Forum Topic

LBH Executive approves £1.5m package to empower tenants and leaseholders

The Council's Executive last night unanimously approved my proposal to make up to £1.5m available from the Housing Revenue Account for resident-led estate improvement projects.Tenants' and residents' associations on estates managed by Hounslow Homes will be able to bid for serious money for projects such as play facilities, refurbishing community centres, landscaping and suchlike.It will be for residents, not Hounslow Homes or the council, to identify those projects which it is felt are most needed and to make the case for a grant application.  Hounslow Homes and the local authority will be on hand to advise, and to assist, as well as of course to evaluate issues such as ongoing maintenance, but the leadership of the projects will come entirely from the community.My purpose in launching this radical new initiative is, quite unashamedly, to empower residents on our estates, and to encourage them to participate in estate life by helping to give associations real clout.  A thriving and active community is the best defence there is against the cronyism and cliqueishness which has stifled the tenants' movement on some of our estates in the past, and which leads to demoralisation and large-scale abstention from the process.This will be just the first of many empowerment initiatives which will take place during the lifetime of this administration, not just on estates managed by Hounslow Homes but throughout the community, following the Motion passed by Borough Council on March 4th (which has been discussed at length previously on this forum).The programme will be formally launched at the Annual Conference of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' & Residents Associations (HFTRA) in May.

Phil Andrews ● 6325d43 Comments

KathleenWhere youth activities are provided on estates managed by Hounslow Homes then they could form the basis of a bid for this particular project.  Because it is HRA money youth activities outside of this area could not be considered.However in the wider scheme of things I am, as I say, looking for ways in which to improve community engagement across the board, and I would certainly like to include youth centres within that work.  You may be familiar with some of the work which is currently being done around the gang culture, and providing diversionary activity for young people certainly features prominently in that.  There has also been some excellent work done on Isleworth's Worton estate around the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, due very largely to the efforts of a dynamic volunteer who has the support and backing of a resurgent residents' association.  It is anticipated that this work, which I believe is the first estate-based D of E project in the country, will be rolled out to other estates across Isleworth and eventually the borough.Communities respond well when the shackles are removed and they are encouraged to develop.  These are exciting times in some respects.

Phil Andrews ● 6311d

Would the development of youth centres fall under your portfolio and if so, is it under consideration?

Kath Richardson ● 6312d

While I am in the mood for responding to disingenuity, I have done some research into the claim by New Labour spokesperson Dave Hughes that the £1.5m programme was already in place under the old administration.Last year the total funding awarded by the Area Housing Forums (which is the only other such funding awarded and must therefore be what he is referring to) was in the region of £280k, and the previous year (under Labour) it was less.  This funding has traditionally been allocated by a small, select group of people in what could not in all seriousness be described as a tenant-led process.Empowering communities is no more a New Labour idea than extending Christmas is a concept devised by turkeys.

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

Thanks for that Barry.  I share your view entirely, and am currently looking to see whether there is any scope for launching a programme with similar objectives in mind in other (i.e. non-social housing) areas under the umbrella of my Community Safety portfolio.

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

Mr Andrews, Thank you for your detailed reply, yes I am a freeholder and did pay a one off payment to Hounslow when purchasing my property.But that said, I’m of a view that all types of residents in estates or other large number of local authority housing should try to form some sort of association to make their collective voice heard when it come to applying to a scheme such as this, but more importantly to bring the community together, something that’s lacking in quite a few areas in Hounslow.

Ian Roberts ● 6312d

BarryI am grateful for these questions because they provide an excellent opportunity for me to clarify the thinking behind this programme.  Let me deal with each of the issues which you raise separately:"If a part of an estate infrastructure, such as Roads, Paths, lighting, grounds maintenance, ect, then I suppose most lease holders wouldn’t mind paying there share of the upgrade, but would probably decline for some fancy add on.."I wouldn't anticipate that we would approve an application either for roads, paths etc. or for a fancy add-on.  In the former case these are services which any council would be obligated to provide for as part of its own budget, whereas as I stated earlier in this thread in response to Vanessa I would not expect leaseholders or tenants to pay for unnecessary adornments."Many Council houses are not on Estates, one I pass most days is Lionel Road, and there must be 3 to 4 hundred local authority houses along that stretch of road...I have no Idea if they have an association of any sort to apply for the money when the process is decided in May, so maybe this should also be taken into consideration when discussing how tenants can bid for this money."It is likely that when the final terms are drafted it will be specified that applications from established residents' groups will be looked upon favourably but that, in certain circumstances, it may be permissible for an application to be approved from an informal body.The reasons for this are clear in my mind.  One of the main objectives of this programme is to encourage communities with existing associations to support and build them, and in parallel with this to inspire communities currently without associations to set them up.At the same time I would not wish to close the door entirely on communities which might, for some exceptional reason, not be able to work in this way."The other thing I wish to ask is, if a lot of money is spent on a communal area, which maybe surrounded by 50% owner-occupier and 50% tenant or leaseholders, will the owner occupiers be expected to pay a percentage of the bill?  If they are, with the present moorage problems I can see them not being able to pay their share, so some schemes maybe doomed before they get off the ground."I note that you differentiate between owner-occupiers and leaseholders, as such I presume that by the former you are  referring to freeholders.  In their case the charge they pay will be determined by the terms of their lease, and I am obliged to say that under the old administration this whole issue was cocked up on a quite monumental scale.  Some freeholders have nothing in their lease to obligate them to pay anything.  In the case of these people we could not expect them to make any contribution.Some agreed to pay a one-off charge when they purchased their properties from the council.  Again, having already paid this charge we would have no authority to ask them for any further contribution.Certain freeholders have undertaken to pay "any reasonable charge" asked of them.  Some years back I successfully defended a resident at Brentford County Court who had been asked to pay for a service which the local authority freely admitted had not been provided.  The Court ruled that it was unreasonable to charge for a service which hadn't been given and threw the case out, awarding her costs in the process.In the case of some others, however, the word "reasonable" was cynically deleted from the lease and they have in practise been asked not only to pay their own share but also to subsidise those of others.  At the same Court I was unsuccessful in trying to defend a victim of this policy, the District Judge ruling that although the charge was "most unfair", he had a contractual to pay it nonetheless having been poorly advised by his solicitor when purchasing his property.  For many years the local authority continued to make this patently unreasonable charge against him, simply because it could.So to return to your question (sorry!), no freeholder or leaseholder will be asked to make an unreasonable contribution towards any project, but where he or she has undertaken to pay a reasonable amount that amount will be asked for.In the light of this, the reality is that the size of any project (in financial terms) will need to be loosely proportionate to the number of households that it will benefit.

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

If a part of an estate infrastructure, such as Roads, Paths, lighting, grounds maintenance, ect, then I suppose most lease holders wouldn’t mind paying there share of the upgrade, but would probably decline for some fancy add on..Many Council houses are not on Estates, one I pass most days is Lionel Road, and there must be 3 to 4 hundred local authority houses along that stretch of road.I have no Idea if they have an association of any sort to apply for the money when the process is decided in May, so maybe this should also be taken into consideration when discussing how tenants can bid for this money. The other thing I wish to ask is, if a lot of money is spent on a communal area, which maybe surrounded by 50% owner-occupier and 50% tenant or leaseholders, will the owner occupiers be expected to pay a percentage of the bill?If they are, with the present moorage problems I can see them not being able to pay their share, so some schemes maybe doomed before they get off the ground.           

Ian Roberts ● 6312d

Thanks.

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

Is that your shortest post on here ever?Nice to know though

Kath Richardson ● 6312d

Errr...I could point to the Three Estates Residents' Association (TERA), of which I was Secretary, shortly after the election of a certain independent councillor in 1998.  "Get a certain person off your committee or you don't receive any funding this year" (I still have all the paperwork).But the experiences of Ivybridge and the Worple estate, would be better examples.  How long did the Worple Estate Residents' Association (WERA) last after it dispensed with the services of its control-freak Secretary back in those bad old days?

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

BarryI would recommend you view the webcast of the recent  Executive meeting at which this spend was approved, as this issue was raised - and dealt with - at that meeting.Leaseholders do quite rightly pay a fair share towards any maintenance or improvements, but no schemes will be approved which will saddle leaseholders with unreasonable costs.  However I'm sure you would not argue that estates should be allowed to deteriorate and never be improved just to keep leaseholder costs to a minimum?As always, there is a balance to be struck.

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

Absolutely.

Phil Andrews ● 6312d

What happens if a Council Estate has no Residents or Tenants Association?What will the impact be on leaseholders? as they could end up with a rather large bill for something they do not want

Ian Roberts ● 6313d

What about council residents who are not on an estate? Their need may well be less but are they to be considered?

Kath Richardson ● 6313d

I can never remember any instance where any money given to tenants and residents associations 'had political strings attached'. What happened - were they told 'vote for us or the swings get it'? Do tell.

Vanessa Smith ● 6313d

I think that is something of a no-brainer Simon.  I would like to find some money too.  But the fact remains that any such money is unlikely to be "found", in reality it would have to be taken from tenants in the form of further increased service charges.

Phil Andrews ● 6313d

Well thanks 4 explaing this to me i appreciate thatBUT....I still stand by the fact that I feel That residents (at least on Ivybridge) would rather see money being found to bring back the two services that are the most inportant to them Security and Caretaking!!

Simon Anderson ● 6313d

SimonCleverness is subjective, but what I meant was that in Steve's example somebody was offering to supply a one-off consignment (i.e. 1,000 apples), which equates to the £1.5m community funding which I am making available.However the recipient instead expressed a preference for something which would have entailed a recurring outlay (i.e. a greengrocer's salary), which equates to the employment of additional concierge or security staff.

Phil Andrews ● 6313d

SteveTo follow the logic of your example, what Simon appears to be saying is that rather than having 1,000 apples we would like to employ a greengrocer.Being not as clever as you are can you explain this Comment please so i can understand..Thanks

Simon Anderson ● 6313d

Phili just feel residents should ALL get a FULL chance to take part in this Scheme and to ALL be able to be Consulted by Their R.A so it is all above board and Fair

Simon Anderson ● 6313d

SimonThe exact protocol for applications has yet to be thrashed out, but the objective will be to make the process as open and transparent as possible so if you'd like to submit any ideas or opinions then I'm sure they will be given due consideration.

Phil Andrews ● 6313d

PhilWhen a R.A make an Application for a Bid for a project do they have to submit proof they have consulted Residents and that this is what the Residents want?

Simon Anderson ● 6313d

SimonNo applications have been made yet from Ivybridge or anywhere else, indeed the scheme will not be formally launched until the HFTRA conference in May.  Obviously I cannot comment on any application until it has been made and I have seen it.

Phil Andrews ● 6314d

Philfirstly will ALL residents on Ivybridge be consulted?secomdly i was not stating anything i was asking an Honest question which you seem to jump down my throat AGAIN

Simon Anderson ● 6314d

Yes indeed

Steve Taylor ● 6314d

SteveTo follow the logic of your example, what Simon appears to be saying is that rather than having 1,000 apples we would like to employ a greengrocer.

Phil Andrews ● 6314d

My understanding is that the  £1.5m is available from the Housing Revenue Account for resident-led estate improvement projects. The key word is 'projects'  Unfortunately I don't think it will matter if residents would rather see the Concierge back - that isn't an option on offer.Similarly if someone decided to donate  1,000 apples to a local school, if the school doesn't want the apples that's fine but they can't turn around and say "we want oranges instead"

Steve Taylor ● 6314d

VanessaYes you are right, there will in many cases be maintenance implications and that will be one of the many important factors which will be given very serious consideration when deciding whether to accept or reject a bid.  Obviously if the maintenance level for one project is minimal and can be reasonably absorbed within the general budget then that will be a much more favourable prospect than another project which would require high-level maintenance, because when push comes to shove the ongoing costs will one way or another fall onto tenants and leaseholders.The projects which I envisage emerging from this programme are works which regenerate rather than those which might provide superfluous adornments or enhancements.  It is reasonable to expect that community centres which are run down, for instance, should at some point be refurbished, redecorated and brought back into useful service.  The only other alternative is to leave them to crumble, become eyesores, close down and eventually fall down. The beauty of this project is that, having been awarded funding with no political strings attached to regenerate their centres as they see fit, residents will truly have taken ownership of them.  This is fundamental to my thinking here.One important aspect of the whole programme will of course be the need for extensive consultation.  To use Simon's example, if a TA bids for new play equipment and residents in general, following consultation, make it clear that there is already adequate provision for play and a more deserving project should be considered instead (leaving aside his continued confusion about the difference between capital and revenue spending) then that will be a big deciding factor in whether or not to support the application.Please do not think for one moment that this is just a matter of throwing large sums of money at groups of residents to spend on ill-conceived ideas and white elephants.  Freeing up the money was the easy part, the real test will be in putting the structures in place to make this work as it was intended to.The bottom line is that we are giving residents' money to residents, to spend how residents feel it should be spent.  This as you know is central to everything I and my colleagues seek to achieve as partners in this administration.

Phil Andrews ● 6314d

I heard a Rumour that the Tennant Assn on Ivybridge will place a bid to build a park by Easedale House.Firstly the estate has already 3 parks on Ivybridge and if they ask the residents i think they would find that they would rather see the Concierge Back!!

Simon Anderson ● 6314d

Possibly I'm not getting this either. Say a tenant's assn. decides to have a children's playground, given the very strict regulations covering the maintenance and health and safety aspects of these facilities, won't that entail a revenue cost? If not how will it be paid for? Similarly with landscaping projects, trees, shrubs and grass all grow, where is the money to come from to maintain them? These sorts of things cannot be classed as one-offs surely?

Vanessa Smith ● 6314d

PhilI understand but i just wonder sometimes about Politics where money can be found for one project but not for others where Good people loose there Jobs!!

Simon Anderson ● 6314d

SimonYour response suggests you didn't understand my reply.  The grant allocation is capital funding.  It is a one-off spend.  It is not an ongoing spend, unlike salaries.

Phil Andrews ● 6315d

PhilBut don't you think the residents on estates Such as Ivybridge and Brentford would rather you find £1.5m and invest it into security which is the most inportant issue for them on their estates?

Simon Anderson ● 6315d

SimonThe difference is that this is capital spend, as opposed to revenue spend.What this means in plain English is that costs which involve employing people are ongoing, i.e. people's wages have to be paid year after year, there are pension issues, etc.The £1.5m community spend is a one-off payment taken from Hounslow Homes reserves, which I judged to be slightly higher than they need have been.  When it's gone, it's gone.Hope this answers your question.

Phil Andrews ● 6315d

PhilI would like to ask you something please.I am all for improvements on Council estates but for the last 2yrs residents on Ivybridge have been told there is NO money to fund the concierge which has seen the concierge a thing of the past.also Ivybridge has lost several caretakers because of No funds.Can i ask when the council will find £1.5m to invest into concierge or caretaking?

Simon Anderson ● 6315d

Thank you Neil, although according to the Labour Party on another thread it was their idea all along and they were already doing this when they were in office.  One is tempted to ask then just what they spent their £1.5m on because the community centres don't look any better from where I'm sitting.

Phil Andrews ● 6320d

This is a great idea, lets hope a number of Tennants Assocs jump on board and run with this.

Neil Chippendale ● 6322d

"...this certainly seems like a leap in the right direction and  this Administration is moving swiftly to turn this borough into something the community can be proud of"Possibly somebody in these parts sees things differently:

Phil Andrews ● 6322d

"So what Brentford Estate are you on Steve"Hi Victor I'm not on any estate and know very little about how they operate or are run but I am always keen to learn. For that reason I read all I can and absorb and question.  From what I have read  this new initiative seems like a good move?

Steve Taylor ● 6323d

News of this initiative was recently carried on Sunrise Radio.  One imagines that the community empowerment strategy which is being enthusiastically pursued by the current administration will be of more interest still when our plans to hand Meadowbank Community Centre in Cranford back to the community are realised.

Phil Andrews ● 6323d

So what Brentford Estate are you on Steve

Victor Mullins ● 6323d

Thanks for that Steve.  Much more to come on this front.

Phil Andrews ● 6324d

I don't know very much about the inner workings of our estates but from what I have read about the  cronyism and cliqueishness which has prevailed,  this certainly seems like a leap in the right direction and  this Administration is moving swiftly to turn this borough into something the community can be proud of.

Steve Taylor ● 6325d