Agenda item

An update from the Cabinet Members on key areas within their portfolios are attached.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Business & Economic Development will be in attendance to answer questions from the Committee.

5.1       The Committee received written updates from the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services and the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Business & Economic Development on the key aspects of their portfolios. 

5.2       The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Business & Economic Development officers responded to questions on:

            Delivering Housing Renewal: Church Street

5.2.1    The Cabinet Member was asked for details about the redevelopment of Lisson Arches and Orchardson Street.  He explained that Lisson Arches would provide new affordable workspace.  Three show homes were now available for residents to view at Orchardson Street and would provide an indication of the types of homes that will be made available.  He stated that the homes were of a high specification and illustrated what regeneration could achieve.  Officers will shortly be looking at how the completed properties could best be allocated.

            Futures Plan

5.2.2    The Cabinet Member was asked about the type of affordable housing that is intended to be developed as part of the Futures Plan and how this fits with the concept of “community interest”.  The Cabinet Member referred the committee to the revised business case for the regeneration of Cosway Street as a helpful illustration.  He explained that the initial proposals for the street included townhouses. Despite these being supported by local councillors he did not consider that these properties would be affordable for local residents.  Additionally, part of the proposed design would have resulted in some properties being closed off which could have limited the residents living in those properties from engaging in the community. The revised business case is now considering live/work units.  He hoped that young people who are likely to occupy these units would stay in them for a number of years and become part of the local community using its local services including shops and Church Street market.

5.2.3    The Cabinet Member was asked how the City Council could stop speculators from purchasing homes for investment purposes which they either let out or simply leave empty.  He advised that the Council had no powers to stop this occurring in the private sector but could impose conditions on any properties that it built itself.

            Affordable Housing

5.2.4    The Cabinet Member was asked how the composition of affordable housing being delivered in the City relates to the demand for such accommodation.  He was referred to the fact that there is a high demand in the borough for family sized units.  The Cabinet Member advised that the Council produces an annual report which sets out the issues that will influence the allocation of social housing including affordable housing supply and projections for demand from various groups including homeless households.  By way of example he advised that the initial proposals for live/work units in Cosway Street were effectively bedsits.  He had not considered that these were suitable to meet the community’s needs and had asked officers to revise the proposals.  Barbara Brownlee, Director of Housing & Regeneration, advised that in the initial planning submission for West End Green which had received planning consent the previous evening proposals for affordable housing consisted of bedsits and 1 bed units.  The Council considered these to be inappropriate for local requirements and requested the elimination of bedsits and the introduction of 2 and 3 bed apartments which subsequently came forward.  Similar requests were made for the development at Ashbridge Street.

            Purchase of Surplus Public Sector Land

5.2.5    With reference to the recently published list of public sector owned land and properties that were surplus to requirement, the Cabinet Member was asked whether the Council was doing anything to acquire such assets to address housing need.  The Cabinet Member stated that the Council looks at all property suitable to meet the Council’s needs.  Liaising with some public sector bodies such as NHS Property Services can be challenging.  While every effort is made to maximise the Housing Revenue Account and spot purchases are made on a regular basis, acquisitions have to meet a value for money test.  Unfortunately the Council cannot compete with  private sector developers for land or property in prime areas.

5.2.6    In response to a supplementary question the Director of Housing and Regeneration explained that the recent spot purchase of ten properties for use as temporary accommodation was progressed through Westminster Community Homes rather than the Council because a Housing Association can use assured shorthold tenancies whereas the Council cannot.

            New Rough Sleeping Strategy

5.2.7    Given the link between rough sleeping and drug and alcohol substance misuse the Cabinet Member was asked to ensure that the new strategy includes input from relevant departments and drug/alcohol and substance abuse specialists in order to produce a holistic strategy.

            Markets

5.2.8    The Cabinet Member was asked how far the procurement of a market operator for Berwick Street market had progressed and how it would be funded.  The Cabinet Member was of the view that the City Council was not best placed to run street markets and that it should tender out this function.  He explained that Berwick Street would be a pilot project.  The Council was looking for a skilled market operator which will work with existing traders and the community to provide a fit for purpose market.  He expressed his disappointment that the current market was underutilised.  He considered that given its prime location in the heart of London it should be a thriving enterprise.  He advised that he had been successful in moving responsibility for the Council’s market from the Licensing Enforcement Team who were not best placed to oversee them to the Corporate Property Team.  Members requested that in progressing any changes the Council draws upon the experiences and lessons from previous schemes.

            Marble Arch BID

5.2.9    With the failed Queensway BID in mind, the Cabinet Member was asked whether appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure that there is not a disproportionate influence from larger landowners in the area.  The Cabinet Member explained that the Council had little control over the running of the BID.  The Council approved the BID document and organised the ballot.  However, the former includes a mechanism to balance the influence of the largest and smaller property holders in the area.  He undertook to circulate a copy of the document to committee members.  He advised that Kate Buxton who had a solid knowledge base and experience was involved in the BID as was Councillor Heather Acton.

5.3       In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Services and the City Treasurer, Pete Carpenter, Assistant City Treasurer, responded to questions.

5.3.1    Members asked whether the Operational Property Strategy which includes a target of substantially reducing the council’s property footprint to reduce operating costs has taken into account the increasing trend of staff working from home.  The committee was informed that this had been taken into account.  To measure usage, digital monitoring devices had been installed under all desks and meeting rooms.

5.3.2    Following a supplementary question on reducing costs, the Director of Housing & Regeneration advised that despite having its headquarters in Grosvenor Place CityWest Homes (CWH) has a favourable lease arrangement with the freeholder of the building which results in the premises being comparatively cheaper for them to occupy than being located in City Hall.  However, new proposals had been developed to relocate the CWH head office within the refurbished City Hall if this proves to be cost-effective to both CWH and the Council.

5.4       Mr Carpenter then provided the committee with an update on the closure of the Council’s accounts.  He advised that the Council submitted its accounts to the auditor on the 9 April.  The Council was the quickest public sector body to submit its accounts for auditing and exceeded the performance of 94% of the FTSE 100.

5.4.1    The Committee had previously been informed about the potential impact to the closure of the Council’s accounts arising from problems with the implementation of the Managed Services Programme (MSP).  The committee asked whether the latter had presented any problems to achieving a successful closure.  Mr Carpenter advised that in the weeks leading up to the end of the financial year the contractor, BT, had put in significant efforts to ensure delivery for all three of the Tri-Borough councils.

5.4.2    In response to questions about outstanding issues to be addressed within MSP, Mr Carpenter advised that this included addressing historic data and fixed assets.

5.5       RESOLVED: That the updates be noted.

5.6       ACTIONS:

1.    Provide the committee with an estimate of when schemes that have recently secured planning consents (as set out in Section 5 of the update from the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Business & Economic Development) are likely to come forward and deliver on-site affordable housing.  (Action for: Barbara Brownlee, Director of Housing & Regeneration/John Walker, Operational Director Development Planning Services)

2.    Provide the committee with a note on current Corporate Property Special Projects (as referred to in Section 2 of the update from the Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Services.  (Action for: Guy Slocombe, Director of Property, Investment and Estates)

3.    Inform the committee of the current status of the Business Rates Appeal Fund and the number of outstanding appeals.  (Action for: Martin Hinckley, Head of Centre, Corporate Finance)