Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the proposed development of the St Ann’s site, as requested previously by the panel. The report was introduced by Peter O’ Brien, AD for Regeneration as set out in the report pack at page 13.

The Panel noted that Catalyst had been selected as the Mayor of London's preferred development partner for a site adjacent to St Ann’s Hospital. This site was purchased by the Mayor in 2018 as part of the Mayor's Land Fund. The redevelopment would deliver around 930 new homes, 60% of which will be affordable. It will also provide a new and enlarged Peace Garden, improved streets as well as new retail and affordable workspaces. The Council was in negotiations to purchase 50% of the affordable rent homes. The proposals would equate to 147 Council homes, in addition to circa 34 homes being provided to Commissioning for Sheltered Housing.

The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The panel queried the sums behind the Council’s allocation of 147, suggesting that 50% should be 152. Officers agreed to come back on that point. (Action: Peter O’Brien).

b.    The Panel sought assurances that the Council was going to acquire the full 50% allocation of affordable homes. In response, officers advised that this was the intention and that part funding had been received from TfL for this purpose.

c.    The Panel raised concerns around potentially high levels of service charges and sought clarification as to what the cost of the service charge would be. In response, officers advised that discussions on the service charge were ongoing with TfL and that they were unable to comment further at this stage as it was an ongoing negotiation.

d.    The Panel commented that service charges should be the same across all Council properties and noted concerns with any arrangement that created variable service charges in council homes. Officers advised that the AD for Housing would respond to this point in writing. (Action: Robbie Erbmann).

e.    The Panel requested that the Cabinet Member make a firm commitment that all Council tenants should be treated the same in regards to service charges. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that this would be something that she would strongly encourage but cautioned that without knowing all of the facts she could not make a firm commitment at the meeting, there may for example be cost implications to the HRA.

f.     The Panel noted with concern that Paragraph 3.4 suggested that the service charges would be set by Catalyst and advocated that this  should be managed by HfH. The Scrutiny Panel asked for a written response about if/why Catalyst would be responsible for setting the estate/service charges rather than say HfH, in respect of the 50% affordable homes that the Council intended to acquire as part of the development. (Action: Robbie Erbmann).

g.    The Panel commented that although 60% of homes on the site were affordable, only 20% of homes would be at social rents. The Panel commented that they would be disappointed if only 20% of the homes were at social rents. The Panel sought clarification as to what the barriers were to increase this figure. In response the Cabinet Member advised that the affordability breakdown was agreed at the time the deal was negotiated with the GLA, which preceded Cllr Gordon’s tenure as Cabinet Member. Cllr Gordon advised that given that the deal had already been agreed, there were not many planning tools left in the toolbox to improve the affordability.

h.    The Cabinet Member acknowledged that some of the elements of the 60% figure were not genuinely affordable, however in planning terms they were designated as being so. Officers advised that the procurement process was undertaken by the GLA, as it was a GLA site, and as part of this they had undertaken a competitive process to appoint a third party. Catalyst had signed a development agreement and would be expected to meet the terms of that agreement, including the agreed level of affordable homes,  Officers commented that, notwithstanding the panel members comments, the affordability breakdown was quite good compared to other schemes across London.

i.      A member of the Panel commented that it was unlikely that the Council would be able to acquire any more homes on the site as the other 50% were owned by Catalyst who, as a housing association, would use those homes for their own housing stock. However, the other 50% of homes may also include homes at social rent, it’s just that they would be managed by a Housing Association, rather than the Council. The Council would not be the landlord for all of the homes on the site, as it had only agreed to acquire 50% of them.

j.      The Panel sought assurances as to whether the Council would have full nomination rights to the 50% of homes owned by catalyst, as it would for any other housing association homes in the borough. (Action: Robbie Erbmann).

k.    The Panel enquired why the Council could not go back to Catalyst and try to purchase some of the homes that had been allocated as London Living Rent homes and Shared Ownership homes in order to use those as homes at genuinely affordable social rents. In was suggested that the Council had, in other instances, gone back to a developer about a previously signed agreement and attempted to purchase a greater proportion of the homes being built. In response, the Cabinet Member suggested that Hale Wharf was a different proposition as they were receptive to the idea of the Council purchasing more homes. Officers advised that as a housing association, Catalyst would likely see themselves as being in the business of offering a wide spectrum of affordable housing and it was not thought very likely that they would want to sell any additional units to the Council. Officers also set out that homes purchased at London Living Rent were more cost effective than properties designated as Shared Ownership, so there would be a cost to the HRA in doing this. As a follow-up the panel suggested that the Council should at least be asking the question. 

l.      The Panel sought assurances around whether the Cabinet Member had looked at acquisition of the additional homes through a CBS model as this would have different cost implications. The Panel requested that the Cabinet Member make enquiries and come back to the panel with an update at a subsequent meeting.  (Action: Cllr Gordon ).

m.  The Panel referred to comments from Catalyst that it was looking to build a number of 3 to 4 bedroom town houses as part of the development, largely at the Council’s behest. The Panel raised concerns that 3 to 4 bedroom town houses did seem to be especially cost effective. The Panel sought clarification as to whether there had been any actual discussions on this between the Council and the developer. (Action: Robbie Erbmann).

n.    The Chair sought clarification around the stated aim to provide an appropriate level of parking provision on the site and how this fitted in with the wider goal to create a modal shift of 88% of all trips in the borough being undertaken by cycling, walking or public transport by 2041. The Chair also queried why demand was the determining factor, rather than the goal of reducing demand on cars, which is where the Council wanted to get to.

o.    A panel member commented that they would be unhappy with any provision that set a lower level of parking space allocation in council homes than was the case in the private sector.

p.    A panel member suggested that as a Ward Councillor, the residents of St Ann’s did not want to see an additional increase of 200 cars in the ward, when 70% of households in that ward did not own a car.

In response to the above points, Cllr Gordon advised that she was personally in favour of as many car-free developments as was possible, with the provision that disabled parking spaces were available. However, the Cabinet Member advised that she also recognised that there would be some issues with this and in particular there was potentially a need to have car parking available for family sized homes.  The Panel cautioned against having a hierarchy of who needed a car parking space as it was not as straight forward as family homes needing car parking spaces at the exclusion of other groups.

q.    Officers advised that planning standards were set out in the adopted Local Plan, as well as the London Plan and that there was no differentiation in those documents between public and private developments. The Panel was advised that planning policies would be used to determine any future planning application on this site. Officers set out that the public transport accessibility score for this site was between 2 and 4, which was considered low to medium. As a result, it was not possible to pursue an entirely car-free development, but it was possible to adopt a car-capped development, which would result in a limited number of car parking spaces, as per the Local Plan.

r.     Officers also outlined that the draft Walking and Cycling Action Plan was out for consultation, which set out the wider ambitions for the Council in relation to walking and cycling.

s.    The Panel noted that paragraphs 4.1 & 4.2 of the report seemed to be contradictory to some extent, and it was suggested that further thought should be given by the Cabinet Member as to what the position was in regard to car parking and the St Ann’s Development.

t.     The Cabinet Member for Planning echoed the earlier comments of officers and reiterated that GLA and local planning policies would be applied when considering any planning applications. The Council had also made an emergency climate declaration and that the local planning policies were all part of the process of getting to that target. It was also noted that every site was different and would be determined on its own merit.

u.    The Panel sought assurances around any potential loss of parking in the southwest corner of the site and whether additional parking would be provided to existing residents to offset the possible loss of four parking spaces. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that every new scheme contained a number of conflicting requirements, and the best outcome overall was sought within those competing requirements. The Cabinet Member for Planning urged councillors and residents to input into any planning consultations that took place in relation to this site. In regard to a follow-up requesting what assurances could be given to residents around the potential loss of four parking spaces as part of a cycling and walking through-route. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that he was unable to give a response to this as it was not Council site. Cllr Gordon noted that the potential loss of parking would be part of the S105 consultation and that the administration would be in a better position to comment on this once the results of the consultation had been received.

v.    The Panel commented that they would like to hear a political commitment from the Cabinet Member about whether the administration would be happy to see a loss of four parking spaces (as per paragraph 5 of the St Ann’s report) if the S105 consultation responses were against this loss of amenity and what other options had been considered in regard to this. Cllr Gordon agreed to provide a written response on this point. (Action: Cllr Gordon).  

w.   Officers commented that the adopted Local Plan set out that the new connection towards Green Lanes should not adversely impact the occupants of the residents of the block at the southern end of Warwick Gardens. This was something that would be considered through planning process, when a planning application was submitted.

RESOLVED

Noted.