Council warns of cuts after residents block transfer

Readers' comments (10)

• michaelbarratt | 10/06/2009 10:01 am

  Congratulations to the tenants of South Cambridgeshire, Dave Kelleway and colleagues for a well fought campaign.
  
  South Cambridgeshire District Council has warned it will have to make ‘significant cuts’ to its housing services, after tenants overwhelming rejected a proposal to transfer their homes to a housing association. The Council estimate that they will have to slash their major works housing budget for 2010/20011 from £6.9million to £3 million – Why? The answer is simple; because as happening up and down the Nation, New Labour’s anti council tenant policies require the South Cambs Council to hand over in the same year £10m as you guess it – ASSUMED SURPLUS RENTAL INCOME!!
  
  Inescapably, the Department for Community and Local Government will be the author of future disrepair and Decent Home failures arising because of the 65% cut in South Cambridgeshire District Council’s major works budget.
  
  How dare Brown & Co talk of a more just society!!

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Marais | 10/06/2009 10:04 am

  How do they know what "significant cuts" will have to be made when we haven't had the housing finance review published yet? They should never have blown £750,000 on this stupid exercise, not long after over 80% of tenants had shown opposition to transfer in a survey, at least until waiting to see what the longterm future of the HRA might be. SCDC tenants obviously like their council housing - the govt must acknowledge that, and help it to remain viable.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Terry Harding | 10/06/2009 10:32 am

  I would take any figures given by the Consultants and Council regarding the feasibility of retaining homes. During our Stock Option Appraisals, the Consultants hired to do a feasibility study on the best option, recommended that the council dispose of the stock either by, Full or partial stock transfer and or ALMO. We confronted the figures and discovered a survey of only 2.5% was carried out on the stock and challenged both the Government and the Consultants, result, a new survey of a minimum of 10% was ordered and with a new company. This was also unstable and we as the Steering Group responsible for overseeing the process, accessed information, done our sums and then discovered the contract was let illegally. We again challenged the Council and the Government, we then sought political assistance during a Mayoral election, attained retention promises and supported the winning candidate. End result, we retained our homes and suddenly there was a huge pot to renovate under the decent homes standards. I suggest tenants seek access to all figures, use the FOI if necessary and demand Government intervention, after all the the majority want to stay as they are, ask your Government Offices to seek a meeting with your representatives and the Council, include the Housing Minister and seek support from your local media and press. We used those tactics and the Government soon altered their stance.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Taylot | 10/06/2009 10:53 am

  South Cambs Council now need to work with tenants, councillors from all sides and council staff to ensure we provide good quality council housing that is sustainable and able to meet the challenges that all social housing providers are facing. Tenants have overwhelmingly indicated their commitment to council housing recognising it as the best option for good quality, secure and affordable social housing.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Chris McCabe | 10/06/2009 10:58 am

  It was the Council's overspending on, among other things, smart new offices that depleted the budget; they proceeded to spend yet more on a lavish pro-privatisation propaganda campaign, including two DVDs, colour leaflets, & doorstepping by suited & boiler-suited spokesmen, all talking from the angle that Council tenants (who have paid for the housing stock from their rents!) are a burden on the Council.
  Fair play to SCAT for giving the facts about 'transfer' to all tenants.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• martin laval | 10/06/2009 11:04 am

  Tenants were told that under the council 50% of rents are taken by central government but that a housing association would be able to 'keep' 100% for improvements and repairs. The fact that we would had to have paid millions in interest on bank loans was kepy hidden. Where was the honesty Cllr. Manning?
  Tenants were not allowed to see the proposed HA's business plan. What was 'open' about that Cllr. Manning? Transfer is just a massive gravy train for consultants, executive officers, banks, insurance companies and well connected contractors. A total scam in other words. Anyone without a extremely cynical view of 'the transfer proccess' is not paying attention.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Mr. Sharabi | 10/06/2009 12:45 pm

  With Labour moving swiftly out of favour with the public, and with the Tories on the doorstep of Downing Street, didn't David Cameron promise a fourth option of direct investment into Council Homes to meet Decent Homes in his previous campaign?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Dave Kelleway, Chairman, South Cambs Against Trans | 10/06/2009 10:56 pm

  The tragedy is that the Tory council in South Cambs were arrogant and refused to listen to tenants, and so wasted two years of officer time, and over 3/4 Million pounds - Money that should have been used to maintain our homes, rather than line private consultants pockets, officer time that should have been used to help tenants, rather than ignore them.
  Half way through the process, when the council had to decide whether to proceed to stage two, they decided not to give tenants a vote on it, as the Housing Portfolio Holder told the council - because they would vote against it!
  They knew it was a huge gamble and that they would very likely lose - would they have taken that gamble if it had been their own money?
  Unlike some of the M.P.s who have at least had the decency to resign, no such moral fibre is evident in South Cambs.
  The whole process was manipulated in a way that would be tolerated in no other election scenario.
  It is appalling that the government not only allows, but encourages, councils to adopt such atrocious tactics as using public money to fund barrages of one-sided propaganda in favour of transfer, whilst denying a voice to those who seek to put the other side of the picture - to gerrymander tenant "elections" to ensure that anti-transfer candidates do not get places on the Shadow Board - to expect tenants to vote on the transfer of their homes, whilst denying them the right to see the business plan underpinning the financial viability (or lack of) of that transfer (on the grounds that they would not understand it!!) - to use their staff, including sheltered scheme workers, to pressure tenants to vote for transfer - it is also outrageous that the council's General fund is ringfenced, and cannot subsidise housing, but the Housing account (HRA) can be raided to subsidise taxpayers - a situation that the council took advantage of to the tune of £10.5 Million - (£6 Million to build plush new offices) then claimed that there was a shortfall in the housing budget, and transfer was needed!
  It was the utter frustration of having to fight to protect our council homes against a LABOUR Government, that I left the Labour party after 25 years, including 16 served as a County Councillor. It is no wonder that they are in such trouble.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• stephen west | 11/06/2009 5:47 pm

  Well done the tenants of South Cambridgeshire for standing up to their local authority and overwhelmingly voting to stay with their Council rather than being taken over by a Housing Association/ RSL. It is a complete myth to call Housing Associations non profitable organisations with Charitable status, as they have to make a profit to pay their vast wages and remunerations packages, they are essentially land and property owners with a thirst for becoming property developers. Can anyone tell me if the leaseholders of South Cambs. were consulted or asked to vote on the Stock Transfer as being stakeholders they should be allowed, currently the law discriminates against leaseholders of local authorities when the ugly word of large scale voluntary Stock Transfer rears its head. In the London Borough of Bexley back in 1998 leaseholders were not consulted or allowed to vote in the Transfer which unfortunately went ahead. It has left Leaseholders having to pay for such things as Road and Footpath maintenance and Playgrounds etc. used and enjoyed by the public at large which should be paid for via the Councils General Revenue Account and not be leaseholders through their Service Charges who are also Bexley Rate Payers.
  
  At least the Councillors of South Cambs. will still be answerable to the tenants who are also electors and can be held to account at local elections. The former tenants and leaseholders of Bexley Council sadly no longer even have that luxury.
  
  Stephen West
  
  Orbit Bexley Housing Association Independent Leaseholders Group

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Dave Kelleway | 11/06/2009 9:16 pm

  in answer to Stephen West: The leaseholders had an advisory ballot at the same time, voting of leaseholders was 53.4% against transfer, on a 61% turnout.
  Dave Kelleway
  Chairman
  South Cambs Against Transfer (SCAT)

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment