Agenda item

To review both savings proposals and investments for Priority 4 and Priority 5 as set out in the MTFS and make any recommendations for Cabinet.

7.1    The Cabinet member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning presented the MTFS in relation to corporate priorities 4 and 5. There were three proposed reductions and investments for corporate priority 4:

·                A £213k reduction in the Tottenham Regeneration Programme which relates to a number of projects;

·                An increase in planning fees to yield £40k in 2017/18;

·                A reduction of £250k in corporate projects were accrued from a saving of transfer of service to the HDV.

7.2    There were no savings proposals for corporate priority 5 which related to local housing issues. This was a reflection of the need to extend and improve provision in all housing areas locally including temporary accommodation, new affordable homes and supported housing for vulnerable people.

7.3    Details of the Housing Revenue Account spend for 2017/18 was detailed within the MTFS, and the managing Director was working to identify areas for possible savings proposals. The HRA was under pressure however, given the requirement to reduce rents by 1% per annum for the next 3 years. The HRA Business Plan would be coming forward in February.

7.4    In respect of corporate projects for the transfer of functions to HDV, the panel sought to further clarification on the contingencies in place if these are not achieved. The panel noted that many corporate property staff are currently employed on an interim basis to facilitate transfer of this function to the HDV once operational. A small number of staffing issues remained ahead of transfer. It was noted that this proposal was red RAG rated.

7.5    The Tottenham Team spend reduction related to reduced use of consultancy staff, particularly in relation to surveyors and architects and specialist legal advice. This would now be delivered within a reduced budget.

7.6    The panel noted that Capital Spend on Alexandra Palace was significantly higher this year than last, and requested further information. It was noted that this was not within the remit of the panel but would be passed on to the main Overview & Scrutiny Committee. (Action: MB)

7.7    The panel sought clarification on the impact of the proposed Haringey Development Vehicle on the HRA. The HDV would have an impact on the HRA, but it was difficult to set out what this would be until there was greater clarity as to which sites move in to the HDV and when. It was noted that when sites do move into the HDV the income for the HRA would be reduced, but it would also reduce the liabilities for the HRA in respect of funds required to invest in the housing stock (e.g. maintenance, improvements and modernisation). While rental income that came through the vehicle would be split 50/50 with the partner in the HDV, it was noted that as development of land would generally involve some intensification of land use which would most likely increase the number of units for which rental income would be available.

7.8    Borrowing capacity through the HRA was tightly proscribed by central government, and potential for borrowing had been further reduced by required rent decreases. One of the key reasons for using the HDV for estate regeneration would be that in most cases this would not be possible within the HRA because of the level of borrowing required.

7.9    The panel noted that the site acquisitions fund had been used to acquire properties for rental and enquired why this approach was not being used instead of the HDV. It was noted that many options had been considered by the Future of Housing Review and where it was agreed that the Development Vehicle approach would represent the best way to acquire the necessary capital to support an estate renewal programme.

7.10 The panel enquired how much the HDV had cost so far. The panel noted the total budget for the HDV to the point of authorisation was £1.6 million to cover procurement, staffing and other associated costs.

7.11 The panel also enquired about the future of 51 Degrees North, the council owned letting agency. It was noted that the functions of the agency had been reduced to acquiring properties for Assured Shorthold Tenancies to assist with work to prevent homelessness. Most staff previously supported this project though most have been absorbed back in to HfH.

7.12  The panel noted the savings and investment proposals detailed within P4 and P5 of the MTFS.