Agenda item

·         Presentation on Camden’s New Build Programme – Steve Beard, LB Camden

·         Briefing note on information requested at the previous meeting

·         The Committee is invited to consider its conclusions on the council’s new build programme.

a)    Presentation on Camden’s New Build Programme

The Committee received a presentation from Kate Cornwall-Jones and Steve Beard, officers of the London Borough of Camden, on Camden’s New Build Programme.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

• Camden’s New Build Scheme was described as a ‘Community Investment Programme’. The scheme delivered community improvements alongside social housing, and had invested over £1 billion in the borough through HRA and government funding.
• Camden’s scheme worked in a similar way to Islington’s, in that the council developed a proportion of private housing for general sale, which subsidised the development of social housing and community investments.
• Camden’s scheme focused on small sites which private developers may not consider viable propositions. This allowed the borough to maximise the amount of new housing being delivered.
• Camden’s scheme had delivered 870 new units, with a further 2,000 planned. Over 500 of those delivered were for social rent.
• Camden Council’s planning policies required 50% affordable housing, which was typically split into 60% social rent and 40% intermediate housing. However, this was subject to viability.
• Camden sought to address housing inequality through its new build scheme, and had established ‘Camden Living’, which provided affordable rental properties for key workers and those on middle incomes. Camden did not prioritise shared ownership as due to London property prices this option was not affordable to those on low and middle incomes.
• Camden had developed studio accommodation as a means of alleviating homelessness.
• Camden Council had doubled the density of the Agar Grove estate by redeveloping the majority of the estate. Although there had initially been opposition to the proposals, the scheme was now progressing with the support of residents. The first phase of properties to be developed would be 100% social housing, and the final scheme would have over 50% social housing. 
• Camden was developing properties to high environmental standards. Some properties did not have radiators and were instead built to the Passivhaus standard, in which homes were highly insulated and heated through the circulation of air. This had environmental benefits and would also help to alleviate fuel poverty. It was advised that this system was very efficient and Camden Council had received comments from some residents that their properties were too warm, rather than too cold.
• The Committee was supportive of developing homes to the Passivhaus standard. Camden officers commented that passivhaus homes were very efficient and suggested that the standard should be used more widely.  
• Camden officers emphasised the importance of community engagement. Camden had employed local residents to provide peer to peer engagement on new housing schemes. These residents had a strong presence on the estate and were well placed to engage with the local community.
• Camden’s properties were designed according to the London Design Guide, with some aspects exceeding those standards.
• Camden built homes to the lifetime homes standard, 10% of properties were wheelchair adaptable.
• Camden did not ‘pepper pot’ social and private housing. It was commented that one 52-unit scheme was a mixed social and private development, however this had been problematic as social and private tenants had different expectations. For example, private tenants expected a concierge service and high quality finishes, which would not be viable if provided in social housing. Although Camden developed mixed social and private blocks, the social and private elements were generally separated by floors or stairwells with different entrances. Camden officers emphasised the importance of the entrances looking the same.
• Following the evacuation of the Chalcots Estate, Camden Council had appointed a director of resident safety. Camden was reviewing the safety of all of its housing stock, reviewing the materials used in new build developments, and was making changes as appropriate.
• Camden was now designing properties above standards set out in building regulations as regulatory changes were anticipated.
• The most significant challenge to Camden’s new build scheme was the cost of development. Costs had increased following the EU referendum and it was expected that costs would increase further after Brexit. Sales values had also plateaued since the referendum. The 1% annual rent reduction and HRA borrowing cap were also limiting the finances available to the scheme.  
• Following changing social attitudes to redevelopment, Camden was now taking a more cautious approach to the demolition of properties.
• Camden was lobbying for permission to combine right to buy receipts with GLA grant monies to fund the delivery of new housing. At present this was not permitted by the government.
• Following a question on community engagement, it was advised that Camden residents had previously raised a variety of objections to new council housing developments. These included the loss of open space, the loss of employment space, or an insufficient amount of new affordable housing. Camden had since made scheme-specific commitments on new developments to address local concerns, for example that there would not be an overall loss of green space, or no overall loss of units. However, it was commented that sometimes it was not possible to achieve the target of 50% affordable housing on every scheme if it was also intended for the scheme to fund a major community investment. For example, it was not always viable to provide 50% affordable housing if a new school was also to be financed through the sale of private housing through the scheme.
• Camden officers commented that the key to community engagement was transparency and working collaboratively with the local community. It was important to consult all stakeholders, not only those who were the most vocal.
• Camden had a local lettings policy and new units were allocated to those in the local area first.
• New council housing developments were subject to right to buy; however, Camden had lost few of their new units through right to buy.
• Camden’s definition of “affordable” housing was social rent levels. Camden operated a rent cap dependent on bedroom levels; social rent on a one-bedroom property was approximately £110 a week, exclusive of service charges.
• It was clarified that local authorities only received approximately 30% of funds from right to buy sales and this funding could not be combined with other forms of ‘public subsidy’, such as GLA grant funding, to develop new housing. The Committee asked if Camden Council was campaigning with other local authorities to relax restrictions related to right to buy funding and the HRA borrowing cap. In response it was suggested that a sector-wide joined up approach may yield better results, however officers were not optimistic about the government agreeing to significant changes.
• The Committee noted concerns about private housing contributing to the gentrification of estates. It was noted that the average sale value of Camden’s new build properties was around £650,000.
• The Committee considered environmental aspects of new build housing. Some Camden houses and schools made use of rainwater recycling for flushing toilets.
• The Committee commented on the importance of building key worker housing, and suggested that the development of new schools could be tied to the development of new housing for teachers.
• Following a question from a member of the public, it was commented that Camden had carried out major refurbishment of some estates affected by damp, but this work was not carried out by the new build team. Significant work to reduce damp would likely be carried out alongside other major refurbishment work, such as the replacement of windows and heating systems.
• Following a question from a member of the public, Camden officers advised that there was no clear evidence that separating social and private units by doorway was affecting community cohesion. Although new developments were built with different internal finishes, all were built to a high standard.
• Following a question from a member of the public, it was advised that residents relocated as a result of the HS2 rail development did not have to pay any rent increase unless they had moved to a bigger property. It was commented that Islington had a similar relocation policy.

The Committee thanked Kate Cornwall-Jones and Steve Beard for their attendance.

b)    Briefing note on information requested at the previous meeting

The Committee raised concerns that the process through which housing associations bid for development sites artificially inflated the cost of schemes and therefore decreased the viability of social housing. A member commented that if the council was to significantly increase the amount of affordable housing developed in the borough, then a joined up and strategic approach to working with Housing Associations was required. It was suggested that robust conversations about housing association ambitions and aspirations was needed.

It was considered vital for new developments to deliver as much affordable housing as possible. It was suggested that local planning authorities should have greater powers to control the development of affordable housing.

c)    Conclusions of the Mini-Review

It was agreed that the Chair would consider conclusions of the review and report them to the next meeting for agreement.