Agenda item

Chatsworth Gardens and Clusters of Empty Homes Funding

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Leytham & Hanson)

 

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

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 indicates a £370K contingency balance to mitigate the financial risks.

 

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.

 

 

 

Option 1 disposal of all properties with sales receipts covering disposal fees was discounted due to member’s consistent positive support for finding a positive solution to Chatsworth Gardens. This option presented considerable risk in every way other than financial. This option declined a HCA sponsored rescue package of £1.9M CEHF and might damage future council HCA resource bids and partnership working. 

 

Option 3 presented the lowest delivery risk and brought maximum benefits through the realisation of a comprehensive scheme. However, the additional cost to the Council could not be implemented within the existing MTFS and negates the opportunity to secure further external resources to complete the scheme.

.

Option 2 was the affordable route to achieve a viable outcome. It enabled full acceptance of the £1.9M HCA funding offer. Due to cost and funding constraints it left out elements of Regent Road but officers considered the position to be manageable and would continue to work with the HCA to secure a solution. Option 2 was therefore the preferred option as the best and most affordable route forward identified for the project since it stalled in 2008.

  

It was noted that engagement of interest from private developers for refurbishment would be challenging. The Council would be taking on a substantial refurbishment element if positive intervention was to be successfully realised and private investment encouraged. The preferred option brought contingent risks associated with construction, refurbishment, project management and end sales. These risks would fall to a great extent on the Council. However, the preferred Option 2 did allow for a significant contingency balance of £370K which could either meet unforeseen cost increases or lower sales values or even contribute towards the cost of the second Regent Road terrace.

 

However the Council had recent experience of refurbishment on Bold Street where its refurbished properties were sold successfully on the open market. The cost structure and assumptions would also be reviewed through the Council’s project management approval systems.

 

The preferred Option 2 enabled the Council to maximise an external funding opportunity to deliver on a long standing but stalled regeneration project. The CEHF proposal remained true to the original objectives of the Chatsworth Gardens project and the West End Masterplan in removing unsustainable HMO accommodation and replacing with family housing and a wider range of sustainable housing tenure. The proposal £1.9M funding offer would also achieve outcomes for the Council’s priority to tackle empty homes in the wider West End area.

 

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

 

“(1)      That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That Option 2 be approved and the Head of Regeneration and Planning be authorised to accept the £1.9M Clusters of Empty Homes Funding and deliver the Chatsworth Gardens project through the approach as set out.

 

(2)        That the Head of Resources be authorised to update the Capital Programme and Revenue Budget accordingly to allow progression of the project under (1) above.

 

(3)        That the Head of Resources investigate the viability of finance schemes that might assist prospective home buyers in the Chatsworth Gardens area, through means such as the lend a hand scheme or other deposit guarantee schemes and government initiatives, for consideration as part of future years’ budgets.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Regeneration and Planning

Head of Resources

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

In January 2011 Council resolved that housing regeneration be included as a corporate priority and this was reaffirmed in the 2012-2015 Corporate Plan.  The Chatsworth Gardens Project was a key element of the West End Masterplan and was ranked as a high priority by Cabinet as part of review and refresh exercise carried out on the Masterplan in 2009. Empty property reuse was a significant element of providing for the District’s housing needs and this project would help reduce homelessness, correct housing supply imbalances and help stabilise a transient community. 

 

Supporting documents: