Agenda item

Ziggy Crawford, Chief Executive of Barnsbury Housing Association, provided a presentation to the Committee on the Association’s work in the Borough. A discussion was had during which the following main points were made –

·         Barnsbury was a small housing association, providing only 253 rented homes in the Borough. The organisation did not provide homes for sale or leasehold, and specialised in providing housing to tenants with low levels of household income.

·         It was thought that the organisation’s size made Barnsbury different to other housing providers. Although it did not have the same level of resources available to larger housing associations, Barnsbury was able to provide certain services that may not be effective at a larger scale, and was better placed to tailor its services to its residents. For example, Barnsbury organised regular trips for residents, held coffee mornings, and administered a food bank and a bursary for school uniform and other education costs.

·         Although Barnsbury was small, it was investing in property and had a number of homes either recently-purchased or in development.

·         It was reported that an independent survey of Barnsbury residents was carried out every three years. The last survey was conducted in 2014 and the organisation received an overall satisfaction rating of 89%. The Committee welcomed this figure; however Barnsbury considered that further work was required to improve satisfaction. 89% of respondents also expressed satisfaction with their neighbourhood which was considered positive. The organisation had benchmarked performance against other organisations and performed generally favourably.

·         Barnsbury charged social rents with an average service charge of £6.78 a week. It was explained that the organisation sought to keep service charges as low as possible, especially in light of the relatively high rents charged on London properties; however this was becoming increasingly difficult in newer properties. For example, it was advised that some of the organisation’s new homes acquired under Section 106 contributions came with a significant service charge for the maintenance of additional features, such as electronic security gates.

·         The organisation only offered lifetime tenancies, except for some key worker tenancies. This was expected to change with legislation being proposed to restrict the availability of lifetime tenancies. Similarly, the organisation had not sold any properties, however may be required to under pending Right to Buy legislation.

·         The organisation spent approximately £800,000 each year managing its assets. In the previous financial year Barnsbury achieved a surplus of £170,000; all surpluses were regularly used to fund investment and the acquisition of new properties.

·         It was anticipated that the organisation would need to borrow to finance any further development, as the organisation was only able to attract 30% grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency for development schemes.

·         The organisation benchmarked its wages against other housing associations and paid slightly above average, although it was noted that the Chief Executive was paid below average.

·         Barnsbury was concerned about the impact of welfare reform on its residents and had recently invested £10,000 per annum on money advice services.

·         The organisation did not expect to have large numbers of residents exercising the new Right to Buy. It was not anticipated that many residents would be affected by the new Pay to Stay rules, which required housing associations to charge tenants in London earning over £40,000 near market rent, although it was foreseeable that some families, especially those with adult children, could be affected by the policy.

·         The organisation expressed concern with the impact of the 1% annual rent reduction for social housing tenants for the next four years. This was expected to reduce the organisation’s financial resources by £300,000.

·         The organisation considered itself to have a positive relationship with the Council and made use of the Council’s nominations scheme, however suggested that the Council could work further to stimulate the development of social housing.

·         Although Barnsbury had plans to acquire new properties, and recognised the role and financial strength of larger housing providers, it had no aspiration to become a significantly larger housing association. It was suggested that smaller associations tended to have higher levels of resident satisfaction, lower levels of anti-social behaviour, and benefitted from a more personal community development dynamic.

·         The organisation confirmed that it carried out separate tender exercises for each capital works project. 

·         Barnsbury hoped that the satisfaction of its residents would increase as a result of making improvements to its repairs service.

·         A discussion was had on the impact of welfare reform and other central government welfare and housing policies. It was commented that organisations such as Barnsbury did not have any experience of dealing with leaseholders under Right to Buy schemes and such changes may have a significant impact on how smaller housing associations operate.

·         Following a question, it was advised that Barnsbury had not explored the possibility of de-registering from the Homes and Communities Agency to avoid changes to housing legislation; however de-regulation was considered to be very high-risk.

The Committee thanked Barnsbury for their attendance.