Issue - meetings

Chatsworth Gardens and Clusters of Empty Homes

 

 

Meeting: 04/12/2012 - Cabinet (Item 82)

82 Chatsworth Gardens and Clusters of Empty Homes Funding pdf icon PDF 126 KB

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Leytham & Hanson)

 

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hanson & Leytham)

 

Mr Stephen Swithin, who had registered to speak on this item in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure and Cabinet procedure Rule 2.7, spoke in support of the regeneration proposals.

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Planning to seek approval to deliver a viable solution to the stalled Chatsworth Gardens project through the acceptance of the Clusters of Empty Homes Funding offer of £1.9M.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

Option 1: Do Nothing and reject £1.9M CEHF and withdraw from project

Option 2: Accept £1.9M CEHF to deliver Chatsworth Gardens initially bar one Regent Road terrace

Option 3: Accept £1.9M CEHF and request Council funds resources to complete full Chatsworth Gardens scheme

Advantages

Avoids project delivery risks.

No further direct capital cost to the council.

Removes uncertainty.

Provides a positive and viable solution to Chatsworth Gardens.

Utilises existing regeneration funding and poses no further budget costs on the council.

Brings empty homes back into use.

Clearly sets out council’s commitment to local residents and owners in the area.

Demonstrates delivery to HCA boosting chances for future funding.

Provides a comprehensive and positive solution to Chatsworth Gardens.

Brings empty homes back into use.

Clearly sets out council’s commitment to local residents and owners in the area.

Demonstrates delivery to HCA boosting chances for future funding.

 

Disadvantages

Risk of exacerbating local housing market failure.

Disposal may take several years to realise.

Ongoing management costs and staff resources.

Adverse impacts likely to be caused resulting in negative regeneration effect.

Does not allow take up of Clusters of Empty Homes Funding opportunity.

Ideally requires co-operation from owner occupiers & landlords to avoid costly legal action.

Uncertainty of delivery remains for the Regent Road terrace in the Eastern block.

 

The budget required could not be implemented within the existing MTFS. The challenging and uncertain financial prospects mean that it is difficult to see this position improving.

Ideally requires co-operation from owner occupiers & landlords to avoid costly legal action. Reduces opportunity for external funding.

Risks

This was calculated as the highest overall ‘all risk.’

The potential impact of this approach is a high negative regeneration effect.

There are reputational risks to the council and HCA being seen to ‘pull out’ of the project and the impact on West End. But in financial risk terms withdrawal is the least risky option.

Reputational risk with the HCA would make future bids less credible.

Long sales period presents health and safety risk from dilapidations.

Involves the council taking the delivery risks on a capital housing development project.

The council will face a sales risk on the direct refurbishment properties that needs to be mitigated by some form of mortgage assistance scheme.

Limited control over private sector match required to access part of HCA funding.

Build costs and sales date/value can adversely impact project. However the appraisal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82