Agenda item

Decisions

1.    That the progress of the Council New Build Programme be noted

2.    That an increase be approved to the budget to Kylna Court by £483,200, all to accommodate amendments to the design of the external envelope of the building and to incorporate a sprinkler system, funded from a budget virement from the 2018/19 New Build General budget.

3.    That a consultancy budget of £600,000 be approved to develop plans for the next phase of the Council’s New Build programme as detailed in Section 7, funded from a budget virement from the 2018/19 New Build General budget.

4.    That the following ‘141 Right to Buy replacement scheme’ grant funding payments for affordable housing developments in the Borough be approved as follows:

·           £3,750,000 to Watford Community Housing Trust for 6 No Garage Sites known as Cupid Green Lane, Hyde Meadows, Pulleys Lane, Rucklers Lane, Wood View and Long Arotts.

·           £343,820 to Watford Community Housing Trust for a development known as Nova House, Jupiter Drive, Hemel Hempstead.

·           In addition, this recommendation authorises a +/- 5% adjustment to the stated cost figures as a contingency sum should the Housing Association revise their cost data as these are based on current estimates which could adjust as the project develops

5.    That the two ‘141 Right to Buy replacement scheme’ grant funding applications that have now been withdrawn by Hastoe and Thrive be noted.

Reason for decision

To provide a full update on the Council New Build Programme

To seek approval for the payment of “141 Right to Buy replacement scheme’ grant funding to Housing Associations (Registered Providers) delivering affordable housing schemes in the Borough.

Corporate objectives

Delivering Affordable Housing

Monitoring Officer/S.151 Officer comments

Monitoring Officer:  

Under the scheme introduced in 2012 investment in new affordable housing can be made by the Council itself or through grant funding registered providers. 

This decision proposes the funding of several developments by Watford Community Housing Trust.

Officers should ensure that each site going forward is covered by the grant agreement (referred to in para 8.2 below) to ensure that the Council’s position is protected and enable it to meet audit requirements.

S.151 Officer:

No further comments to add to the report.

Advice

Cllr Griffiths introduced the report, which comes for consideration every year and handed over to D Barrett to provide overview detail.

D Barrett advised that the report is split down into three main parts.  The first of which is give update on the current approved programme and where we are at with existing schemes.  It contains a request to approve an increase on the Kylna Court budget to cover events post Grenfell; cladding and sprinklers design, and it is proposed that this is spread over the existing new build budgets.

The second part deals with the next wave of schemes we would like to deliver as a Council.  Previously set out sites have been identified and Housing are now seeking approval for a budget to develop those to planning approval status.

The last part covers ‘1 for 1 right to buy grant funding’ and the grant fund to Watford Community Housing Trust. In addition previously approved funding which has now been withdrawn due to circumstance with Hastoe &Thrive homes is highlighted.

Cllr Anderson expressed concerns regarding the development within his ward in Conniston Road in Kings Langley, which he was not aware of until he saw the report.  He was supportive of the report and the principals it contains; though would say that in relation to that specific site, there is no way that anyone will get 8-10 properties on that land. He pointed out that it also includes an electrical substation which hasn’t been shown on the map. In his opinion 6 would be the maximum you might get on the site and that might affect the viability of the scheme. D Barrett advised that it is Council owned land and we would need to carry out due diligence on the site. He is aware that there are some constraints; i.e trees and a substation.  At this point in time 8-10 homes are proposed but it could be less.  The report requests approval to move to the next stage to develop the site and work with our colleagues in planning to get a viable scheme.

The Chair referred to page 545, Bulbourne & Tring Rural site, and pointed out to avoid any confusion that in the 2^nd paragraph it refers to the site being owned by Tring Parish Council.  There is a Tring Rural Parish Council, but this site is owned by Tring Town Council. 

Cllr Tindall advised that on paper, the site is owned by Buckinghamshire County Council.  The Chair advised that he went back to Tring Town Council when this was previously raised and clarified that they are the owners and are selling us something that they do actually own.

Cllr Tindall referred to the loan to Watford and the expenditure of the £3m; he suggested that that it had to be rushed through because we were coming up against the deadline for the 3 permitted years. , D Barrett advised that is not quite correct.  The reason it needed to come to Cabinet quickly is because the Garage sites that Dacorum is selling is intrinsically linked with the purchase of these sites.  We are keen to get the Capital receipt for selling the garage sites in this financial year, and the bonus is that we are then also able to grant fund some money to be able to purchase them.

Cllr Tindall sought assurance that it is not the case that someone has messed up and we are coming to the end of 3 years and this is rushed through to make sure we didn’t put the money back to the government, as that was actually mentioned in one of the documents. E Brooks responded that is a risk with all the 1 for 1 schemes, but not with this particular amount of money. It is an ongoing risk for the Council that, once we have accepted it, if we don’t use the receipt within the three years we would have to pay interest.

Cllr Marshall asked, are Ward Councillors advised of impending developments in their ward, as her impression from her colleague is that it has been overlooked this time.  It is essential that all Councillors are kept up to date on what is happening.

Cllr Marshall moved on to Page 546, and sought clarification on the number of garage sites covered in paragraphs 7.10 & 7.11. 7.10. are these in addition to the 6 sites mentioned in paragraphs 8 onwards? D Barrett advised that the 3 garage sites that are referred to have not been selected yet, due diligence is underway on sites that are in the programme for sale and we will bring those to committee once we have looked at the sites that are up for sale and select the ones that are the best for homes.  They are in addition to those mentioned in the right to buy and replacement scheme.

Cllr Marshall requested that when those 3 sites are selected the Ward Councillors are advised.  D Barrett confirmed that would be done. Cllr Griffiths advised that consultation only happens after the sites have been sold, as part of the development?  Until the site is identified, you cannot have a consultation on something that might not happen. Cllr Marshall advised she was thinking more that the Ward Councillor is informed.  She felt for Members that it is very embarrassing to find out that a decision has been made to sell that block down the road when you know nothing about it. Cllr Anderson added that when the Council first adopted the garages scheme it was explicitly said that Ward Councillors would be advised the moment a site was chosen, and that is something he hopes would continue to happen.

S Marshall added that there has been some occurrences recently on garage sites where there has been a bit of a breakdown in communication and that has been reviewed and Ward Members will be advised where there are sites for disposal and the implications, particularly when members of the community get letters advising them they have to quit. 

Cllr Harden referred to the Wood View site, which is not in his Ward, but which he has had correspondence with officers on.  He observed that that he had found it a bit of an issue to identity which officer it was that should be able to give accurate information. E Brooks clarified, with regard to the disposal of garage site, D Barrett’s involvement is to assist bringing Housing Associations to the table who maybe should bid for a grant.  The actual disposal takes place from the Estates Team.

E Brooks recognised there is a need to ensure consistent notification to Ward Councillors and apologised if that has not been the case.

Recommendation agreed by Members.

Voting

None.