.

4.4Surveys included a desk study of all available information relating to the construction and maintenance of the complex, visual and intrusive structural investigation and analysis, mechanical and electrical installation analysis and fire safety.

4.5The surveys have shown that many elements of the buildings should be replaced or repaired and below is a very brief list of some of the elements highlighted:-

  • Surfacing to walkways, pedestrian bridges and stair block roofs
  • Rain water goods
  • Concrete external surfaces
  • Electrical installations
  • Lifts
  • Asbestos ventilation pipes
  • Water pipes
  • Polystyrene insulation
  • Fire protection
  • Roofs

4.6The findings also highlighted that problems such as water ingress, surface water drainage and condensation are prolific.

4.7A Structural Appraisal was also undertaken on the buildings to assess them for their robustness in the event of accidental loading (a gas explosion or a collision with a large vehicle). Buildings should be adequately robust so that in the event of an accidental loading the building will not suffer collapse to an extent disproportionate to the cause. The appraisal recommended that strengthening works are carried out to the buildings.

4.8The report identified and analysed five possible scenarios for the future of the complex, as summarised below. All costs were included asindicative only and the report stated that further detailed analysis would need to be sought when a preferred scenario was selected.

Scenario 1 – Do nothing

(Ongoing costs to responsive repairs to the structure)

  • No works other than responsive repairs to be carried out
  • Structures and elements will deteriorate at an accelerated rate, as scheduled in paragraph 4.5
  • Physical hazards as scheduled in paragraph 4.5 will not be minimised or removed
  • Adverse effect on thermal efficiency and general living conditions – elemental degradation will increase poor living conditions and promote problematic external environments
  • Inability to re-let vacant units

Scenario 2 – Repairs & Maintenance Only

(Cost estimate £2.8m plus VAT)

  • Only repairs and maintenance undertaken (including asbestos removal, rewiring, fire protection, concrete repairs)
  • Retention of risks due to design and weaknesses in structure
  • Does not address general standard of property
  • Implications for the Housing Capital Programme
  • Tenants would need to be temporarily re-housed

Scenario 3 – Repairs and Maintenance plus Strengthening Works

(Cost estimate £9.6m plus VAT)

  • Remedial works to major structure defects
  • Does not improve standard of property to Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS)
  • Significant implications for the Housing Capital Programme
  • Significant impact on improvements for the rest of the Council’s housing stock
  • Refurbishment does not guarantee extended life
  • Tenants would need to be temporarily re-housed

Scenario 4 – Repairs and Maintenance plus Strengthening Work with Improvements

(Cost estimate £ 17.5m plus VAT)

  • All works completed plus refurbishment of each flat to WHQS
  • Significant implications for the Housing Capital Programme
  • Significant impact on improvements for the rest of the Council’s housing stock
  • Full refurbishment does not guarantee extended life
  • Tenants would need to be temporarily re-housed

Scenario 5 – Demolish/Disposal

(No cost available for this scenario in the April 09 report – now estimated at £2m)

  • No further work carried out
  • Tenants would need to be re-housed on a permanent basis
  • Consideration to be given to the future of the site

4.9At the meeting in April 2009, the Committee was informed that funding options for repairs, maintenance and structural works were limited. Management and maintenance of the Hightown Flats complex is budgeted for within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)which covers all the Council’s housing stock. The report noted that the HRA Capital Programme for 2009/10 is in the region of £12.5m, with £2.5m of this figure being allocated to the provision of Disabled Facility Grants and asbestos removal and that element is therefore not realistically available to re-allocate. Any recommendation regarding the use of these funds would be at the expense of other programmes of work across the whole Council housing stock, in particular works to ensure that properties are wind and water tight and have fuel efficient central heating.

4.10The report also noted that it was not envisaged that the Capital Programme will increase in subsequent years. At that time, it was reported that preliminary discussions with housing officials from Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) had indicated that no additional funding would be made available. Officers subsequently wrote to WAG on 22 July 2009 asking for WAG support to fund either refurbishment or redevelopment. We are awaiting WAG’s response.

4.11At the meeting in April 2009, the Committee recommended that the tenants and residents should be consulted on the findings to date with the aim of obtaining their views on the future of their homes and that a further report be submitted on the results of the consultation exercise and on further consideration of the scenarios.

Findings from the Tenant Consultation

4.12The aim of the survey was to present the findings of the work carried out so far and find out residents’ views on the future of their homes. ‘Partners in Change’ were commissioned by Wrexham County Borough Council to provide advice and support with designing part of the survey, data analysis and producing a report on the survey findings. A summary of the survey and the findings is outlined below – the full report is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

4.13The sample population was all residents of flats and bungalows. It was decided to include the residents of the five bungalowsin the survey - even though the original investigative reports excluded them, any major works on the site and in particular any demolition proposals would have a significant impact on these properties and there may be strong grounds to demolish these five properties as well.

4.14The survey focused on four key areas:-

  1. Demographic information on household size and type
  2. Residents’ views on their homes, the estate and the area in general
  3. Residents’ views on the scenarios for the future of their homes
  4. Residents’ connections with the immediate area including their views on permanent re-housing should demolition be the selected option

4.15There were 104 responses out of 114 tenanted flats and bungalows. This equates to a response rate of 91% – a particularly significant achievement given the importance of engaging with the maximum number of residents on the issues covered by the survey. (Please note that the responses for each survey question will not necessarily add up to 104 since not every respondent answered every question.)

4.16The survey was carried out in two stages – stage 1 focused on collecting demographic data and revealed that the estate is characterised by a high number of single person households and relatively low numbers of pensioners. There is a high level of economic inactivity. About half the residents have lived there for more than 11 years.

4.17Stage 2 focused on residents’ views of their homes, the estate and future scenarios.

4.18In general, most people like their flats, but there is dissatisfaction with their state of repair and particular concerns about heating and dampness. Around two-thirds of the respondents like living in the area and think that people get on well together as a community. Its location near the town centre is seen as convenient. A significant majority think that the area is kept clean and well-maintained by the Council. Nuisance and anti-social behaviour is seen as the main problem.

4.19Although there are a large number of empty properties resulting from the Council not re-letting once vacancies arise, the work of the Council in keeping the estate well maintained is appreciated by many residents.

4.20Residents were asked for their views on the scenarios for the future of the estate: do nothing; repair only; repairs and improvements; demolition. They were given information about the scenarios, including costs, and asked whether they thought each was a good approach for the Council to take or whether they were not sure. They were not presented as a choice between options and residents were also able to say that more than one scenario might be a good approach.

4.21Views were as follows:

  • The scenario that receives most support is demolition (71 respondents);
  • Doing nothing was the least supported scenario (82 respondents saying that this was not a good idea);
  • Few respondents feel that ’repairing only’ is a good idea (21 respondents);
  • An equal number of respondents (42) said that repair and improve was a ‘good idea’and ‘not a good idea’;
  • Only 25 respondents feel that demolition is not a good idea with 5 not sure.

4.22A further open question was asked about their own views on the future of the estate. In this question they could express a preference between the scenarios and make known any hopes or concerns they may have.

4.23102 out of the 104 respondents answered this open question. 84 gave a clear view about what their preference was and the views of the remaining 18 could not be interpreted as support for a particular scenario. 59 of the 84 (70%) who expressed a clear preference said that the flats should be demolished and 25 (30%) saying that they should be retained. There were particular concerns amongst these 25 respondents about having to move. On the other hand, many of those who favoured demolition felt that the flats had reached the end of their life and that further investment would not be money well spent.

4.24There is a strong connection amongst the residents to the immediate local area with many living in the flats for a long time and a large majority having family connections to Hightown or nearby. Nearly half of the respondents said they would be either unhappy or very unhappy about having to move away from the area. Nearly all the respondents said that it would be important to build new homes for rent on the site for people who want to stay. When asked about their re-housing preferences, should the flats and bungalows have to be demolished, respondents mentioned Hightown most frequently. Nearly two thirds of residents said they would consider a Housing Association property.

4.25In addition, the residents of the 26 houses were also surveyed as they are very close to the flats and will be indirectly affected by any of the scenarios. There were 23 responses from the 26 houses (13 of these were from Wrexham County Borough Council tenants and 10 were from privately owned houses). However, the findings from the survey of the residents of the houses have been kept separate from survey of those directly affected by the scenarios, i.e. residents of flats and bungalows.Although not directly affected by demolition, the respondents in the neighbouring houses favoured demolition by a large margin.

Conclusions from the Tenant Consultation

4.26The survey indicates that demolition would be a popular option amongst the majority of residents, but that local connections need to be respected and that these should be taken into account in future plans for redevelopment and re-housing arrangements.

4.27Although not directly affected by demolition, the respondents in the neighbouring houses favoured demolition by a large margin.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

Scenario / Financial / Tenants
(Base 104 respondents)
Do nothing / Ongoing responsive repairs / 87 – Not a good idea
14 Good Idea
7 - Not sure
Repair Only / Estimated £2.8m / 67 – Not a good idea
21 – Good idea
16 – Not sure
Strengthening Works and Full Improvements to WHQS (incorporating Repairs) / Estimated £9.6m – £17.5m) / 42 – Not a good idea
42 – Good Idea
20 – Not sure
Demolition / £2m (with the possibility for this cost to be borne by a future site developer) / 71 – Good idea
25 – Not a good idea
5 – Not sure

4.28The views of the tenants and residents coincide with the financial reality of the situation. On the basis that:

  • ‘doing nothing’ is the least acceptable option from the point of view of both the tenants and residents and the Authority as a Landlord;
  • funding is not available for repair and improvement scenarios without significant implications for the rest of the Council’s housing stock;
  • even full repair and improvement only delays the issue of the flats going beyond their sustainable life;
  • demolition is a popular option amongst the majority of tenants and residents,

the recommendation of this report is therefore that Gatefield and Napier Square/Nelson Street are demolished.

Options for future development of the site

4.29It is recognised that as tenants are moved out and occupancy levels fall, and as a result of the inherent design of the communal areas (enclosed stairwells, deck access walkways, etc), management of the complex will become increasingly challenging. This will also impact on the surrounding residential area. Such a situation will not be sustainable in the long term.

4.30Demolition of Gatefield and Napier Square/Nelson Street could be undertaken by the Council or by any organisation either working in partnership with the Council or purchasing the site from the Council.

4.31If the Council were to undertake the demolition, the costs can be funded from the Housing Revenue Contribution (CERA) to the Housing Capital Programme (currently CERA is £4.5m 2009/10). The Major Repairs Allowance – the annual capital grant from WAG (currently £7.6m per annum) cannot be used to fund demolition. Similarly, Home Loss payments (currently up to £4,700) and other discretionary allowances would need to be funded from Housing Revenue. These costs could be spread over several years if demolition is phased. There would be a further option to fund the proposal through Prudential Borrowing; however, the costs of this would fall on the HRA for a number of years. This borrowing would not be “supported” by WAG, i.e., the Council would need to fund the interest payment from the existing Management and Maintenance Allowance. Costs could also be funded from any capital receipt following demolition/ regeneration. However, the opportunity for this may be limited depending on the costs of regeneration.