The Housing Management Panel: West Hove & Portslade Area were scheduled to meet on 17 September 2025 to discuss housing performance, health and safety compliance, and resident questions. The panel was also expected to discuss how the Community Engagement Team supports informal groups. Residents were invited to attend a housing surgery for individual enquiries before the main panel meeting.

Resident Questions

The panel was scheduled to address questions raised by residents, which were categorised as either 2-star (local area issue) or 3-star (city-wide issue).

Some of the questions that were scheduled to be discussed included:

• W2.1 - Health risk from discarded nappies at Conway Court: Residents reported that someone was throwing dirty nappies and sanitary pads from their flat onto the roof of a clinic, and that the fire exit was blocked with cat food, litter trays and tea-lights. Residents asked what action would be taken to resolve the issue, as it had been raised at the June meeting. The response in the report pack stated that the council had contacted residents in the block to try and identify the culprit, and had instructed a contractor to remove the waste.
• W2.2 - Fly-tipping on Ellen Street: Repeated fly-tipping was reported on Ellen Street, with builders consistently dumping waste. Residents asked if CCTV cameras could be installed and what actions had been effective in other areas. The response in the report pack stated that Ellen Street had been added to the list of locations that could benefit from CCTV monitoring, with the next round of camera placements scheduled for early 2026.
• W3.1 - Council contractors not using ID or giving prior notification: It was reported that council contractors were turning up at people's homes without any ID or prior notification. Residents asked why this was still happening despite previous assurances, what monitoring the council does, and what action the council takes against contractors not following protocol. The response in the report pack stated that all contractors should carry clear identification, and that the council conducts regular review meetings with contractors to monitor performance and ensure compliance.
• W3.2 - How do residents get action?: Residents expressed frustration at the difficulty of getting things done, feeling demoralised and unsupported. They asked why action was so problematic and what needed to change for the council to act more quickly and effectively. The response in the report pack referred to the council's Better Homes approach and the Creating Great Homes Together survey.
• E3.1 - Anti-social behaviour: Residents reported suffering from the impacts of long-term and ongoing anti-social behaviour, including drug dealing. They requested that an appropriate officer attend the next Area Panel meeting to address these issues directly. The response in the report pack included data on Community Protection Warnings[^2] and Notices[^3], and explained the council's approach to dealing with suspected drug dealing and breaches of tenancy. [^2]: A Community Protection Warning (CPW) is a written warning issued by a police officer or local authority officer to someone aged 16 or over who is engaging in anti-social behaviour. [^3]: A Community Protection Notice (CPN) can be issued by a local authority or the police to deal with unreasonable behaviour that is having a negative impact on the community.
• E3.2 - Estate Development Budget task & finish group: Residents requested more information about the Estate Development Budget[^4] (EDB) task and finish group, including a timeline of activities. The response in the report pack detailed the work completed by the group, the recommendations made, and the current status of EDB improvements. [^4]: Estate Development Budget (EDB) is funding that is devolved to a local level, so that tenants and leaseholders can make decisions about how money is spent in their area.
• C3.1 - Protection of vulnerable residents: It was reported that vulnerable residents were not being protected by the council, with a convicted drug dealer housed in the same block as vulnerable people at Ardingly Court. Residents asked what action the council would take to ensure their safety and security. The response in the report pack stated that the case was being managed by the Complex Case Team, working closely with the police and other professionals.
• C3.2 - Firmer action on who gets a secure tenancy: Concerns were raised that secure tenancies were being given to people who should not be, such as known drug dealers or those who break the terms of their introductory tenancy. Residents asked why this was happening and requested firmer action. The response in the report pack outlined the council's Housing Allocations Policy and the safeguards in place to prevent tenancies being granted to individuals with a known risk of anti-social behaviour or criminal activity.
• C3.3 - Restructuring of resident engagement: Central residents expressed concern that a restructuring of resident engagement was taking place without proper discussion and involvement. They asked for the Home Group and Involvement and Empowerment Group to be reinstated and for any changes to resident engagement to start with discussions with residents. The response in the report pack acknowledged that the council should have done better in communicating about the engagement review and proposed a discussion session specifically for Central area residents.
• C3.4 - Lack of council action to prevent violent attack: It was reported that a resident of Hampshire Court was hospitalised after an attack in the car park, and that residents had previously reported concerns about the perpetrators, a group of people who were sleeping rough. Residents asked why action was not taken sooner and why the perpetrators were not moved on after the attack. The response in the report pack stated that the council was not aware of rough sleepers gathering specifically in the car park, but that after the incident, the police were contacted, patrols were increased, and the street outreach team was engaged.
• N3.1 - High-rise blocks being demolished: Residents expressed concern about how residents in high-rise blocks were going to be re-housed, following reports that some blocks were deemed unsafe. They asked why the council previously claimed the blocks were safe and how the re-housing process would work. The response in the report pack detailed the safety measures in place at the large panel system (LPS) high-rise blocks[^5], and outlined the plans to regenerate the sites and re-house residents, with consultation on the plans to begin in the autumn. [^5]: The 8 LPS blocks are Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court in Hollingdean, Falcon Court, Heron Court, Kestrel Court, Kingfisher Court and Swallow Court in north Whitehawk, and St James's House in Kemptown.
• N3.2 - Allocations policy: Residents raised concerns about the way in which people are being allocated tenancies, particularly those with a history of anti-social or criminal behaviour, drug/alcohol issues, and/or serious mental health issues. They asked for the allocations process to be reviewed, with resident involvement. The response in the report pack outlined the council's Housing Allocations Policy and the checks in place to prevent the allocation of housing to individuals with a known history of anti-social behaviour.

Housing Performance Report

The panel was scheduled to discuss the Housing Performance Report for Quarter 1 2025/26. The report provided updates on performance indicators covering a range of housing services.

Key points from the report included:

• Rent collection rate was 92.4%.
• 89% of customer services calls were answered.
• 70% of complaint responses were within 10 working days.
• 90% of repairs helpdesk calls were answered.
• Empty homes were re-let in an average of 36 days.
• 98% of emergency repairs were completed within 24 hours.
• The average time to complete routine repairs was 50 days.

The report also included data on compliments and complaints, private sector housing, homelessness, social housing waiting lists, temporary accommodation, rent collection, voids¹, housing supply, anti-social behaviour, repairs, and energy efficiency.

Estate Development Budget Report

The panel was scheduled to discuss the Estate Development Budget (EDB) report. The report provided a summary of bids and projects, including citywide projects and those specific to the central, east, north and west areas. It included quick bids and main bids, both completed and outstanding, as well as a budget summary by area for the new financial year 2025/26.

The report also included a summary of Environmental Improvement Proposals (EIPs)², with details of approved proposals carried forward, proposals awaiting consultation, and proposals rejected.

Other Business

The agenda included an item for any other business, and a short report and discussion following the Tenants Celebration Day & Week of Events. There was also an item to discuss health and safety compliance, and the Disrepairs Website & Awareness. Finally, the panel was scheduled to discuss how the Community Engagement Team supports informal groups.