The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal
introduced the report which sought approval
to include nine Council-owned sites in the Council housing delivery
programme in order that their feasibility and capacity for the
delivery of new Council homes can be determined.
The Cabinet Member referred to the relatively
restricted levels of Government grant for building Council homes,
and the need for the Council to make the best use of land owned by
the Council to support this programme. The identified sites would
support the Council’s initial programme to deliver a thousand
new homes by 2022 and would also enable putting in place a pipeline
of sites to support a long-term sustainable programme of Council
house building. The Cabinet Member advised that this type of action
would become a core part of what the Council did to support the
required increases in housing needed to further help the 10,000
households on the Council’s waiting list for a decent
affordable home.
In response to questions from
Councillors: Chandwani, Palmer, das Neves, Gordon and Cllr Rice the
following information was provided by the Cabinet Member for
Housing and Estate Renewal:
- In relation to the
sites used by community organisations, set out at paragraph 6.10,
there was previous awareness of their potential addition to the
Council’s housing development programme. There had been
ongoing conversations, over a number of years, before this
programme had been initiated and an understanding of their
potential for housing site development. The Cabinet Member could
not comment on the enthusiasm of the community organisation related
site holders for these potential decisions but had no reason to
believe that they were not aware and informed of the potential
progress with these sites.
- In relation to
consultation, it was important to note that this report initiated
the start of the engagement and consultation process with
stakeholders and the community. The Cabinet Member gave assurance
that this was being undertaken in an open and transparent manner to
avoid misunderstandings and ensure residents and community
stakeholders were continually aware and involved in plans. This
report initiated the conversation with stakeholders and councillors
and set out to the public that the Council would be starting
consultations.
- The Cabinet Member
explained that, where sites already contained housing, this factor
would be included in the feasibility work completed. If it was
found that the site was suitable for housing development, there
would then still be further consultation with residents and
stakeholders. Overall, any decisions relating to demolition would
require a section 105 consultation and if it involved building a
large number of new homes, then there would need to be an estate
ballot.
- The Cabinet Member
was aware that that some ward councillors had not received an email
about a meeting on the sites contained in the report but this had
been rectified and invites had been sent to councillors in all
wards affected since publication of the report. The Cabinet Member
was keen to enable councillors and residents to receive information
at the same time and was making this available at an early
stage.
- The Cabinet Member
highlighted that one of the sites listed at section 6.10 of the
report, Reynardson Court, was subject to a previous consultation in
2014 and would need to have renewed consultation. It was not felt
prudent to base a future feasibility study on consultation
information obtained 6 years ago.
- The Cabinet Member
appreciated the comments on Reyanardson Court and the issue that
this block had not received decent homes works in the past. She
reiterated that it was important to restart the conversation about
the site and had asked to be sent a briefing on this particular
block. Correspondence should now have been received by ward
councillors about meeting with the Cabinet Member in relation to
this site.
- In response to
concerns about the lack of trust that residents in this court had
about plans for their homes, the Cabinet Member assured councillors
that she was genuine about the use of the word
‘potential’ and any housing development had to be with
the agreement of residents. The consultation process which had been
followed in the 2014 consultation had indicated overwhelming
support for additional homes but there was a need to consider the
questions asked at the time of the consultation to help ensure the
information was current and reflected the current resident’s
views and opinions.
- In relation to Decent
Homes works, although 85% of the Council housing stock met Decent
Homes standards, Reynardson Court was in the group of sites which
had yet to receive these works.
- It was clarified that
appendix 1, which contained the plans of additional sites, included
existing properties within the red line. This was to convey the
area on which the developments could take place but did not mean
any of the sites in the red line area would necessarily be
demolished.
- In response to the
concerns of residents at Reynardson Court about the plans for their
homes, the report was clear that the decision being taken, at this
meeting, was to consult on the potential sites for addition to the
housing delivery programme. In response to the question on
demolition of this block, there was no decision in the report on
this issue. The Cabinet Member apologised to residents if the
report had been misinterpreted. However, she did not believe there
to be anything in the report to suggest that the current housing in
this site was indicated for demolishment. The report was clear that
this is just the first of 3 decision making stages and was just
agreeing to go ahead with initial engagement, feasibility study and
further consultation. Therefore, residents and councillors would be
involved in two of the three stages. The Cabinet Member reiterated
that the Cabinet could not legally take a decision, at this
meeting, to demolish the court in the absence of a s105
consultation.
- With regards to the
financing of the additional sites for the Council’s Housing
Delivery Programme, the February 2019/20 budget report included an
expansive Housing Revenue Account business plan which responded to
the housing aspirations of the administration. This Business Plan
had been further revised and included in the draft budget report
considered by Cabinet in December and included resourcing for these
additional sites. The final budget report in February would further
contain this information.
RESOLVED
-
To agree to add the nine Council-owned sites listed
in paragraph 6.9 and shown in Appendix 1 to the Council’s
housing development programme in order that their feasibility and
capacity for the delivery of new Council homes can be
determined.
-
To note that the potential costs of carrying out the
preparatory work up to a Planning Application for each individual
site are expected to be within the delegated authority of the
Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning, although the
cumulative costs of all these sites would be in excess of
this.
-
To agree to delegate authority to the Director of
Housing, Regeneration and Planning, in consultation with Director
of Finance, to approve the costs of progressing these nine sites to
Planning Application, except where the costs on any individual site
exceed the existing delegated authority of the
Director.
-
To note that this is the first of three stages at
which Members can take formal decisions in relation to each site in
the programme. If any one of these sites is determined to be
suitable for housing development, the next stage of formal Member
oversight would be at the Planning Sub Committee. Finally, if
planning is consented, a detailed report would be brought back to
Cabinet for a decision on whether to commit finances to housing
development or acquisition on the site.
Reasons
for decisions
The
Council is committed to delivering a thousand new Council homes at
Council rents by May 2022 and this decision is an essential next
step in achieving this aim.
The
sites listed in paragraph 6.9 have been identified as potentially
suitable sites on which to build new Council homes. It is
provisionally estimated that these sites may have the potential to
deliver up to 380 homes. Each site listed has undergone initial
assessment of its potential suitability and capacity for housing
development. In order to assess that suitability and capacity
further, a range of work now needs to be undertaken in relation to
each site. In some cases, this will require the engagement of
external contractors.
Alternative options considered
Not
to assess these sites for their development potential
The
Council has no statutory duty to develop these sites. However, the
Council’s has set as its top priority the aim to deliver
1,000 new Council homes by May 2022, and to develop a pipeline of
schemes beyond that. It is provisionally estimated that these sites
may have potential to deliver up to 380 homes. To exclude them from
the development programme would therefore significantly undermine
this core ambition, so this option was rejected.
To
rely solely on purchasing affordable homes available under s106
agreements, rather than the Council building out its own sites, or
to postpone identifying new sites until new funding is
announced
The
former option would not be acceptable, as purchasing homes from
developers, rather than the Council building them itself, means
that controls over quality, cost and certainty of delivery are
weakened and the new homes would not always be additional
affordable homes for the borough. The second option was not pursued
because waiting to identify further sites until there is more
funding announced could result in the Council not being in a
position to put forward a credible bid, which may result in a
significantly smaller share of the available funding than it was
awarded in the current GLA funding round.