The Cabinet Member for Housing & Regeneration to attend to respond to panel questions within this portfolio.
Minutes:
6.1 The Cabinet member for Housing & Regeneration attended to respond to panel questions within this portfolio. A summary of the main issues covered in this discussion are presented below.
6.2 The Cabinet member reported that there continues to be good progress on housing and regeneration projects with a number of new recent achievements:
Regeneration
i) Cabinet has given approval to proceed with High Road West development scheme and decanting has already started. Existing tenants have visited Brook House (a Newlon Development) and were enthusiastic.
iii) Archway Metals have dropped the planning appeal against the Stadium development, which means Tottenham Hotspur can proceed with CPS’s to progress development;
iv) A bid for £1.3m from the Heritage Lottery Fund has been successful which will support the development of shop fronts in Tottenham;
v) The area in front of Bruce Grove Station has received funding for improvement;
vii) The Housing Zone bid for Tottenham Hale has been successful, with Haringey receiving the largest allocation of any London authority. This will enable the creation of an addition 1,500 planned for the site.
Housing
i) Phase 1 of the Council new build have progress through planning. The majority of these are social rented properties, with 1 property being set aside for private sale to support development costs.
ii) The panel considering future options for Homes for Haringey is continuing to meet and gather evidence. It has also undertaken a benchmarking exercise to assess performance against other social housing providers. A written briefing will go out to members ahead of Purdah with an in-person briefing planned for after the election.
iii) New Haringey Housing Strategy will be published and consulted upon for a 6 week period after Christmas.
6.3 In discussions about the Future of Housing Review (future options for Homes for Haringey) it was noted that all data collected from this work (including benchmarking data) would be published on the council intranet. The final review report would also be published, which will set out the options for Homes for Haringey to members.
6.4 The panel discussed the level of affordable housing within planned developments and the problem in reaching the new target of 40%. It was noted that viability discussions with developers presented a number of problems, particularly as there was no national planning guidance for to support these. It was suggested that developers had in some instances, paid too much for the land which meant that this needed to be recouped through private sales. Whilst some sites fell below the 40% threshold, others attained higher levels (e.g. Brook House was 100% affordable).
6.5 The panel noted that the planned development at APEX house would proceed with 40% of units being made available being affordable, though these would be at various discounted levels of market rent (e.g. 50%, 60% and 80% of market rent). The panel noted that with current level of subsidy there it is difficult to build at 30% of the market rent.
6.6 In relation to the planned development at Wards Corner, the panel noted that residents adjacent to the site had received notification of planned Compulsory Purchase Orders for their properties. The panel sought further clarification of what had been sent by whom, and what support would be available to those who may lose their homes.
Agreed: AD for Tottenham Regeneration to provide a brief note to the panel regarding the CPO of adjacent properties to the APEX House site.
6.7 The Cabinet member, Director of Regeneration and Planning and AD for Regeneration all visited MIPIM (international real estate event in Cannes) to promote the borough to future developers. The purpose of this visit was to generate interest in development opportunities in Haringey. It was noted that whilst there may not be any concrete results from this visit in the short term, greater interest among developers in the long run can help to drive up quality and bring down costs within prospective development bids.
6.8 The panel discussed the Well London project to support development programme in North Tottenham. Panel members reported that front line shop to provide services was in a poor state of repair and did not project a good image for the planned development work or the image of the council generally. It was also suggested that better use could be made of resources as a) there were alternative sites owned by the council nearby b) some services offered here were duplicated by other established local providers (e.g. smoking cessation services by Tottenham Hotspur Foundation).
6.9 It was reported that the Well London project was recently established and would be making links with established projects to make sure there was little duplication of services. A shop front was also chosen over more traditional sites as this presented a more accessible route to health and well being services.
Agreed: That Assistant Director for Economic and Social Regeneration would attend the next meeting of the panel with the Cabinet member to discuss social regeneration plans for Tottenham.
6.10 The panel noted that plans were also being finalised for the regeneration of Wood Green and would be happy to share these plans with the panel at a future date.
Agreed: That Assistant Director for Regeneration would attend the next meeting of the panel with the Cabinet member to discuss regeneration plans for Wood Green.
6.11 The Panel raised a number of issues concerning local Registered Housing Providers including problems with joint-estate management, failure to provide Councillor estate walkabouts and installation of unsightly security grills on properties. It was noted that there was a future meeting of the Housing Association Forum and these issues will be raised there with relevant RHPs.
Agreed: Managing Director for Homes for Haringey to raise RHP issues at next Housing Association Forum.
6.12 The panel noted that there were problems with the full completion of Decent Homes work where access could not be obtained to specific properties. A number of examples were discussed including those in Lordship Lane. The panel noted that those properties which fail to be updated within DH work are passed to Tenancy Management Officers, who already have heavy workloads. It was suggested therefore that alternative process should be adopted to ensure that access is obtained and properties updated.
6.13 The panel discussed the current problems with temporary accommodation, in particular, the increased costs associated with the nightly accommodation. It was noted that Haringey had breached the London Councils agreement not to exceed agreed bid levels, but this happened infrequently and in exceptional circumstances (particularly when homeless families present late on a Friday afternoon where there may be few options and urgent action is required). To ensure transparency, the Council reports such breaches to London Councils when these occur.
6.14 The panel noted that there was a contraction in the volume of properties available to local authorities as landlords were increasing letting properties on the open market where higher rental levels can be obtained. Consequently, this had given rise to increased nightly accommodation prices and increased local demand for services. The panel noted that on one day this week (w/b March 16th), the housing service had dealt with 16 homeless families.
6.15 The panel noted that the Corporate Development Unit were investigating how temporary accommodation costs could be reduced, and that there were plans set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan to assist (including the quicker processing of homelessness applications). The panel noted that in any reconfiguration of services, there was a desire to move to open plan offices, and this was being negotiated with staff and Unions. The panel noted that they wanted to visit APEX House to assess demand for housing services and the pressures that this was placing on customer services.
Agreed: HRSP to visit APEX House.
6.16 The panel noted that the Council had very little scope to support temporary accommodation needs through homes under its management, as fewer than 700 homes become available each year (from an estate of 17,000), of which almost half are 1 bedroom properties. In this context, the Council would seek to use those properties which were becoming vacant within estate regeneration programmes (such as Love Lane), as there would be a time-gap between decanting of existing residents to final demolition.
6.17 The Chair thanked the Cabinet member and officers for attending for this item.