Agenda item

Report of the Director of Housing and Regeneration

6.1       The committee received a report that provided a progress review on the Council’s programme of housing renewal.  The report also included information on infill housing and the context for purchasing housing out of borough.

6.2       The committee was asked for views on the learning from the regeneration of Church Street to assist in subsequent regeneration schemes. 

6.3       Barbara Brownlee highlighted some of the key learning from the Regeneration programme to date.  She explained that the aspiration to deliver Housing Renewal in the City led the Council to be overly ambitious in forecasting that the programme would be delivered in a matter of a few years.  She explained that given the scale and complexity of the programme and the fact that no local authority in London had undertaken housing renewal on such a scale for many decades it was near impossible to deliver the programme within this timeframe.  Expectations were raised amongst residents about swift progress on the transformation of their neighbourhoods.  As regeneration has taken longer to deliver this has led to some understandable frustration and concern amongst some residents.

6.4       Barbara Brownlee then provided a specific lesson learned in relation to the regeneration of Lisson Arches in Church Street.  She explained that the site would provide new housing for vulnerable elderly residents currently living in sheltered accommodation at Penn House, which is no longer fit for purpose.  The site does not currently have any buildings on it because it has a number of strategically important services - gas, water, electricity and telecommunications running through it.  Some of these service the West End.  The complexity of the underground utilities was not fully understood until works began on site.  Discussions with utilities to divert supplies were protracted.  This involved obtaining approval from three different organisations within one utility.  This, coupled with a restriction of only being able to undertake works over two weeks in any one year, resulted in a delay of 18 months to plan and undertake the works.  Lessons learned from Lisson Arches would be applied to the regeneration of Ebury Bridge.  The Council will ensure that more extensive site investigation works are to understand the complexities of the site.

6.3       Matt Harmer Chief Commercial Officer and Sheli Barracluff, Consultation Coordinator, Thorncliffe, who had been invited to the meeting as expert witnesses, addressed the committee on effective community consultation in relation to development and infrastructure projects.

6.4       Mr Harmer explained that Thorncliffe provide community consultation expertise to clients to help get regeneration and development delivered.  This includes developing community engagement strategies.

6.5       Ms Barracluff provided a presentation on some of the key challenges and elements for successful community engagement.  These included:

·           The importance of understanding the resident demographic including the tenant mix as well as issues of concern

·           Understanding the demographic of those living outside the immediate regeneration area

·           Finding local champions to promote the regeneration programme

·           Setting clear aims and outcomes for the consultation

·           Providing multiple communication channels including door knocking as individual engagement is very effective

·           Providing residents with on-going updates to maintain dialogue

·           Ensuring that residents have a voice and are part of the discussion and not simply told about what will happen

·           Highlighting where resident input has been taken into account in developing proposals

·           Taking residents on site visits to see completed regeneration projects to ease worries.

·           Undertaking surveys that provide both qualitative and quantitative data

6.6       The Committee then discussed the lessons learned and asked questions on these issues and the actions that would be taken forward to overcome delays to future housing regeneration in the borough. 

6.7       In response to questions about the overly ambitious timescales Barbara Brownlee considered that the over-optimism came from both elected members and officers and reflected the ambition of the organisation.  She further considered that as the Council had not been engaged in a major regeneration programme for some time there perhaps was a lack of expertise available within the organisation to fully appreciate how long it would take to deliver the programme.  She stated that a project of this kind was one of the most difficult to deliver within an intensively built up and complex area such as Westminster.  Mr Harmer commented that because many local authorities have not rebuilt large estates for some time much of the expertise to deliver large regeneration projects lie elsewhere.

            Church Street

6.8       With respect to Lisson Arches, members asked why a subsoil analysis to understand the complexities was not undertaken before holding a resident vote.  Barbara Brownlee explained that there is a balance to strike on how much is spent before making firm commitments to develop a site.  She explained that a great deal of desk-based analysis is undertaken.  On site investigations are expensive.  However, given the lessons learned at Lisson Arches the Council would undertake more detailed ground investigations for certain types of site such as next to railway lines or by rivers.

6.9       The Committee asked about the processes in place for better managing problems at Lisson Arches should they arise in future.  Barbara Brownlee advised that a new management monitoring system had been established whereby senior managers receive weekly updates on site progress.  Whilst such detailed oversight is unusual it was felt necessary given the complexity of this particular site.  This will enable problems to be raised quickly at a senior level.

6.10     Members welcomed the decision to bring community consultation back in-house and asked for details of the resource levels and how consultation with residents would be improved.  Barbara Brownlee informed the committee that the team would consist of two internal development officers and three new consultation officers.  The Council had also opened a site office in Church Street.  There is now a strong Council voice in the estate compared to when the consultation and community engagement was contracted out.  The team would be open and clear with the community about any future delays.

            Ebury Bridge

6.11     The Director of Housing and Regeneration was asked about what had been delivered to date at Ebury Bridge.  Barbara Brownlee stated that residents had been decanted from the site.  This was an achievement as a decant in itself takes time.

6.12     The Committee was informed that when the scheme was soft market tested there was no appetite amongst the Council’s Development Partner Panel to implement the scheme in the form proposed.  Members asked how the Council would ensure that this mistake was not repeated.  Barbara Brownlee stated that it would be important to liaise with developers much earlier in the process rather than when a finalised planning permission is in place as this does not provide developers with an opportunity to add value.  It was important that the procurement process provides bidders with some flexibility.  The Council should set out its aims and goals and ask developers how they would deliver them.  Improvements had been made in the procurement process to reflect this.  Other lessons learned included not insisting that one developer undertakes both the refurbishment and the new build as developers tend to specialise in one or the other.  Developers also tend to build estates from the outside in rather than the expected approach that had been set by the Council.

6.13     Members asked how the Council intended to re-energise residents who have been frustrated by the delays about the renewal of Ebury Bridge.  The Cabinet Member for Housing stated that the Council regretted the amount of time that had passed since the resident vote had taken place.  She advised that once a new and viable scheme has been chosen the Council will ensure that if any amendments are needed to be made at a later stage this will be communicated quickly and clearly to residents with an explanation of why the changes are required.

6.14     The Committee asked whether the ratio of social to intermediate housing to be provided on site will be based on the planning policy in place at the time that the residents voted on the regeneration for new affordable housing.  Barbara Brownlee explained that none of the regeneration sites have got housing figures attached to them other than that all tenants formally living on the site can be housed in the new developments.  The Cabinet Member advised that the amount of affordable housing which will be accommodated on site will be governed by the planning policy at the time that the planning application is submitted.

6.15     The Director of Housing was asked about the potential adverse impacts on building costs or sales values as a consequence of Brexit.  Barbara Brownlee informed the committee that Growth, Planning & Housing was reviewing current projects to identify and seek to quantify the impacts based on changes in the value of the pound relative to other currencies as well as the attractiveness of London as a residential investment.  There was a risk in achieving sale prices across all sites.

6.16     In response to questions about incorporating health and well-being benefits within the regeneration programme, the Cabinet Member advised that it would be important to ensure that any housing built remains suitable as people grow older.  This will avoid residents having to move to alternative accommodation as their health declines.

6.17     RESOLVED:

1.    Members reflected that while it is important for the Council to have high aspirations for housing renewal the organisation needs to set a more realistic timeframe for delivering the housing regeneration programme given the nature and complexity of the sites and the development programme.  The programme is challenging and members noted that it could not realistically be delivered in a few years.

2.    Members considered that being honest and clear with residents on how renewal will be delivered including the length of time that it will take is vital to building credibility and support in the programme and avoid disappointment.  Where any delays do occur the reasons for these should be communicated openly and quickly.

3.    The committee considered that it is vital where problems arise which cannot be easily remedied these should be passed quickly up the management chain appropriate mitigation measures can be urgently taken timeframes.

4.    The committee noted in relation to the renewal at Ebury Bridge that when the scheme was soft market tested there was no appetite amongst the Council’s Development Partner Panel to implement the scheme in the form proposed.  Members noted that it is important to engage developers early in the regeneration process and avoid being too prescriptive over the scheme design to provide developers with an opportunity to add value and be innovative.

5.    The committee supported future proofing housing to be provided as part of the renewal programme so that homes remain suitable for people as they grow older.

6.    Members also noted that any new planning applications submitted as part of the housing renewal programme will reflect the planning policies at the time the application is submitted.