Southdown Court: reflections from yesterday’s public meetings

Yesterday, with my colleague Phil Oakley, I attended a couple of meetings of residents in Saltdean who are concerned about BHT’s plans for Southdown Court. The meetings were called by Simon Kirby MP and attended by Councillors Mary Mears and Lynda Hyde. Unfortunately, Councillor David Smith was unable to attend.

What was most impressive about the meetings was the display of the strength of community that exists in Saltdean, the measured way that most raised their questions, and the respectful manner in which they listened to the answers.

I hope that we were able to reassure residents, although I recognise that there are some people who are so anxious that nothing would have reassured them. I hope that, in time, they will come to recognise that their fears were unfounded. And then there were one or two comments that were clearly not representative of the people of Saltdean.

I will formally respond to the petition organised by and presented to me by Simon Doyle in the next few days.

Elsewhere on this blog (here and here) I have posted information about Southdown Court. In this post I will focus on two areas of learning for me:

• that I underestimated the very strong sense of community in Saltdean (that does not exist in many other areas where we work);
• that I need to review the balance between the need for information and the right of our tenants to privacy and anonymity.

Residents are very proud of their community and understandably want what is best for themselves, their families, and their neighbours.

When we decided to take on a 10 year lease for Southdown Court we assumed that this would go ahead without comment from neighbours, in the same way as all similar leases have gone ahead without comment elsewhere in Brighton and Hove, Eastbourne and Hastings.

How wrong I was! It is a sign of the strong sense of community that neighbours talk to neighbours, and residents to councillors. I actually welcome that. It culminated in Simon Kirby, together with the ward councillors, calling yesterday’s meetings. Phil and I were very happy to attend and we are willingly to attend future meetings if they are called. BHT will remain in touch with the LAT and resident association. Hopefully this is the start of healthy engagement between BHT, residents and their representatives, and in due course our tenants in Southdown Court.

Several residents felt that BHT should have been proactive in distributing leaflets in the neighbourhood about our plans. Some felt that we have been secretive about our plans.

We haven’t attempted to be secretive. We had simply assumed that there was no need to be public about our plans because what we are intending to do at Southdown Court is simple and straightforward – provide housing to men and women in housing need because of the shortage of housing. Our tenants could be the sons and daughters, or brothers and sisters of existing residents of Saltdean. No planning permission is required for a change in use since there is to be no change in use. This was helpfully clarified by Councillor Hyde.

There is a balance to be struck between the privacy and anonymity of our future tenants and the concerns of neighbours.

With the wonderful benefit of hindsight, would I have approached the situation differently? Yes. I would have engaged with the three ward councillors earlier, informing them of our plans and providing reassurances to any concerns that they might have had. They would then have been in a position, when approached by residents, to say that Southdown Court was being brought back in to use as housing.

Should BHT have put out a leaflet to neighbours explaining our plans. No, I don’t think we should have since we are not proposing something out of the ordinary. We will simply be providing housing in a residential area.

So thank you to all those who attended yesterday’s meetings, and for your questions, no matter how challenging. Thank you, also, to Mary Mears and Lynda Hyde for their attendance and robust comments on behalf of their constituent. And finally a thank you to Simon Kirby for organising the meeting.

Reassuring residents about our plans for Southdown Court, Saltdean

This coming Saturday (25th February at 12 noon), together with my colleague Phil Oakley, who is responsible for all our private rented sector housing, I will be meeting with residents of Saltdean who have some concerns about our acquisition of Southdown Court.

The meeting has been called by Simon Kirby MP together with Rottingdean Coastal councillors, Mary Mears, Lynda Hyde and David Smith.

Click here for further information regarding the meeting.

I can understand that residents might be concerned if some of the rumours that have been circulated were true. However, I can reassure residents and their representatives that Southdown Court will be used to accommodate local people who are in housing need simply because of the shortage of housing. We will have assessed all residents as being able to maintain a tendency. We have never had any plans to run the premises as a bail hostel nor will we use it as one of our specialist services for people with alcohol, drug or mental health problems.

Those to be accommodated here could well be the sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of those already living in Saltdean.

I think we can be criticised for not having communicated better with local representatives at an earlier stage but this was not considered since the accommodation to be provided here will be so mainstream similar to that provided by any other landlord.

I look forward to the meeting and hope that we can reassure residents about our plans.

Is saying something on Twitter any better or worse than saying it in the pub after several pints?

My colleague, Phil Oakley, left a comment on my blog yesterday in which he said, “I fully appreciate the benefits of blogging and twitter etc but have always had a concern as well. A concern that the new medias can be rather like a conversation in the pub after several pints – it is all to easy to make ill-considered, sweeping and impulsive statements”.

His comment was made in response to me saying that the era of social media was moving on to one of ‘hyper local’ networks, where we become more discerning about who we share things with. I should make it clear, however, that Tweeting and blogging will not fade away, nor will the conversation in the pub after several pints (or, in my case, orange juices).

Phil is right that it is easy to make ill-considered, sweeping and impulsive statements on Twitter (less so on a blog). But there are two differences between Twitter and the pub. On Twitter you can always delete the tweet unlike the pub. And unlike the pub, where you may upset and offend your immediate circle of drinking mates (a hyper local network), on Twitter it can reach all your followers and, if re-tweeted, their followers too.

But exchanges of views is the life blood of all organisations and causes. Conversations happen, and hopefully they will be characterised by professionalism and respect.

Some organisations seek to control online content while ignoring the banter in the pub, possibly because that can’t be controlled. There was an item in last week’s Inside Housing which reported that Howard Sinclair of the London homelessness charity Broadway who revealed that he has not even been given the login details to his own Twitter account. He says that he has to email his 140 character messages to several different figures within his organisation for approval before they can go online.

In fact, online content is very difficult to control, and if restrictions are placed on staff or clients, there is nothing to stop them setting up anonymous online identities for blogging and Twitter purposes. When that happens, debate can take a life of its own. Take, for example, the unveiling of a certain footballer’s identity on Twitter.

I would rather there be open discussion and debate. if someone has something to say, let them say it, no matter how robust their views may be. Of course my response might be as robust! Used appropriately, blogging and Twitter can be very influential. But some things are better said quietly, with greater care and consideration, in hyper local networks of colleagues and partners.

Combatting homelessness leading to change, or promoting change to combat homelessness?

A colleague of mine, Phil Oakley, recently said to me that BHT has its Mission Statement completely the wrong way round. He said that it should read “promoting change, creating opportunities, combating homelessness” rather than “combating homelessness, creating opportunities, promoting change”.

On Twitter I follow Felicity Reynolds, the chief executive of the Mercy Foundation which works towards ending homelessness through affordable housing and support. I have never met Felicity. She lives and works in Sydney, Australia. Such is the value of Twitter (5 years old today, I understand) that it enables me to follow the work of colleagues in different parts of the world.

Earlier today , Felicity wrote, “Housing solves homelessness. Ongoing support, when needed, sustains people in housing.” She continues, “‘Housing First’ isn’t ‘Housing Only’ . Housing comes first, but ongoing support needs to focus on client choice. I’m working towards a time when none of our fellow citizens are consigned to living long-term on a street”.

The different positions taken by Phil and by Felicity demonstrates the chicken and egg dilemma for those of us working in the world of homelessness. Should our first priority be to get somebody housed or should we be looking at the underlying causes of why they became homeless in the first place? 

Most people say you should do them at the same time. I know that part of my experience has been that when someone is housed before the underlying problem is addressed, the likelihood of addressing that problem becomes harder. 

The counter argument is that it is impossible to address an alcohol or drug problem or mental health issue while someone is still living on the street. I absolutely agree with that, but I’m not sure whether providing someone with a permanent home is the immediate answer. We need to get people off the street at the very earliest opportunity, but then we must address the causes of homelessness and actively promote the pace and scale of change.

That is why I like the approach taken by Phil. He says that by promoting change it allows individuals to make the most of the opportunities that exist to tackle homelessness themselves. That approach asks the question: is BHT a homelessness organisation or a change organisation? I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but we must ensure that we don’t merely provide accommodation and support, we must continue to build on our growing reputation for promoting change.

I am interested in what others think about the pace and scale of change. At what point do we accept that sufficient change has been made that means that a tenancy is sustainable? And what consequences should there be for those who choose not to change (as opposed to those not able to change)?

In a world of decreasing resources, how do we prioritise our financial resources and efforts while at the same time, as Felicity says, reaching “a time when none of our fellow citizens are consigned to living long-term on a street”.