Agenda item

To consider the attached report (CHB-002-2019/20).

(1)        That the contents of this programme and expenditure update for the Council House Building Programme and its impact upon 141 receipts be noted, and presented to the Cabinet in line with the Terms of Reference.

(2)        That the recommendations proposed for taking up future 141 receipts are approved by the Cabinet in line with the Terms of Reference.

The Housing Development Manager advised the report at Agenda Item 7 considered the current construction expenditure profile for the Council Housebuilding Programme against the “Replacement Right to Buy (RTB) Receipts” and considered various interventions to take up the shortfall in expenditure where identified.

Taking the profile of construction expenditure as described we could compare this against the level of RTB Receipts and from this we could see where a shortfall in construction expenditure means there was a deficit against the required spending to take up the RTB receipts.

If the construction expenditure profile proposed was maintained the first time a deficit could be seen in the required construction expenditure in Q4 2020/21 where we will see a shortfall of £1,976,872.00. This equated to £593,061.16 in RTB Receipts. Overall in 2020/21 our construction expenditure was in deficit by £3,281,851.37 against a requirement of £15,430,707.37.

This position becomes progressively worse over the course of 2021/22 when a deficit in construction expenditure of £6,352,077.55 against a requirement of £9,869,497.55 meant that we were £8,328,949.00 behind our construction expenditure target by the end of 2021/22.

Without intervention this could mean that the Council would need to repay £2,498,684.70 in RTB receipts back to the Government by the end of 2021/22.

In considering suitable intervention which would take up the required construction expenditure deficit the Council were making the following proposals in priority order;

·        To proceed with planning applications on the following sites;

-        Vere Road, Loughton – 4 no. 1 bed flats and 6 no. 2 bed flats;

-        Hillyfields, Loughton – 2 no. 2 bed houses;

-        Pyrles Lane (Site A), Loughton – 2 no. 2 bed houses;

-        Pyrles Lane (Site B), Loughton – 3 no. 3 bed houses;

-        Colvers, Matching Green – 3 no. 2 bed houses;

-        Hansell Mead, Roydon – 2 no. 3 bed houses;

-        Pound Close, Nazeing, 2 no 2 bed houses and 2 no 3 bed houses;

-        St Thomas’s Close, Waltham Abbey – 1 no. 2 bed house and 2 no. 3 bed houses; and

-        Springfield (Site B), Epping – 2 no. 1 bed bungalows.

·        To reconsider the criteria for the selection of garage sites for development particularly regarding occupancy levels. This provided a fresh pipeline of sites for development as well as potentially dealing with issues of fly tipping and anti-social behaviour that was still evident on some Council owned garage sites.

·        To consider the purchase of affordable homes provided through S106 agreements by private developers. The Council already had experience of this procurement method and were currently negotiating with developers on sites across the District.

·        To consider purchasing land owned privately for development rather than remaining solely reliant on land that the Council currently own.

·        To consider the purchase of suitable commercial premises that with a change of planning use could be redeveloped for affordable housing.

·        To establish a ‘street property purchase’ programme.

Councillor J Philip stated that to ensure the Council catch up with expenditure and this will not happen by just putting planning applications forward that the Council should look at other options.

Councillor A Lion asked if any consideration had been given to adding floors to any Council owned blocks of flats.

The Housing and Property Service Director advised that early conversations had taken place with the Council’s consultants but there were many things to take into consideration:

·        Leaseholders living in the flats;

·        The adequacy of the foundations; and

·        The adequacy of the fire regulations.

The Council could not guarantee that they would be able to complete in the timescale that was available.

Councillor R Morgan asked what the planned timescale was for the Colvers, Matching Green and were parking spaces going to be provided as there were many issues around displaced parking.

The Housing Development Manager advised that nothing had yet been scheduled, but due to the urgency of the spend required, it was hoped that this site would be ready to apply for planning permission within the next 3-6 months, where parking would be looked at during that time.

Councillor N Bedford asked if the Council had considered looking to buy properties across the neighbouring boundaries for example in Waltham Forest.

The Housing and Property Service Director stated that the Council had not looked outside of its own boundaries. He did advise that the Council had recently bought 8 houses off of a developer in Roydon and that they were looking at all alternative solutions. The Council had partnerships with 6 affordable housing developers but required schemes to come forward.

Decision:

(1)        That the contents of this programme and expenditure update for the Council House Building Programme and its impact upon 141 receipts be noted, and presented to the Cabinet in line with the Terms of Reference.

(2)        That the recommendations proposed for taking up future 141 receipts are approved by the Cabinet in line with the Terms of Reference.

Reasons for Decision:

Set out in the Cabinet Committee’s Terms of Reference was to monitor expenditure on the Housing Capital Programme Budget for the Council Housebuilding Programme, ensuring the use (within the required deadlines) of the capital receipts made available through the Council’s Agreement with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) allowing the use of additional RTB Receipts received as a result of the Government’s increase in the maximum RTB Discount to be spent on housebuilding.

Other Options for Action:

Taking no action to ensure that construction spending was increased to meet the known level of 141 receipts could lead to a significant repayment of this funding for the supply of new affordable homes being repaid to the Government.