Agenda item

The Committee received four deputation requests in relation to item 11.3 on the agenda (Viability Assessment of Proposals from Owners of Properties with RAAC).

 

The first deputation request was from Lindsay Bruce, Press and Journal and Evening Express reporter, who was heading up a Trapped by RAAC campaign.

 

Ms Bruce advised that she aimed to highlight how this situation was impacting the lives of fellow Aberdonians, neighbours, their children, the electorate, and expressed how home owners affected by RAAC needed Members to act on their behalf as though their lives depended on it.  Ms Bruce indicated that others here today offering deputations would also point Members to ways in which the administration could help homeowners, whilst still offering best value.

 

Ms Bruce stated that for the wider Aberdeen public, she would like to implore Members from the outset to come with an openness to hear the words of those at the core of the situation.  Ms Bruce highlighted there had never been another situation like this in Aberdeen, and it was an extraordinary crisis that required extraordinary solutions, and there were no previous paths to follow.  

 

Ms Bruce explained that this was Members’ opportunity to act with creativity and compassion to find ways to best serve the people of Aberdeen and in doing so, pave the way for other local authorities.  Ms Bruce intimated that she stood with those impacted by RAAC and noted that the people of Torry had become very important to her and their stories had become ingrained deeply.

 

Ms Bruce explained how she had been impacted from hearing stories from multiple families and homeowners.  Stories of good hard working people about to lose their homes and the lives they strived and saved for, stories of a tight knit community about to be ripped apart.  These stories were of people not precedent, people not policies, people not politics, and it was with this that they launched their campaign.

 

Ms Bruce intimated that good local journalism had always sought to dig deeper to robustly cover issues of public interest and to call power to account on the ground.  She noted that they heard stories first hand and they saw the impact of what was happening in the city, and when an extraordinary event such as the RAAC crisis happened, they had the incredible privilege and platform to give voice to those experiencing injustice.

 

Ms Bruce indicated that she had met and covered stories of families in Balnagask and had interviewed at least 65 individuals.  She had spoken with individuals who could no longer dream of starting a family, due to the financial and mental load, pensioners who were worrying that they could no longer enjoy their retirement, and also individuals who could no longer retire at all. 

 

Ms Bruce asked Members to be mindful not only of the health and safety impact of this crisis but of the greater impact the financial effect this would have on homeowners without exception, through no fault of their own.  Ms Bruce intimated that the more pressing issue was how a solution was administered that was fair and just, not just one that eradicated by flattening buildings to the ground. 

 

Ms Bruce advised that homeowners believed that all costs should be met by the Council and she felt that this was right as it was the local authority who built the houses and the local authority who sold the houses.  Ms Bruce advised that the report stated that the Council could not accept open ended financial liability for circumstances arising from private ownership, which she felt suggested that there should be a cost paid by homeowners, so that it was fair to the rest of the Aberdeen public.  However Ms Bruce stated that the homeowners were Council taxpayers and they were part of the population of Aberdeen, noting that you could not divorce the situation unfolding and the people at the heart, from the rest of their city.

 

Ms Bruce also spoke about the suggestion that for those who wished to remain in Balnagask, that they could perhaps pay for their own roof to be fixed, with a low cost or no interest loan.  Ms Bruce felt that this option was estranged from the reality of life for the general population and stated that homeowners would not be able to pay back the £40,000.

 

Ms Bruce also spoke about legislation and how houses were purchased through the Right to Buy scheme formally under the House in Scotland Act 1987, which meant homeowners bought the houses and would take on full repairs and insurance.  It was a duty for the local authority to disclose any known issues and she questioned why the risks were not disclosed retrospectively.

 

The final point Ms Bruce raised was when the report stated that in relation to the option to replace roofs and if this was taken forward and the homeowners could no’t afford to do so, that there should be ways to help them cover the cost without paying right at the outset, and the Council should consider making these funds available as a grant and not a loan. 

 

In conclusion Ms Bruce highlighted that even if the Council did accept full financial liability, it would still offer the best value to Aberdeen people.  Best value was not just about financial management but it was about ensuring that there was good governance and effective management of resources with a focus on improvement to deliver the best possible outcomes for the public.  Ms Bruce noted that this was not an unfixable situation, and asked Members to put people before precedent and the people before politics and asked Members to do the right thing.

 

Members then asked a number of questions of Ms Bruce. 

 

The second deputation request was from Paula Fraser who advised that she represented the residents of Balnagask affected by RAAC.  Ms Fraser noted that it had now been 19 months since they were made aware of the situation, which felt like a lifetime, stating that their community had been literally torn apart.  Tenants were forced to leave their loved homes on the understanding that they would have ongoing support but for the majority, this had not been the case.  Children had been separated from their friendship groups, their social activities, young families uprooted, elderly and disabled people were ripped from their support network as well as local GP’s being put under pressure to deal with a catalogue of health issues that this situation had caused.  

 

Ms Fraser advised that when she presented her first deputation at a previous Committee, she urged Members to make people’s mental health a priority, however it was not until April 2025 that they heard about assistance available from Scottish Action for Mental Health (SAMH), by which time most people struggling had established their own support from other areas.  Ms Fraser questioned why it took over a year to set this up. 

 

Ms Fraser intimated that when they met with the Housing Minister for Scotland, they were informed that the Council had not put any detailed funding proposals to the Scottish Government.  Councillor Allard confirmed to one of the members of the group that he had received correspondence from both the Scottish and UK Government refusing assistance.  Ms Fraser asked if there had been any subsequent requests lodged to both governments, specifically detailed funding proposals. 

 

Ms Fraser advised that she felt that the Council had not been successful in the engagement of homeowners and even for the homeowners who did engage, the timescale was unacceptable from agreeing to engage to the valuation being done, to accepting the offer.  She noted that one resident had accepted the offer at the end of January yet were still waiting to hear and questioned what the delay was. 

 

Ms Fraser indicated that the citizens of Aberdeen voted Members in and gave Members the privilege of their trust to do what was best for them and said that she felt the citizens were feeling miserable at the level of support.  Ms Fraser stated that they had no trust in Aberdeen City Council, noting that people’s hopes and dreams had been ruined.  Friendships and relationships were under pressure, people’s dreams of getting married, starting families, upsizing, downsizing, all were in limbo.  Ms Fraser felt that people were being stripped of their homes and their dignity, leaving them with unsustainable amounts of debt in which many had to declare bankruptcy.

 

Ms Fraser then provided examples of people’s situations and highlighted the suffering they had gone through due to the RAAC situation.

 

Members then asked a number of questions of Ms Fraser. 

 

The Committee then heard the third deputation from Mr Wilson Chowdhry.  Mr Chowdhry advised that he felt it was clear that a lot of effort had gone into preparing the report and also into preparing a framework that offered homeowners a genuine range of choices, which mattered deeply to the community.  He noted that the most acceptable outcome for most homeowners would be the ability to retain their existing homes, as these properties were not just bricks and mortar, they represented a lifetime of memories.  There were also deep community roots and for many, the only source of financial security and the prospect of being uprooted and moved to an alternative was far more distressing than remaining in and investing in the homes they already cherished.  Mr Chowdhry therefore believed the option to retain and make these homes safe would be the most welcome and widely supported path forward.

 

Mr Chowdhry noted that he was pleased to hear that grants may be available for environmental retrofits to bring these properties up to modern standards.  He felt it was not only desirable but it was necessary.  He asked the Council to consider going further by supporting those who may not meet the standard grant eligibility criteria. 

 

Mr Chowdhry asked Members to continue to seek support from the UK Government, via the UK Shared Prosperity Fund or similar routes, to ensure wider funding was available.  He also stated that he felt, like most homeowners, that the Council should step up and fully fund the necessary works, which would include both repair costs and associated disturbance and home loss payments.  Mr Chowdhry intimated that homeowners did not cause this crisis and many bought their homes in good faith, noting there was no disclosure, no warning and no opportunity for informed consent. 

 

Mr Chowdhry indicated that he felt unfortunately there was a situation where the Council were not budging and he urged the Council to seriously consider offering low or no interest loans through a sundry debt scheme. 

 

Mr Chowdhry advised that one thing beyond doubt was that homeowners had waited far too long and this prolonged and drawn out process had only deepened uncertainty and distress for countless families.  He stated that a decision must now be taken, one that was urgent and rooted in compassion. 

 

Mr Chowdhry highlighted the importance of option 3 within the report, which he believed was a pragmatic way forward, as it would allow homeowners and their families to temporarily relocate and re enter their properties once works were completed. 

 

Mr Chowdhry indicated that many homeowners may consider an option for house swap, but many did not fully grasp just how limited their choices would likely be, as the significant deduction the Council proposed, would make the existing value of their homes less, and could result in far less purchasing power than residents currently expected.  Furthermore, he stated that those who fet confident about taking improvement works, may not fully appreciate the condition of the properties they were likely to be offered in exchange.  Mr Chowdhry urged the Council to provide clear, concrete examples of what these swaps might look like in practise. 

 

In conclusion, Mr Chowdhry urged the Council to approve an approach that recognised the hardships already endured, that put fairness first and that truly honoured the commitment to the community, whether through grants, fair compensation or practical relocation schemes, he stated that the Council must act now to give homeowners clarity, dignity and justice.  

 

The Committee had no questions for Mr Chowdhry.

 

The Committee then heard from Mr Raymond Davidson, who was speaking on behalf of the Torry Community RAAC Campaign Group.  Mr Davidson advised that the future of 138 families was at stake and Members had the chance to show real compassion, not in theory but in a way that could transform lives.  He indicated that for the past 18 months, the homeowners had lived in fear, stress and uncertainty through no fault of their own and their homes, once their greatest asset, became a liability overnight.  The discovery of RAAC had left them financially trapped, unable to sell, unable to repair and unless something changed, unable to move forward.  Mr Davidson questioned if it was right that these families should be punished for circumstances beyond their control.  These residents had done nothing wrong, yet they had been paying the price every single day since this crisis began.  Mr Davidson intimated that homeowners were not looking for charity, but for leadership and for fairness. 

 

Mr Davidson noted that Members may feel torn between compassion for residents and the duty to deliver value for money across the city.  He questioned if Members could do both.  He stated that their proposal would offer both, provide support and also protect the public purse. 

 

Mr Davidson advised that the Council had already approved a funding solution of around £13 million for the voluntary acquisition of the properties and the plan was then to demolish the homes and be left with a cleared site.  He queried what the £13 million would actually buy.  He stated that after demolition, at an estimated cost of around £10,000 per property and factoring in the modest value of the land, the Council would be left with an empty site.  There would then be 138 displaced households, families, pensioners and working people and many would fall into negative equity, some would face bankruptcy and others risked homelessness.  People would be unable to buy again, unable to get a mortgage, many would become homeless and there would be 138 fewer homes in the city, which had already declared a housing emergency.  Mr Davidson did not think that was value for money.

 

Mr Davidson asked Members to compare what they were proposing as an alternative, which was pragmatic, cost saving and compassionate.  It would cost around £2 million to £3 million less than the demolition plan and it preserved the housing stock.  It would also reduce pressure on Council housing lists and supported a more strategic approach to site planning but above all, it would give residents hope and it would give them a future. 

 

Mr Davidson indicated that their plan identified a cluster of RAAC affected homes on the edge of Balnagask which could be made safe for £2-£3 million less on demolition costs.  These homes would be offered to affected residents in exchange for their current properties, allowing the Council to plan its future site redevelopment and a more manageable contiguous area whilst avoiding the personal and financial destruction that mass displacement would bring.  This option would allow the Council to maintain community cohesion, reduce the number of demolitions and protect people’s financial dignity, whilst also avoiding placing additional pressure on an already over stretched housing list and make a significant public saving.

 

Mr Davidson advised that officers had confirmed their proposal was a viable option, and the only barrier was that officers recommended that homeowners pay for the roof replacement costs, but homeowners simply could not afford to do that.  Mr Davidson stated that if residents could not afford the roof repairs and Members supported the officers current recommendation, the opportunity for remediation would disappear and that sent it back to mass demolition at a greater cost with greater human impact. 

 

Mr Davidson asked Members to look beyond the numbers, as this situation was not just about buildings but it was about people.  People who trusted the system to protect them in a time of great need.  People who now needed Members to stand up for them.  Mr Davidson intimated that there was a choice to be made today.  Either to demolish homes and displace a number of families at a cost of £13million, leaving the Council with a site of no value, or the Council could spend less, save homes, protect financial futures, maintain a community and still deliver value for money.

 

Mr Davidson highlighted that this situation was not about party politics or scoring points or ideological debates.  This was about people and it was about families facing financial ruin and despair through no fault of their own and to turn this into a political contest would be a failure of leadership.  There was no political capital to be gained from forcing families out of their homes and Mr Davidson felt this was a moment in public service to rise above political divisions, to set differences aside and act in the shared interests of the constituents. 

 

Mr Davidson concluded by asking Members to set aside the politics, to choose unity, compassion, value and hope and above all, choose a solution that respected the dignity of the people who were trusting the Council to protect their future over demolition, displacement and despair.

 

The Committee then asked a number of questions of Mr Davidson. 

 

The Convener thanked all of the individuals who had presented their deputations.