Agenda item

Resolved: that the progress on the delivery of the new homes programme be welcomed. It was agreed that all Councillors should receive a copy of the report.

Jeff Endean (Housing Strategy and Programmes Manager) and Rachel George (Housing Regeneration and Projects Manager) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• The report provided an update on the Councils programme to develop 500 new homes in the borough by 2018.
• There had been a number of starts on new affordable homes in the borough, bringing the total to 1987.
• Details were provided of each of the key sites for immediate development.
• An update was also provided on the development at Campshill Road, which had stalled.
• The development agreement with L&Q for the Excalibur estate regeneration had been signed with phases 1 and 2 now underway. Decants for other sites were also progressing.
• There was an acknowledged discrepancy between the figures in the report and the planning application for the development site in Deptford. However, the higher quoted number of affordable units would be delivered. This was because the Council had a legal agreement in place with the developers to provide higher numbers of affordable homes than could be secured through the Planning process.
• Across both sites the developers were to provide 35% affordable housing
• The development of the Eliot Bank site had been slightly slower than anticipated. It was planned that there would be a consultation in May or June with a planning application in July. Officers believed that a developable scheme was still possible.
• A new rent model had been designed for the Besson Street housing development. The proposal had 35% affordable housing, which was a discounted market rent product.
• Then model used the London Living Wage income for two people and projected the cost of spending 1/3 of that income on housing.
• Market testing had been carried out on the model, which had demonstrated that it was robust.
• The timing for the delivery of the scheme was ambitious and may be subject to change.

Jeff Endean, Genevieve Macklin, Rachel George and Kevin Sheehan responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

• The size of the units being planned for the Besson Street development was suitable for the tenure that was being built.
• Living wage projections took into account a range of typical living costs, with some contingency.
• In some Built to Rent schemes, childcare provision had been provided if it was recognised that there was a demand.
•  A fully rented scheme of this kind could help to develop a new kind of sustainable option for families.
• Some families in the private rental sector were paying up to 50% of their disposal income on rental.
• The model was based on low incomes for two earners in a family – but officers expected that the allocations would be through meeting criteria which would include income bands, so homes could be accessible to one person on a median income. The example discussed at the Committee was that of a primary school teacher.
• The discounted rent properties would be prioritised for people with a connection to Lewisham. This meant they had either to live or work in the borough.
• In relation to progress on the Church Grove self-build scheme, the organisation that would be developing the new homes was preparing to invite stakeholders to its ballot event.
• People entering into the ballot were currently living in social housing but the delivery of the project would free up homes for people on the waiting list.
• The Lewisham homes acquisition programme was ahead of target: all of the homes being acquired were in Lewisham.

Members highlighted the positive improvements that had been noted at Family Mosaic, particularly in relation to their customer service offer.

The Committee acknowledged a vote of thanks to officers for their hard work on the estate regeneration programme, with special mention of Excalibur phases 1&2.