Agenda item

The Panel received  a report, which provided an update on the Council’s Housing Delivery Programme. The report was introduced by Robbie Erbmann, AD for Housing, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 11-20. The following arose as part of the discussion of the report.

a.    The Panel was advised that as of the previous week, there were 1202 homes started on site, with the addition of Hale Wharf. It was anticipated that this figure would be 1289 by 31^st March. To date, the Council had handed over 173 (completed) homes. The original allocation was for 60% affordable homes, this had increased to 83% of homes being built being at Council rents during the current four year period.

b.    Officers advised that although numbers were important, it was equally as important that the homes built were of the highest quality and that this was demonstrated through the number of new homes being built that were zero carbon, for example. The Council had been shortlisted for a number of housebuilding awards, including council of the year.

c.    The Panel sought clarification around the housebuilding graph and the flat lining curve after 2026/27. In response, officers advised that the graph showed housing units that were already in the pipeline and that more work needed to be done to look at the pipeline post 2027. It was emphasised that the rate of building would not tail off after 2027, it was just that more work needed to be done to add sites into the delivery pipeline post 2027. 

d.    In relation to qualifying as net zero on carbon emissions, officers clarified that the scheme had to generate more energy than it took to build it. It was noted that this was very difficult to do on bigger schemes, but that the Council was achieving rates of 80 or 90% on many of these which was significantly above what was stipulated in Building Regulations.

e.    In relation to a follow-up question, officers advised that the fabric of the building was the primary focus of achieving net zero carbon and that as well as the district energy network they also used air source heat pumps. Officers also set out that all schemes had the expectation of net zero, albeit that they may not all achieve it. However, sustainability was a primary concern under the house building programme.

f.     The Panel congratulated the team on their work and the fact that they had been nominated for a number of awards. The Panel questioned what was being done to highlight the Council’s achievements in this area. Officers advised that they were working with the Council communications team to publicise the work that was being done and the fact that they had been shortlisted for a number of awards.

g.    The Panel sought assurances around whether the team were operating at full strength capacity in terms of staffing numbers. In response, officers advised that there were always a handful of vacancies, given the nature of project management and the demand for good project managers. However, officers stressed that there were enough staff to implement the programme.

h.    The Panel sought assurances that, given the fact that there were 10k people on the Temporary Accommodation list in Haringey, how confident officers were that the House Building programme could deliver enough houses, given a shortage of land in London. Officers responded that this was a challenge that affected most other boroughs. Whilst the Council could do, and was doing, a lot, it was important that other providers such as housing associations and private developers also did their bit to build more housing of the type and tenure required. In relation to available land within London, officers set out that that sites did come up for development and that the Council was a long way from a failure to acquire land stopping or slowing down the programme.

i.      In relation to the district energy network, officers confirmed that the heat source for this was the NLWA Edmonton incinerator. The Panel questioned the extent to which burning household waste was truly carbon neutral, particularly when some of the electricity from the grid was de-carbonised and from renewable energy sources. Officers set out that the heat was generated from waste that was going to be incinerated anyway and that this was widely accepted within policy circles as being net-zero. This was for instance, accepted as net-zero within the London Plan. Officers commented that there were other ways to power the district energy network, such as through air source heat pumps and that future changes in incinerator usage would not scupper the Housing Delivery Programme.

j.      In relation to a question around the carbon footprint from demolition of exiting sites, officers advised that the economics of demolition meant that this was not a viable option pursued as part of the programme, due to the costs involved. The only two sites that involved demolition were Broadwater Farm and Love Lane, as there was no alternative.

k.    The Panel sought assurances around the extent to which any conversations had taken place with the Cabinet Member around direct labour organisations. In response, officers advised that the organisation was some way off from setting up a DLO and that the housing programme needed to be developed in terms of its scope and scale, before any conversations about bringing a DLO could be had. Officers advised that their priority was delivering housing and that this needed to remain as the area of focus moving forward. Officers noted that the HfH repairs DLO would be coming in-house as part of the overall transfer of HfH and that there was some work to be done to get this to work as well as it should.

RESOLVED

That the HRSP noted the report.