39 residents being temporarily housed by Bridgend Council at two Porthcawl hotels have successfully been found alternative accommodation after last-minute talks over a one-month extension to their stay fell through.
Residents at the Atlantic Hotel and Fairways Hotel were told on Tuesday (27th September) by Bridgend Council that they should start making their own arrangements to find alternative housing – even private rentals – with BCBC prioritising the most vulnerable.
One of the affected residents is Coity Higher community councillor, Cllr. Luke Richards.
“This is scary for us residents. Most of us have mental health problems and while we don’t know the exact reasoning for all this we feel we are being used as pawns.
“I’m a community councillor and while I know the people who can help, as one resident said to me we feel like the 3rd-class citizens on The Titanic; kept out the way and forgotten about.”
– Cllr. Luke Richards
All of the residents were told to leave the hotels tomorrow (30th September). However, I’ve been reliably informed that a provisional agreement for a one-month extension with the hotel owners had been secured overnight, only for it to be withdrawn early this afternoon.
Following what Bridgend Council describes as a “huge group effort” by councillors, officers and third sector partners, all 39 residents were found alternative temporary placements.
“I want to thank the residents themselves for their patience and co-operation during what must have been a very anxious and worrying time.
“A number of hotels and bed-and-breakfasts worked alongside us to provide accommodation for homeless people and key workers during the coronavirus outbreak, but this was only ever intended to be a temporary measure – one which had the additional benefit of providing owners with guaranteed income and helping prevent them from going under during the pandemic.”
-Cabinet Member for Wellbeing & Future Generations, Cllr. Rhys Goode (Lab, Nantymoel)
While the use of hotels and other tourist accommodation is considered to be a short-term measure by the council, demand for homelessness help has increased, putting more and more pressure on the council to meet its duties.
Update (01/10/22): I’ve been informed that some of the residents have been moved into alternative accommodation/placements that are deemed to be unsuitable to their specific needs. This includes floor space at homeless shelters – one quote being, “It’s worse here than in prison. At least in prison you had privacy” – or placements alongside people who’ve caused problems in the past.
While this is an emergency situation and the council and their partners did well to find enough spaces in such a short space of time, this is more a case of “kicking a can down the road” than providing a medium-to-long-term solution. Councillors need to step up and properly scrutinise why this was allowed to happen and prevent it from happening again.
6-month contract extension “agreed in principle” earlier this month
Bridgend Council’s Cabinet was due to discuss a temporary accommodation contract extension with “local hotels” – though no hotels were named – at their meeting on 13th September 2022.
This meeting was cancelled – along with all other council meetings for a fortnight – due to the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
Cheeky little scamp that I am, while BCBC pulled the original report from their website as soon as the meeting was cancelled, I saved it – pdf.
The report says, “We (BCBC) have made initial enquires with our current partners and all of them are willing to enter into a new arrangement for the next 6 months.”
The extension would begin on 30th September and the Cabinet was going to be asked to suspend their usual procurement rules to allow that extension to go ahead. I’ve been reliably informed this was later approved using delegated powers rather than at a Cabinet meeting.
So what on earth happened in the meantime?
While the efforts of all involved in finding alternative placements should rightly be applauded, there will nevertheless be questions as to how and why something that ought to have been straightforward ended in a dash to prevent a social welfare disaster? Why did the hotel owners get cold feet if there was an agreement-in-principle? Why was this dealt with behind closed doors instead of at a proper council meeting?
In a worst-case scenario, it could have resulted in 39 vulnerable people being kicked out onto the streets tomorrow. We avoided it. This time.
