Agenda item

The Committee received two deputation requests in relation to item 11.1 on the agenda (Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) - Phasing of Demolition and Landscaping). 

The first deputation request was from Mr John Meiklejohn, who represented the Torry Community RAAC Campaign Group.  Mr Meiklejohn explained that he would like the Council to reverse the opinion that planning permission did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before demolition of the properties and asked that this be re-evaluated and also asked that there be involvement of an established environment agency such as SEPA.  Mr Meiklejohn felt that by not having an EIA, it would then skip a major part of the planning process for this development.  Mr Meiklejohn highlighted that the proposal was to demolish 372 buildings and that would have an impact on the environment.

Mr Meiklejohn also highlighted that he wished to thank the Council for agreeing to explore alternatives to support homeowners and he felt this was a big step forward and felt that it was leeway to get both sides out of the messy situation.  He also indicated that he did appreciate the Council’s record of trying to balance professionalism with empathy however he felt that section 7 of the report (legal implications) undermined that.  He felt that it was a blatant threat and an attempt to intimidate people into accepting the voluntary acquisition process and also an attempt to remove the need for the CPO? process by simply threatening to evict homeowners from their properties. 

Mr Meiklejohn highlighted he felt there was conflicting information on whether RAAC was defective and he felt there was a strong parallel with the cladding scandal in terms of the information that had not been provided.  He felt that this would be made clear through a statutory public enquiry.  He advised that he felt the only way to get a fair, true and transparent process to determine not only the responsibilities but the root cause of this scandal and get it properly resolved in a fair and equitable manner, was to have a public enquiry. 

Mr Meiklejohn advised that they had specialists in the area of structural engineering and structural architects who all stated that homeowners had been put in a position of facing huge bills, financial difficulties and possibly homelessness through no fault of their own.

Mr Meiklejohn spoke about the health impact the situation was having on privately owned residents who were affected by RAAC and asked that private owners be awarded a fair settlement.  Mr Meiklejohn indicated that owners did not want to go through a long legal battle and sought a fair resolution.  He advised that he would not accept the valuation that had been offered from the Council.

Members then had the opportunity to ask Mr Meiklejohn questions on his deputation.

The Committee then received a deputation from Mr Wilson Chowdhry.  Mr Chowdhry began his deputation by asking if the Council believed that due diligence had been adequately undertaken in regards to the RAAC home owners’ situation and whether the correct financial model had been followed.  He noted that at a previous meeting, officers explained that only desktop reviews had been conducted in regards to cost repairs across Scotland and noted that thorough cost assessments had led to significant reductions in estimated replacement costs. 

In regards to the Environmental Impact Assessment, Mr Chowdhry asked for clarity on why the Council believed an EIA was not required for this project.

Mr Chowdhry explained that in regards to exploring viable alternatives, section 2.1 of the report stated that the plans could still be adapted and that engagement with homeowners would continue.  He indicated that Dundee City Council were set to announce a 40% grant to all owners, for RAAC replacement costs.

Mr Chowdhry asked that the Council provide a fair solution for affected homeowners and felt that if this was the case, it would cost the Council less overall than demolition and redevelopment, and also reduce the loss of crucial housing stock.

In regards to the demolition programme at 2.4 of the report, Mr Chowdhry advised that the Council acknowledged that the demolition programme was subject to interdependencies which could delay proceedings, and he urged the Council to recognise that a significant majority of home owners were refusing to accept the voluntary acquisition offers.

Mr Chowdhry indicated that it was widely recognised that the current situation was not the homeowners’ fault, but rather a consequence of past cost saving measures, during the construction of these properties.  In relation to the acquisition processes, Mr Chowdhry formally requested an amendment to reinstate verbal reporting on rehoming numbers at future Committee meetings. 

In relation to section 3.3 of the report, Mr Chowdhry advised that it was acknowledged that some properties within the wider site were privately owned and that affected homeowners could pursue their own solutions.  He felt the Council had failed to inform these homeowners that they could submit group applications for available financial assistance including loans, shared funding or grants for remedial works to their properties. 

Mr Chowdhry highlighted that it was worth noting that none of the properties classified as medium to high risk had progressed to critical risk and felt that it suggested that the Council’s actions thus far had been premature and rushed.  He called on the Council to pause its current demolition and acquisition plans and instead focus on properly exploring all viable alternatives, as other local authorities had done.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask Mr Chowdhry questions on his deputation. 

The Committee resolved:-

to thank Mr Meiklejohn and Mr Chowdhry for their deputations.