Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an overview of the Council’s progress towards delivering 3000 Council homes for Council rent by 2031. Work had begun on 2027 homes as of August 2023, of these 199 homes had been finished and new tenants had moved in. The report was introduced by Cllr Ruth Gordon, Cabinet Member for  Council House Building, Placemaking and Local Economy, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 89-114. The Director of Placemaking & Housing, the Assistant Director of Housing and the Head of Housing Development were also present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion of the report:

a.    The Panel raised concerns about how the first new properties were let and sought assurances about what lessons had been learned. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the first batch of flats were let at the same time and that lessons had been learned so that in future this would be staggered and would not happen over the Christmas period. Housing officers would also be onsite for the period when people moved in.

b.    The Panel sought assurances about stoppages being caused by contractors going bust. In response, officers advised that this was a national issue and was being discussed with colleagues on a regional level. Officers from Placemaking and Housing were working with procurement colleagues to assess the financial health of contractors before entering into any contracts as well as expanding the assessment of contractual risks.

c.    The Panel commented that they were impressed by the design of the new housing blocks and questioned how the additional up-keep of green spaces would be managed by Parks. The Cabinet Member welcomed these comments and commented that she was very positive about the design of the blocks on Ashley Road. Officers set out that they were working closely with Parks to ensure that there was a common approach to maintaining these spaces and that the seasonal variation in parks staffing was considered. Similarly, wider considerations about the design of open spaces and whether this contributed to ASB was also being considered for each scheme. 

d.    The Panel questioned how the cost of building new homes stacked up against buying existing properties. In response, officers advised that this was done through the Haringey Community Benefit Society and that there they currently let around 300 properties. In general, the Panel was advised that, new builds tended to be cheaper to build due to grants from the GLA for new housing schemes. The purpose of the scheme was to build homes on council land. Where it was more cost effective to purchase existing properties this would be done but it tended to be leaseholder properties on a limited number of estates. The Cabinet Member clarified that within the commitment for 3000 new homes, some of these would be acquisitions as well as new build properties. On the Hale Wharf development, 77 properties had been acquired by the Council.

e.    The Panel sought assurances around financial viability and whether it was anticipated that Council rents would increase to help with the viability of schemes. In response, officers set out that it was quite complicated, but  in general the type of rent charged was determined by the type of grant used to build that scheme. Some GLA grants were based on London Affordable Rent and some used council rents. The AD for Housing assured Members that every year they went through the HRA Business Plan to make sure that the underlying assumptions were robust. It was acknowledged that the economic circumstances were difficult, but that the Housing Delivery Programme was still considered achievable. Officers provided assurances that there were no plans to mothball any of the schemes. Officers suggested that they were beginning to see some positive movement on construction costs and that they were looking at seeing if they could get more grant funding for some smaller schemes.

f.     The Panel sought assurances about the fact that there were varying definitions of what constituted a start on site and whether this was only a start on paper. In response, officers provided assurances that works were not undertaken just to trigger a start on site and that for some of the larger sites this could be a process that took a couple of years. A start on site reflected that work was genuinely being undertaken on site, none of the starts were tokenistic. There were occasions where a scheme had to start by a certain date to receive grant funding.

g.    In response to a question, the Cabinet Member set out that there were occasions where utility supplies had to be re-routed due to the design of a particular scheme and that discussions would be undertaken with contractors to determine who would pay for the additional cost.

h.    In terms of defects, the Cabinet Member suggested that there had been a limited number of snagging issues with entry monitoring systems and air source heat pumps, for example but that it was sometimes difficult to determine whether problems were defects or caused by inappropriate use. The setting up of an after care team had made a big difference in terms of addressing snagging issues.

RESOLVED

That the update was noted.