Skip to content

Agenda item

The Council's New Build Programme Mini-Review: SID and Witness Evidence

Minutes:

(i)            Draft Scrutiny Initiation Document (SID)

 

The Committee considered the draft SID set out in the agenda pack.

 

It was requested that the eighth objective of the review be amended to compare the council’s approach to housing associations, as well as other local authorities. 

 

It was requested that the scope of the review be amended to include:

·         Design standards in regards to entrance and exit routes in both high rise and low rise properties

·         Environmental standards in regards to the toxicity of paint

·         The checks and balances related to decision-making on design and build choices, including decisions on the use of materials such as cladding

·         The average building costs of new housing schemes

·         How housing revenue account surplus is spent, and if any funds are allocated to new build projects.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the scrutiny initiation document be agreed, subject to the following amendments:

(a)  the eighth objective be amended to read ‘The compare the council’s approach to new build to another London borough and housing associations’.

(b)  the following points be added to the scope of the review:

·         Design standards in regards to entrance and exit routes in both high rise and low rise properties

·         Environmental standards in regards to the toxicity of paint

·         The checks and balances related to decision-making on design and build choices, including decisions on the use of materials such as cladding

·         The average building costs of new housing schemes

·         How housing revenue account surplus is spent, and if any funds are allocated to new build projects.

 

(ii)           Witness Evidence

 

Stephen Nash, New Homes and Development Programme Manager, presented to the Committee on the council’s new build programme.

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

 

·         There were two New Homes and Development Programme Managers. These were not technical building management roles, but the officers were responsible for the overall development of the council’s new build schemes.

·         The objective of the New Build service was to maximise the amount of social rented housing in the borough. The council’s new build schemes also contained private housing, the sale of which helped to fund the development of social rented housing. 

·         The council’s new build programme did not create any ‘profit’. Occasionally a new build scheme would achieve a surplus if rising property values resulted in private units achieving a higher than expected sale price. Any surplus was reinvested in developing new social rented housing.

·         The type of units developed by the council was informed by the needs of residents on the housing waiting list. As a result, the council was developing a high proportion of two-bed, four-person units as a means of reducing overcrowding. The council was also developing a number of three and four bed units.

·         The new build team was also developing a small amount of supported housing for vulnerable people, as well as community infrastructure such as community centres. The team was involved in the development of the new Cat and Mouse Library.

·         There were five project managers working underneath the programme managers. These officers were responsible for identifying sites, carrying out consultation and engagement, and seeing through individual projects from commencement to the defect stage. These officers worked closely with colleagues in Legal, Planning, and Housing Needs.

·         The New Build team considered various factors when identifying sites for development, including if the site currently attracted anti-social behaviour. Developing new housing at a site known for anti-social behaviour often achieved positive results for local residents. Officers regularly reviewed available sites and suggestions were also received from officers in other departments, as well as councillors. 

·         The New Build team had considered innovative approaches to maximising the amount of social rented housing. This included build-overs of existing blocks. The team also considered the purchase of sites on the open market, however this was challenging as the council could be outbid by private developers. It was commented that some private developers were prepared to pay over market value for sites, with the intention of maximising their profit by reducing the affordable housing offer.

·         The New Build team had made approaches to develop land held by other public bodies, such as the Police, Fire Brigade, and GLA. In response to a question, it was advised that an unsuccessful bid had been made for a Ministry of Defence site, and approaches had previously been made to the NHS.

·         The council had a framework contract with local architects, including the council’s own in-house architects, to design new build schemes.

·         All of the council’s new build schemes required planning permission. It was commented that achieving planning permission could be a challenging process and the council’s applications were not treated differently to any other developer. The design of all new build schemes was scrutinised by the council’s Design Review Panel.

·         The New Build team was keen to involve residents in the design process and carried out consultations as schemes were developed.

·         The build process was carried out by contractors appointed on a 60% quality, 40% cost basis. Officers emphasised that there was no benefit to building poor quality social rented housing.

·         The New Build team made use of a robust set of Employers Requirements. This ensured that properties met, and often exceeded, the standards set out in the London Design Guide.

·         The New Build team had its own clerk of works and all works were signed off by Islington Council Building Control. It was commented that Building Control would comment on fire safety matters as they arose.

·         The majority of the council’s new build schemes were low rise properties, however one building over eight storeys was in development. Some new build schemes redeveloped existing buildings, such as garages.

·         The Committee considered the resident consultation carried out by the New Build team. The level of consultation was dependent on the type of development. Major developments required a significant amount of public consultation, whereas more limited consultation was carried out for small two or three unit schemes.

·         Consultation methods included door knocking, drop-in sessions and exhibitions. It was commented that one to one engagement tended to result in more measured and useful comments. Public meetings were occasionally held, however these could be fractious.

·         Consultation was carried out with TRAs, however it was noted that these groups may not represent all residents.

·         It was intended to carry out more consultation with young people.

·         Officers acknowledged that further improvements could be made to the public engagement process. It was felt that some engagement had been rushed in the past, however the service now took more time to work through local concerns. It was accepted that there would always be a level of opposition to new development, however the need to take into account significant local opposition was understood.

·         Consultation was carried out with specific groups when appropriate. For example, the Housing Disability Panel would be consulted when new developments include adapted properties.

·         The council’s requirement was that 10% of units should be wheelchair accessible. If a new build property was let to a tenant with specific accessibility needs, the New Build team engaged with the tenant as soon as possible to ensure that the property met the tenant’s requirements.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that residents were able to influence the design of new build properties, however there may be planning or architectural constraints that prohibit resident suggestions being accepted.

·         The New Build team often carried out environmental improvements alongside the development of new properties. Officers advised that the general consensus was that new build developments improved estates.

·         New build properties were let in line with the council’s local lettings policy. Additional priority was given to those on the estates where the new units were being developed, those on the transfer list, and also on a local ward basis.

·         Although private units were sold on the open market, priority was given to those who live or work in Islington. The council did not sell new build units to foreign investors, and did not want to sell to buy-to-let landlords.

·         Officers commented on the challenges of achieving the corporate objective of delivering 500 new council homes between 2014/15 and 2019/20. There had been delays to the completion of new build schemes, which included delays to Network Rail completing works affecting development sites, delays to utility companies connecting new build properties to their networks, the discovery of asbestos and bones requiring investigation and removal, and delays associated with pressures in the Planning and Legal departments. 

·         Officers commented that, although Islington was a small borough, it was not as dense as some other London boroughs and there were opportunities for development.

·         Officers noted the financial challenges facing the new build programme. The government’s 1% cut in social rents had an adverse impact on the new build programme. The development of some schemes had been paused and others had stopped altogether. 

·         There was a level of uncertainty in the new build sector associated with Brexit, the implications of the Housing and Planning Act, and other political factors.

·         Following the government’s recent budget announcement that the HRA borrowing cap could be lifted for local authorities in high need, the council had already applied to the Treasury requesting that its borrowing cap be lifted. It was commented that borrowing limits had constrained the new build programme in the past. It was known that other local authorities had also applied to the Treasury and it was not known when a response would be received.

·         Although the government had previously pledged that Right to Buy properties would be replaced on a ‘one for one’ basis, it was noted that for each unit lost the council only received approximately 30% of the construction cost of a single unit.

·         The Chair commented on the difficulties of the London housing market, noting that an economist had recently described it as a ‘collusive oligopoly’.

·         The Committee requested further information on how decisions on new build properties are made and scrutinised.

·         The Committee requested a breakdown of costs for an average new build property.

·         Following a question, it was advised that the council did not routinely fit sprinkler systems in new build properties.

·         The New Build team was actively looking at building modular housing. Other London boroughs, including Enfield, had developed such housing. It was commented that developing modular housing was attractive as it could be completed within three months.

·         Solar panels were fitted to new build properties where appropriate. The new build service was acutely aware of fuel poverty and ensured new build properties were well insulated.

·         In response to a question about the council developing mixed tenure housing blocks, it was advised that the council did not fit ‘poor doors’, however did develop separate private and social housing blocks. It was explained that private housing was built to a higher specification as the intention was to maximise the sale value to ensure a greater subsidy for social rented housing. Officers commented that it was more difficult to develop and manage mixed blocks of private and social housing.

·         Following a question from a member of the public, it was advised that the council could not extinguish the Right to Buy for tenants in new build properties.

·         The council had explored developing more shared ownership housing, however as London property prices were so high, there were concerns that shared ownership housing was not affordable to the majority of residents.

 

The Committee thanked Stephen Nash for his attendance.

                                                                                                                            

Supporting documents: