The Cabinet Member for Housing & Regeneration will attend to respond to questions from the panel.
Minutes:
7.1 The Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration attended and outlined key developments within this portfolio.
7.2 In respect of regeneration the Cabinet member noted that:
· The next regeneration ambition after Tottenham is the Wood Green area and its surrounds. This programme would be led by the AD for Regeneration and would entail:
o 1,000 new homes would be delivered at Haringey Heartlands;
o The local High Street Offer would be assessed;
o Buildings around Station Road had been acquired to centralise the Council estate.
· In respect of the Tottenham Regeneration it was noted that:
o The final master-plan had been assessed;
o A people programme was now in operation to support physical development and The Grange was the focus for some of these activities. A bid had been lodged with central government for £1m to support the community engagement approach to support the Tottenham redevelopment;
o In respect of the Spurs Stadium, a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) challenge had been lodged in the court though was due to be considered in January 2015;
o A community engagement exercise had commenced in the Northumberland Park Area to obtain key community principles to guide and inform development in the area.
· For Tottenham Hale regeneration plans it was noted that:
o The Housing Zone bid had been lodged with the Greater London Assembly;
o A public consultation is being undertaken in the area which would contribute to the development of the local area plan;
o The new bus station would be complete on the 9th November;
o Cabinet agreed to dispose of APEX house and redevelopment would commence in 2015/16.
7.3 The Cabinet member also highlighted recent key housing developments for the borough:
· Principles for a new Housing Strategy had been agreed by Cabinet and were not being put out for public consultation;
· The Council was changing the way that it engages with local Registered Housing Providers, in that 6 local providers would acquire a preferred ‘partner status’
· The Council had commenced a new house building programme with the first plans agreed by Planning Committee in October;
· The unification of the Community Housing Service with Homes for Haringey had commenced and most staff and functions had transferred successfully at the end of September 2014
· It is expected that unification will help to remove service duplication and deliver tangible savings for the housing service;
· A cross-party panel was being set up to consider the future management of the council housing stock post 2016 when the current management agreement with Homes for Haringey would expire – this would consist of 5 members (4 Lab, 1 Lib Dem) and would be chaired by an independent expert.
7.4 The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded to questions from the panel on this portfolio. The following highlights the key areas of discussion.
7.5 Further to housing unification, the panel noted that Tracie Evans (Chief Operating Officer) is the strategic lead for all housing issues whilst Dan Hawthorn (AD Regeneration) leads on Housing Strategy and Andrew Billany (Managing Director, HfH) oversees housing operations and delivery.
Agreed: That an up to date chart of the new structure of housing services in Haringey is circulated to the panel.
7.6 The panel noted that in the plans to decamp staff from APEX House, there were no plans for the use of porta-cabins to house staff or conduct council business. Plans are under way to move staff from APEX House to four likely locations: Marcus Garvey Library in Tottenham, Broadwater Farm (where there is already a housing management service), 48 Station Road in Wood Green and Alexandra House in Wood Green. The panel noted that other libraries in the borough have similar multi-purpose uses and that the accommodation of housing staff would not diminish the library offer on this site.
7.7 The panel noted that the Customer Service Transformation Programme would assess and remodel the way that the council engages with local service users and residents. Although plans are in a very stage of development, it is likely that this will impact on the provision of customer services for housing and that these arrangements likely to be interim in short to medium term.
7.8 The panel noted that the Council new house building programme would comprise of approximately 96 units which would be offered for mixed tenure. Of these 96 units, 59 would be for social rent, 36 for shared ownership and one for private sale (the latter to help fund development for the site). Further planning applications would be submitted in the New Year for additional council build.
Agreed: The tenure breakdown (social rent, shared ownership, private sale) of the Council new build programme for 2014/15 to be distributed to the panel.
7.9 The panel noted that Right to Buy (RTB) receipts could be used to fund housing developments in a number of ways including the Council building houses directly itself or given to a third party such as a Registered Housing Provider (RHP) to build homes. The panel noted that a priority for the Council was to build new homes for its residents and that it had explicit yearly targets for this, therefore in some circumstances it may be appropriate to use RTB receipts to support RHP new build to contribute to this aim.
7.10 The panel noted that there were restrictions however on the use of receipts from properties sold through the RTB programme. Firstly, there were time limits in which the funds could be used which meant that these had to be used for committed projects (and not held on account). Secondly, RTB receipts could only be used to fund 1/3 of the cost of each housing unit, thus to fund the £150k unit cost of each new home, the Council would be required to provide an additional £100k from other sources for each unit with £50k of RTB receipts.
Agreed: The panel requested further information on the total capital receipts from Right to Buy for the past 5 years and how this has been used, with particular reference to receipts from the sale of the Waltham Cross housing estate.
7.11 The panel noted that the decision to follow the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) route to bring empty properties back in to use was costly and only used as a last resort once negotiations with property owners had failed. In total, the panel noted that 59 empty houses were brought back in to use during 2013/14.
7.12 In respect of empty Council properties being brought back in to use, the panel noted that there was no set financial cut-off (i.e. the level of investment needed to bring it back in to use). However, each property would undergo an individual economic assessment to assess the costs to bring it back into use against the opportunities that sale of the property on the open market might offer. The panel noted that in some circumstances, the sale of a property may yield sufficient capital to provide for two new councils homes.
7.13 The panel highlighted that other neighbouring London boroughs had reviewed the Council Tax liabilities of empty properties, to help provide further incentives to bring these back in to use. The panel were keen to understand what the position was in Haringey.
Agreed: Further information on the Council Tax liabilities for empty properties in Haringey would be provided to the panel.
7.14 The panel noted that Haringey, along with other London boroughs, was under extreme pressure in trying to meet the totality of local housing needs. The introduction of a welfare reform programme and the lack of affordability of the private rented and home ownership sectors had heightened demand for housing in the social rented housing. This was exemplified by the number of people on the local Housing Register (approximately 15,000).
7.15 Whilst such demand highlighted the need to prioritise the building of new homes for local people, it also necessitated that a more realistic and open conversation take place with local residents as to the ability of the Council in meeting local housing needs. In this context, the panel noted that plans had been put forward to amend the Allocations Policy to effectively remove those in bands D and E on the Housing Register, who in reality have little prospect of being housed given the comparative needs and numbers of those in higher priority bands ( A, B and C).
7.16 The Panel was keen to understand, in the context of such extreme housing demand, what action the council was taking in relation to council home building and ensure that it was utilising any opportunities to do this. It was noted that as the Council now manages rental income through the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and can use this to plan and build new homes. There were however borrowing limits (Borrowing Cap) set by Department of Communities and Local Government to allow councils to build new homes. In Haringey, the Borrowing Cap was £44-45million over the 30 year HRA plan. This limited the Councils ability to directly fund house building from this particular reserve.
7.17 The panel also noted that the Council was looking at establishing other Special Purpose Vehicles to improve opportunities for lending and to increase house building. Such SPVs may also limit eligibility to Right to Buy and the future loss of local housing stock. The panel would look at this further within its agreed project.
7.18 The panel noted that to date, much of the improvement and maintenance of local council housing stock has been provided through dedicated grants, most notably the Decent Homes Programme. It was noted that whilst this funding stream would cease in 2016, improvements would still be funded through the Housing Revenue Account. Although the loss of funding through the DHP would be challenging, it would also provide more local freedom to set and prioritise local maintenance works (and help remove local anomalies).
7.19 The Chair thanked the Cabinet member and officers for attending to discuss housing and regeneration issues.