Agenda item

The Panel received a verbal presentation on the council housing elements of the proposed High Road West (HRW) scheme, along with a briefing paper that was included in the agenda pack at pages 87-90. The presentation was introduced by Sarah Lovell, Head of Area Regeneration. Peter O’Brien, AD for Regeneration and Economic Development was also present. The following key points were noted from the presentation:

• There are three key ways in which the Council can ensure that the agreed number of Council homes are delivered – The Development Agreement with Lendlease, GLA funding contracts and Planning policy.
• HRW is a phased agreement. The Development Agreement is structured in such a way as to ensure that conditions are met before a phase can progress. Land will not be passed to Lendlease until conditions are met. The core requirements of the scheme are the primary requirements which must be delivered. These include the delivery of 500 council homes at social rents. The scheme cannot proceed until the core requirements are met.
• GLA Funding contracts – Should the scheme not deliver the social rent homes by the agreed milestone dates, GLA funding for the whole scheme could be withdrawn. Consequently, 500 social rented homes must be delivered otherwise the scheme cannot progress.
• Planning Policy also provides protections on the amount of affordable homes delivered. Planning policy requires the scheme re-provides the existing social rented homes on Love Lane Estate. HRW is targeting 40% affordable homes across the whole scheme. Phase A already has a firm commitment to deliver 40% affordable housing, including 500 social rent homes.
• The Love Lane Estate currently has c.220 tenanted and 45 leaseholder properties, the scheme has to be delivered in phases. The Council has agreed phasing commitments, which are enshrined in the landlord offer, which seek to minimise disruption to residents and maximise the number of residents who move once from their existing homes on the Love Lane Estate into their new homes within the scheme.
• To meet this commitment, Lendlease must build social rented homes early to ensure that residents can move to their new homes. If Lendlease do not do this, vacant possession of Love Lane cannot be achieved, and development can’t proceed. This is the reason that the first phase includes 100% council homes that council homes are prioritised in the subsequent phases.

The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Panel noted that there had been a number of rumours floating around that Lendlease were going to reduce the number of homes for social rent down from 500 and that they would seek to build this element of the scheme last.
2. The Panel welcomed the assurances given in the presentation that this was not the case and suggested that the Council should be proactively seeking to counter these rumours with the information provided in the presentation. The Panel noted that Members had received an email from the Love Lane Temporary Accommodation Group that set out a number of concerns based on incorrect information. The Panel requested that officers engage with TAG to assuage their concerns and counter some of the rumours that were circulating. In response, officers acknowledged that they were happy to do so but they had not seen the email in question. Officers assured Members that the Council was seeking to move residents out into replacement accommodation as quickly as possible and that it needed the social housing elements built first, in order to achieve this. Email to Members from TAG to be circulated to officers. (Action: Clerk).
3. In response to a follow-up question, officers agreed that the reserve matters planning process provided additional safeguards around the ability of the Council to ensure that the social housing elements of the HRW scheme were front-loaded.
4. The Panel sought assurances around the risk management processes that were in place for the scheme. In response, officers advised that as with any scheme this size, there was a robust set of risk management processes in place and that a Risk Register was part of this. Officers identified the 17^th of March Planning Committee date and the need to secure vacant possession in order to secure the site for development as examples of some of the key risks for the scheme.
5. In response to a question, officers acknowledged that Spurs owned a relatively small area of land south of White Hart Lane and that officers hoped to be able to secure this site through negotiations with Spurs. However, as with any other site, the Council had the option to pursue a CPO although this was very much seen as a last resort.
6. In terms of timescales, officers advised that Plot A of the scheme, which included the GRACE Centre, was being progressed and that everything was in place to deliver this. However, there were risks with the other plots and that these could require a CPO to progress. Officers advised that a report was being prepared for June Cabinet which would begin the CPO process. It was anticipated that the process would take 18-24 months. By the end of this process, it was anticipated that Plot A would be finished, and that the development would move on to other phases of the scheme.

RESOLVED

Noted