JOIN OUR 'UK RAAC CAMPAIGN GROUP' FB PAGE (HERE)
Deputation Speech – Aberdeen City Council Full Council Committee
5th February 2025
Wilson Chowdhry, Chair, UK RAAC Campaign Group
Provost, Councillors, and Officers,
I sit before you today as Chair of the UK RAAC Campaign
Group, representing homeowners who have been living in uncertainty and distress
due to the RAAC crisis. They have been patient. They have engaged in good
faith. But their patience is wearing thin, and today I am here to make their
position absolutely clear.
On 4th February 2025, I met with Eleanor Sheppard, Executive
Director of Families and Communities, and Stephen Booth, Chief Officer of
Corporate-Landlord, via Teams to discuss the ongoing situation. It was both
revealing and vindicating to hear them acknowledge that I had been right all
along about the voluntary acquisition process, which is now stalling.
Many homeowners are refusing to engage, while the majority who initially
participated have since withdrawn after receiving insultingly low offers
for their properties. At present, only four homeowners remain in discussions to accept offers—a
clear indication of the scheme’s failure.
I warned this Council that the people of Torry would not
tolerate such blatant disregard for their rights, and that prediction has now
been realized. Even more telling was the officers’ confirmation of a point I
have raised repeatedly: a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) cannot proceed
without secured funding for a regeneration project, nor without clear evidence
of critical structural risk—which, as it stands, simply does not exist.
I am glad the Council has finally come to this realisation,
though it should never have taken this long.
This is a humiliating failure for Aberdeen’s council
officers and councillors who arrogantly believed they could steamroll local
residents without challenge.
It's ominous that the council, in Section 5 of their latest
report, states that their preferred strategy for addressing privately owned
RAAC-affected properties remains voluntary acquisition. They justify this by
claiming it aligns with their broader plan to demolish council-owned RAAC
properties, presenting it as the "optimum option" for streamlining
housing delivery and addressing safety concerns. While they insist compensation
packages comply with the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, this approach seems
more like an attempt to pressure homeowners into selling at undervalued rates.
However, I remain hopeful that the council will eventually recognize the severe
difficulties, high costs, and reputational damage associated with pursuing a
Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), forcing them to abandon their stubborn attempt
to rinse local homeowners.
To date, not a single property has been acquired, and only
four homeowners have even expressed a willingness to accept an offer. This is a
clear sign that the voluntary acquisition scheme is failing. Homeowners are not
rejecting assistance; they are rejecting unfair and inadequate
offers that do not reflect the true value of their homes before RAAC was
declared a risk.
One resident (who chooses not to be named at this stage) has
challenged the district valuer after receiving an initial offer of £30,000 for
his flat. Coincidentally, he submitted his appeal to the Valuation Office
Agency on Monday 2nd February. He highlighted that the most recent
comparable sales in his postcode were two one-bedroom flats, both selling for
£65,000. The estimated cost of replacing the roof is around £9,000, with an
additional maximum of £2,000 for internal repairs—likely less—bringing the
total cost to approximately £15,000, split between two flats at £7,500 each.
While he acknowledges that an offer of £57,500 is unlikely due to ACC’s
aggressive stance, he has argued that the initial £30,000 offer was far too
low. He now awaits a response.
Meanwhile, alternative proposals—such as a roof
replacement scheme and a house swap initiative—have been put forward
by homeowners, yet they nor so many other options have ever received the
serious consideration they deserve. Why is the Council so intent on acquiring
properties rather than exploring solutions that could allow residents to remain
in their homes? Any refusal to properly assess these alternatives would suggest
a predetermined agenda rather than a genuine commitment to fair and
viable outcomes.
During my meeting with Mr. Booth, I raised concerns that
these two proposals might fail to meet equitable standards, and he acknowledged
that there would be challenges. Council red tape does not usually allow for
innovative schemes like these, and we did not even discuss the additional
environmental retrofit concerns that would arise under a review. However, this
critical information has not been shared with the group that originally
developed these proposals. This omission appears to be a disingenuous attempt
to placate homeowners rather than a genuine effort to engage in meaningful
solutions—especially given that the voluntary acquisition process is clearly
faltering.
I understand that a decision on funding research into these
proposals is being made today. Instead, I propose an amendment: a direct grant
system that would allow homeowners to fund their own roof replacements, rather
than relying on the Council’s more expensive contractors under the proposed
scheme for around 50 homes. This would provide a more cost-effective and
homeowner-driven solution, empowering residents to take charge of any exchange
properties rather than being forced into a process they do not trust. If grants
were valued at what it would have cost the Council to carry out these repairs,
they might even cover retrofit requirements.
An even better approach would be a grant programme available
to all homeowners, without requiring them to move from their current homes. A
grant system would in my opinion pass through all Council checks and balances,
except financial viability. To make this possible, I urge the Council to
redouble its efforts to secure financial support from the Scottish Government. Either
this or a fair pre-RAAC valuation voluntary agreement would be the most
equitable solution—and, in my view, the only fair outcome for affected
homeowners, especially considering that this RAAC crisis has arisen due to
earlier council cost-saving measures.
Concerns have been raised about the condition of vacated
council properties, with images circulating on Facebook showing rubbish and
building materials piling up in front gardens, creating a sorry state for the
area. This neglect not only impacts the community but also raises doubts about
the council’s willingness to adopt the community proposed solution. If they
were genuinely committed to addressing the issue efficiently, one would expect
better upkeep of these properties, rather than allowing them to fall into
disrepair.
Let me acknowledge the Council’s ongoing dialogue with the
Scottish Government regarding financial implications and potential
flexibilities. However, let me also be clear: this cannot be a backdoor attempt
to enable a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) without the necessary
funding in place. Homeowners will vigorously challenge any attempt to
force them out of properties they believe are safe enough to remain standing. A
CPO without secured financial backing is not only premature—it is unjustifiable.
This Council has a duty to restore trust. Trust that
decisions will be fair. Trust that homeowners will not be left in financial
ruin. And trust that “financial flexibility” is not a coded phrase for
advancing a CPO through indirect means. I have raised this issue with Stephen
Booth on multiple occasions, and he is well aware of our concerns. I ask this
Council today for absolute clarity: will you guarantee that these financial
discussions are not being used to bypass proper procedures in order to push
forward a CPO?
Finally, with a budget decision due on March 5, 2025,
homeowners cannot afford more delays, uncertainty, or shifting goalposts. They
need transparency, they need fairness, and they need answers—not after
funding is secured, not after CPO proceedings are initiated, but today.
The UK RAAC Campaign Group stands ready to work with you to
find genuine, fair, and viable solutions. But if the Council chooses a
path that disregards the rights and interests of homeowners, we will not
hesitate to challenge it at every level.
Thank you.
