Agenda item

This report provides an update on the challenges that have arisen in the delivery of existing regeneration schemes, and how the Council have learned lessons to apply to the future. It looks at the framework of the Council’s eight growth areas and schemes within it and considers the principal challenges faced in scheme delivery over recent years.

Councillor Tatler (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth) was invited to introduce a report providing an outline and update on delivery of the Regeneration programme across Brent, including the challenges that had arisen over recent years in terms of the delivery of existing schemes and lessons learnt, focussed around the framework of the Council’s eight growth areas and schemes within them.  In presenting the report, Councillor Tatler highlighted the wide scope of regeneration activity across Brent and Council’s role in setting the overall policy framework, context, capital programme and direction for growth, as part of the Local Plan with delivery subject to the necessary site assembly and construction procurement arrangements.  The report had been focussed on a high-level approach towards delivery of the programme, with members advised that the Local Plan was supplemented by additional guidance in relation to issues such as affordable workspace, s106 obligations, sustainability and amenity space as well as related housing targets for each growth area supplemented by securing the necessary range of supporting grant funding.

In highlighting the overview of existing regeneration schemes across each growth area, including delivery against local plan targets for new homes, the Committee’s attention was also drawn to the challenging financial and economic circumstances impacting on the ongoing viability of the programme, which members were advised also provided important context to the update and included issues relating to build cost inflation, interest rates, labour and construction skills costs and shortages, affordable housing grant rates, the overall funding landscape and constraints alongside the need for policy consistency from government.  The position had been further impacted by additional requirements in relation to planning and building legislation and safety requirements and despite Brent being recognised as one of the largest areas for delivery of housing provision across London and seeking to learn and innovate in terms of its approach towards regeneration, these challenges had meant some schemes would not be able to proceed until financial viability improved.

Following on from presentation of the report, the Chair then invited Pete Firmin (representing local residents within the South Kilburn area) to address the Committee on progress with delivery of the estate regeneration programme in that area.  Having thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak, Mr Firmin advised that the update provided for the Committee was not felt to have addressed the current issues facing delivery of the programme within South Kilburn.  Citing the original Masterplan adopted in 2017 for redevelopment of the South Kilburn Growth Area he raised concerns that the current development was providing less than 50% social housing, which was outside of the original target set and which it was noted had the potential, given concerns around viability, to be reduced further to 20%-30% social housing provision, which it was felt would make meeting the commitment to existing residents more difficult to achieve.  In addition, concerns were also highlighted in relation to build quality given problems reported with cladding, mould and heating with specific reference made to Swift Court and the lack of meaningful communication with residents on delays in project delivery such as those involving the Carlton Boulevard development.

Councillor Conneely (as Chair) thanked Mr Firmin for his contribution and attendance at the meeting advising that the issues raised would be picked up as part of the Committee’s review of the update provided.  With no further questions from members, the Committee then moved on to consider the update provided by Councillor Tatler on regeneration activity with the following comments and issues discussed.

·             Whilst recognising the high-level nature of the overview provided concerns were expressed at the limited detail provided relating to progress on the delivery of specific schemes and lessons learnt in relation to the delivery of individual schemes.  In noting the case examples provided within Appendix 1 of the report relating to a selection of schemes, members advised they were also keen to explore the timescales for delivery and wider viability issues impacting each scheme.  Further detail was also requested on the reference, within the lessons learnt section of the update report, to some schemes not being able to proceed until financial viability had improved and what impact it was felt this would have on the capacity to deliver the Council’s current regeneration and housing targets and strategy.

In response, Councillor Tatler felt it important to highlight the difficulties being experienced given the nature of the financial viability challenges identified not only in Brent but across the sector as a whole.  Whilst committed to continue delivery against the affordable housing targets in Brent, she confirmed that this had meant some schemes had needed to be paused or reassessed involving consideration being given to the inclusion of different forms of tenure and affordable housing products and a wider range of development opportunities in order to maximise viability on schemes moving forward.  Given the scale of the housing crisis it was no longer felt possible to address the challenges identified purely through the provision of social housing, with a wider approach required across all parts of the housing sector and more stability in terms of the governments overall policy framework. In terms of the specific reference to the South Kilburn Promise, confirmation was provided of the commitment towards the delivery of properties at affordable social rent, with over 60% of the programme having been completed, as well delivery of the Medical Centre, Carlton Boulevard scheme and green spaces.  In response to a query regarding the figure of 44% included within the appendix of the report for affordable social rent, clarification was provided this only related to the Hereford & Exeter scheme. Reference was also made to specific site assembly and viability issues impacting on delivery of the Wembley Housing Zone scheme which had required a need for further agreement with the GLA on the grant funding provision under the Building Council Homes for London programme. 

·             Following on, the Chair advised that the Committee felt it would be useful if further details could be provided on the schemes which had been paused and those at risk due to the current viability assessment process, with Councillor Tatler explaining that the main schemes over which the Council had direct responsibility and control were the South Kilburn development and Wembley Housing Zone.  As schemes within other growth areas involved land not directly owned by the Council these would be more difficult to provide status updates on.  In terms of delivery of the New Council Homes Programme, the Committee were advised this fell under Councillor Knight’s remit as Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Reform with a report having recently been provided for Cabinet updating on delivery of that programme.

·             In response to further clarification being sought on the breakdown of units being provided within the South Kilburn development at affordable rents, Councillor Tatler confirmed that the new units were all being provided at affordable social rent levels which Councillor Georgiou (as the member who raised the query) advised he would seek further detail to clarify following the meeting.

·             Further details were sought on the potential impact the proposal put forward by the Mayor for London to create a publicly owned Development Corporation may have in terms of ongoing delivery of the Council’s regeneration programme.  In response, Councillor Tatler advised that whilst likely to have more benefit for boroughs with smaller scale development programmes anything that was likely to enhance the approach towards delivery on a London wide basis and reduce costs was welcomed, as long as Brent’s needs were listened to, and Brent could meaningfully contribute.

·             Whilst noting the examples of existing regeneration schemes provided within Appendix 1 of the report the Committee highlighted the limited details provided on individual scheme delivery highlighting, as an example, that the details provided on the Hereford & Exeter scheme within the South Kilburn development accounted for 250 out of a total of 2000 homes to be delivered under the overall South Kilburn growth area scheme.  The Committee therefore requested that as part of their ongoing review further detailed breakdowns on individual scheme delivery and progress be provided.  In response, Councillor Tatler felt it important to remind the Committee of the high-level nature of the update provided, with further details available, as and when specifically requested on individual schemes.

·             Moving on, details were then sought as to whether (given the current economic climate) any alternative funding models had been considered outside of private developer contributions especially for schemes with potential viability issues in order to avoid compromising on the level of affordable housing and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liability within individual schemes.  In response, Councillor Tatler advised that alternative models of funding had been explored with the Council constantly looking to identify innovative solutions given the current economic pressures and challenges identified in order to ensure schemes remained viable and avoided the need for any compromise in terms of delivery and the investment return.  Highlighting the Council’s strong record in the generation and collection of CIL receipts, their importance in contributing towards wider community infrastructure projects across the borough as well as the Mayor of London’s strategic responsibilities (including transport and infrastructure commitments) was also recognised as key requirements in delivery of the regeneration programme.

·             Following on from the previous point, clarification was also sought on any benchmarking undertaken with other local authorities regarding the approach towards funding and viability impacting on the delivery of schemes, recognising that the issues were not unique to Brent and being experienced on a pan London basis.  Whilst recognising the value of collaborative working and outlining the work being undertaken between the housing, regeneration and planning teams across the Council and also with other local authorities through organisations such as the West London Alliance and the Deputy Mayor for London, Councillor Tatler also felt it important to highlight the progressive and ambitious nature of the regeneration programme within Brent, which the Council remained keen to ensure they retained responsibility for delivery on at the same time as working to develop opportunities (such as the West London Orbital route) in partnership with other authorities and partners.

·             Clarification was also provided on the position regarding the CIL contribution generated through the Hereford & Exeter Scheme within South Kilburn with members advised of the ongoing viability challenges affecting the scheme.  It was noted these included the requirement to include a second staircase in blocks over seven floors in height which had also increased pressures in relation to construction and design costs impacting on viability and also the number of housing units that could be included within a scheme.  It was confirmed that work was ongoing with developers in relation to individual schemes to see whether proposals such as building higher (where appropriate) may be able to improve viability.

·             Continuing on the theme of funding and viability, a query was raised in relation to the transparency of the commercial agreements and arrangements being entered into with developers, with particular reference to social value requirements.  In terms of the planning application process, officers confirmed that details of the viability assessments supporting each application presented to Planning Committee were included within reports, although these details would need to exclude any information classified as commercial sensitive.  Whilst keen to maximise the potential to deliver Affordable Housing and social value within each scheme, officers highlighted the balance needing to be achieved in order to ensure the largest number of developments were able to progress and remain viable in the current economic climate with Brent felt to have one of the most transparent processes in terms of the viability assessments undertaken.

In response to examples provided of the original proportion of affordable housing proposed within schemes being reduced as schemes were progressed and to the increasing pressure on delivery targets, Councillor Tatler assured members of the Council’s ongoing commitment towards its overall target for the delivery of affordable housing across the borough.  In outlining the review process, officers advised that the initial requirements for delivery of affordable social housing within individual schemes would be included with the relevant s106 agreement with developments also subject to a review mechanism designed to secure the maximum possible contributions towards affordable housing as schemes were progressed, in order to recognise any change in position regarding their viability.  Given the challenging nature of the current economic climate there had been a need, in some cases, for developers to reevaluate the viability of individual schemes and seek changes as a result in the proportion of affordable social housing included to enable the scheme to progress.  In these circumstances there would be a need to seek approval to any change in the original permission granted.

·             Referring to the requirements in relation to the time limited nature of grant funding being provided through the GLA Affordable Homes Programme and delays in delivery of schemes being created by the wider macro-economic and viability challenges identified, details were requested on a breakdown of individual schemes where the grant funding requirement had been impacted as a result of any delay in delivery.  Given the detail required, Councillor Tatler advised this information would need to be provided following the meeting.

·             Given the issues highlighted, the Committee advised they were also keen to explore whether there was need to reconsider the overall approach identified towards strategic regeneration in Brent with a focus, as an example on refurbishment rather than replacement across the growth areas identified.  In response, Councillor Tatler felt the approach outlined in the report still remained viable highlighting that many of the schemes involved Infill or new developments rather than replacement of existing stock.

·             Referring to section 3.4.1 of the accompanying report circulated with the agenda, members, whilst noting the breakdown of affordable housing units provided, felt it was difficult to assess delivery without the provision of further supporting benchmarking and contextual information including the number of properties being delivered as social housing against the targets and how that compared with other local authorities.  In response the Committee were advised that it was Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security) that would be best placed to advise on specific delivery against housing targets with the overall target in Brent based on requirements within the London and Brent’s own Local Plan which related not only to social housing, but also a wide range of other tenures making it more difficult to benchmark against.

Following on from this issue, members highlighted a need for what they felt was a more joined up approach between the relevant lead member portfolios in the presentation of detail to the Committee around the approach towards regeneration and delivery of housing targets.  In addressing these concerns, Councillor Tatler clarified the distinction between both the Regeneration, Planning and Growth and Housing portfolios and high level of joined up working at both a policy, planning and operational delivery level between both lead Cabinet Members alongside the regeneration, housing delivery and planning teams.

·             Continuing the focus on delivery of Affordable Housing targets, members advised they would be keen to seek a further breakdown of the figures in section 3.4.1 of the report in terms of targets and delivery against the different recognised sub sets of Affordable Housing across the borough which Councillor Tatler advised it would be possible to provide based on annual returns the local authority was required to produce.

·             The Committee then moved on to focus on the effectiveness of regeneration schemes as a whole and impact more widely in terms of large-scale developments within growth areas working for local residents and communities and providing the necessary supporting infrastructure.  In confirming that she remained proud of the Council’s record in terms of the delivery of regeneration across the borough, Councillor Tatler highlighted a number of the wider associated benefits not only in terms of supporting infrastructure but also the creation of employment, skills and training opportunities.  At the same time, however the need was recognised to ensure local residents were better aware and more fully engaged in the development of these initiatives and opportunities e.g. through the use of Resident Panels and other mechanisms such as the Church End Community Engagement project to capture views locally.  In responding to concerns which it was reported had been expressed by local residents regarding delivery of associated infrastructure improvements, particularly in the Alperton and South Kilburn areas, relating to transport, the delivery and maintenance of public realm and health facilities Councillor Tatler highlighted that whilst the delivery of associated infrastructure was secured through planning and the relevant s106 and CIL agreements this would also rely on the relevant partners such as health and TfL.  In terms of maintenance, whilst providing the necessary capital funding to deliver the improvements identified revenue funding support would also be required to support ongoing maintenance which remained an issue given the limited funding support being provided for the public sector as a result of the impact of the government’s programme of austerity.  In recognising the issues highlighted, the Committee identified what they felt was the need to explore in more detail the lessons learnt through the delivery of large-scale developments and management of associated infrastructure in order to inform future developments.  In seeking to assure members, Councillor Tatler advised these were issues already being considered alongside wider challenges such as the impact of the climate emergency and current working patterns as part of a process of ongoing evaluation which also included the approach towards design, construction and funding of individual schemes, the management of estates and delivery of relevant employment and training opportunities.

·             As part of the discussions details were also sought on the limited use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) to support site assembly and also on the impact of marketing being undertaken by local developers for new build developments given the potential concerns in relation to the impact in driving up property prices and rents.  Whilst highlighting that the marketing of private developments was not something the Council had direct control over and would not have any impact on level of social housing being delivered, as this was secured through separate planning agreements, Councillor Tatler took the opportunity to highlight the ongoing work with developers to focus on the delivery of other elements of regeneration activity such as job and employment opportunities with the main influence on the delivery of numbers of affordable housing units remaining the viability issues currently impacting on delivery of individual schemes rather than the nature of different tenures included.

In terms of CPOs Councillor Tatler highlighted the complex and lengthy nature of the process, which was why they had often only been used as a last resort for large scale development schemes and the need identified to streamline the process in order to make it more effective.

·             In terms of the wider impact of development across the private rented sector at also increasing property value and rents, Councillor Tatler felt it important to recognise the contribution made by private developments in terms enhancing the supply of housing across the borough with the key issue remaining the need to address the pressures in supply and demand as a means of addressing affordability alongside the need to tackle inflation and impact on the cost of living and wages etc.  Reflecting on the issues raised, members also highlighted a need to ensure the type of housing being provided represented identified demand.

·             Reference was then made to the inclusion of community space and facilities within regeneration schemes including not only those on land owned by the Council but also in private schemes secured through planning agreement with members keen to encourage (wherever possible) that additional community space was incorporated into current and future regeneration plans.  In terms of specific concerns relating to the Yellow Community facility in Wembley Park, members were advised that whilst the site was not owned by the Council alternative community space provision was due to provided within the site development.

·             As a further issue, members welcomed the reference made to Affordable Workspace and sought details on the type of land use involved and consideration being given to the different types of workspaces required.  In terms of the different types of employment space being secured, members were advised this would reflect the nature of the different employment sectors including the predominance of small and medium-term businesses supported through Town Centre Managers across the borough and also efforts made to encourage the arts and creative sector and to encourage the intensification of use in recognised industrial sites such as Park Royal.

·             The opportunity was also taken to highlight issues relating to build quality not only in terms of schemes being delivered directly through the Council but also through private developers and how it would be possible to deliver the highest standards along with clear accountability for maintenance including Registered Providers.  In recognising the importance of this issue, Councillor Tatler highlighted the work already being undertaken by Councillor Knight (under her housing remit) in seeking to work with Registered Providers and hold them to account alongside the work being undertaken through the Development Control and Building Enforcement Teams to secure a high standard of design and build quality through the planning process supported through the Local Plan and SPD on Sustainable Design.  In terms of further action, the Committee was advised that any further ideas or proposals in order to support build quality would be welcome.

In closing the discussion, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions and in highlighting the process as the start of the discussion outlined the wide ranging nature of the issues to be covered in relation to individual scheme delivery, lessons learnt and challenges in relation to viability.  In view of the issues highlighted during the discussion the actions agreed as an initial outcome of the scrutiny process were AGREED as follows:

Recommendations to the Executive

(1)    Working alongside the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Councils to develop a unified London building standard with stricter quality measures than required by current legislation and regulations.

(2)    To call on London Councils to establish a unified agreement across London boroughs seeking a consistent methodology for assessing affordable housing.

(3)    Lobby the next government to increase the obligation on the private sector to deliver more affordable homes

Suggestions for Improvement to Council Departments

(1)        To incorporate plans for additional community spaces into current and future Council regeneration projects.

(2)        Where appropriate, and consistent with the adopted Local Plan, to negotiate for additional community space within private developments in the borough.? 

(3)        To identify opportunities for implementing additional mechanismsthat ensure private developers meet high quality standards (as set out in the adopted Local Plan and associated SPD Design Guidance) and aremore accountable to both residents and the Council.

(4)        To provide a member briefing session on viability assessments, covering key topics such as affordable housing and social value.

(5)        To review the viability assessment criteria for council-owned housing schemes to include consideration of the Council’s reduced housing benefit costs (e.g. by not accruing Housing Subsidy Loss) as a result of residents being moved from temporary accommodation into permanent social housing accommodation.

Information Requests

(1)        To provide a breakdown of the amount of affordable housing units (by housing product type) delivered since 2020/21.

(2)    To provide further detail on the Council’s affordable housing targets (broken down by affordable housing product type).?

(3)    To provide further detail (including examples) of where site assembly has presented challenges for the Council, and if possible, how much costs have been incurred over the last 10 years, as a result of these challenges.?