Affordable Housing Task Group Report's recommendations to be considered by Brent Cabinet on Monday

A report to Monday's Cabinet will be of much interest to local people on the housing waiting list as well as those struggling with expensive but poor private rented housing. Cabinet will, rather belatedly  consider the report from the Affordable Housing Scrutiny Task Group that went to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee in January.

Cabinet is asked to:

a.Note the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s endorsement of the report, and its recommendations

b.Note and consider the committee’s additional proposal: that plans for new housing developments take into account the known needs of people with disabilities awaiting housing provision.

 Recommendations (Link to report)

 

Affordable housing targets and viability 

1.     In the new Local Plan for Brent the strategic target of 50 per cent for affordable housing in new developments should be retained, with an expected tenure split of 70 per cent social rent / London Affordable Rent to 30 per cent intermediate affordable housing. 

2.    Brent Council should adopt the Mayor of London’s 35 per cent “fast-track” threshold approach to viability (with 50 per cent on publicly owned land and for industrial sites). Through this the council would forgo the requirement for a financial viability assessment and/or a late stage viability review in the event that a developer guarantees delivery of the requisite percentage of affordable housing across the entire development (with the 70 per cent social rent / London Affordable Rent to 30 per cent intermediate tenure split applicable). The policy should be subject to review. 

3.    To help meet the need for larger affordable homes in the borough, Brent should continue to require a minimum of 25 per cent of new affordable rented homes to be three bedrooms or larger, accommodating at least a household of six (2 people per bedroom). However, this approach must be combined with a clear and effective under- occupation strategy, enabling and incentivising down-sizing in order to release more existing larger homes for re-let. 

4.    The council should continue to use the “Existing Use Value Plus” (EUV+) method for determining benchmark land values. Any other uplift in value should be captured for the public. 

Corporate approach to affordable housing delivery 

5.    Future council policy with regard to the setting of rents for affordable housing should continue to be based on the traditional social rented model (like the mayor’s London Affordable Rent model) and should not be linked to volatile and irrational market rents rather than incomes. 

6.    Brent Council should create a cross-departmental Board of officers, reporting directly into the Corporate Management Team (CMT), to ensure a ‘one council’, joined-up, sustainable approach to the delivery of Affordable Housing. The board should have high level responsibility for programme management and monitoring of an Affordable Housing Action Plan and associated suite of Key Performance Indicators. The Board should include senior officers from Brent’s Planning, Housing, Regeneration, Property, Finance and Legal teams. 

7.     Brent should consider adopting a land assembly, master planner approach, working with key partners and designating Land Assembly Zones in its Local Plan. Where attempts to encourage and incentivise voluntary land assembly do not succeed, Brent should commit to extend its use of compulsory purchase powers in these zones, where the law allows. 

8.    Brent Council should maximise resources available through the mayor’s fund, RTB receipts and borrowing to support direct delivery within its own capital development programme with a primary focus on rented homes at social rent levels and on larger homes (3 bedrooms or larger). 

9.    Brent must adopt a clear policy on access to shared ownership in the borough, making the product accessible to people on incomes that are as low as possible and ensuring the policy is designed to enable keyworkers to take advantage of it. 

10. All new homes in Brent should be marketed locally first, as per the Mayor of London’s planned “first dibs” policy. Brent should investigate how such a requirement could be implemented. 

11.  Brent Council should explore all the options highlighted in this report for innovative partnering arrangements and delivery models with Registered Providers. 

Estate regeneration

12.Future estate regeneration projects in Brent should use the South Kilburn Regeneration Programme as a model of good practice and make a clear commitment to ensuring there is no loss (in quantum terms) of social rented affordable housing and to resident ballots. 

Land owned by public authorities  

 13. Brent should actively promote partnership working on publicly owned land with other public bodies, as promoted by the Naylor Review (One Public Estate), e.g. Network Rail/TfL sites such as potential over station and over rail land developments, as part of the Local Plan. 

Industrial/employment sites

14. Brent must adopt a proactive approach to identifying opportunities where surplus commercial space, underused retail sites and car parks may have significant potential for housing development, both strategic industrial land sites and smaller commercial land sites, and in particular where sites have potential for mixed-use developments.

Small sites

15. The council and its agents should proactively explore partnerships with developers and RPs on small sites to maximise the amount of affordable housing across the borough. Brent should identify potential opportunities and funding mechanisms for increasing development of small sites, including any further opportunities for infill development. It should be prepared to invest the necessary resources. 

16. Developers of small sites with capacity for 10 or fewer units should be expected to pay a commuted sum, wherever possible, based on a consistent tariff, to Brent as a contribution to the fund for affordable housing to be built elsewhere in the borough. All affordable housing in small developments should be included in Brent’s periodic performance stats. 

Community led housing

17.Brent should investigate and promote opportunities for community led housing projects, such as “Community Land Trusts” and “Self-Build” projects, which will protect homes and assets at affordable levels in line with local incomes for future generations. 

18. Brent should explore setting up of a CLT model on publicly owned land and encourage developers to do the same.

--> -->

Brent Council abolishes fly-tipping

Mattresses on the corner of Chapter Road and Deacon Road earlier this week

The Brent Council Cabinet last night agreed to change the term 'fly-tipping' to 'illegal rubbish dumping' . Arguing for the change Cllr Sam Stopp, who chaired the Scrutiny Committeee Task Group on fly-tipping, said that many people did not understand the term 'fly-tipping' and in a borough with many people who were not fluent in English it was important that the terminology should be understand - he was not expecting other London boroughs to adopt the usage.

The emphasis on 'illegal' was welcomed by other Cabinet members. Other recommendations adopted included appointing 'Community Guardians' who would tackle illegal dumping in their areas and have a profile on the Council's web page, a Brent Against Rubbish Dumping Charter which businesses, landlords, estate and letting agents and schools would be encouraged to sign up to and display publicly, and the soft relaunch of the Cleaner Brent App (see side panel).

There was a particular emphasis on co-operation from landlords and Cllr Margaret McLennan said she would like to see the Landlord Licensing Scheme, presently operating in three wards, extended to the whole of Brent.

Cllr Stopp said 80% of his case work was illegal rubbish dumping but he also claimed that Brent wasn't the worse borough in London as sometimes portrayed as it came about half-way in the London Boroughs league table.

Derivation of the term fly-tipping

On the fly meant to move or do something in a hurry. so tipping on the fly, so you don't get caught.

What's behind the offer of 'half price' school uniforms by free school?

The Kilburn Times this week LINK  publishes an article about a new primary free school, Kilburn Grange,  offering half prices uniforms to pupils entiled to free school meals.  The uniforms are complete with an old-fashioned 1950s style blazer.

Despite the positive gloss by the school it appears that this is a possibly desperate gambit because the Reception classes due to start in September 2015 are not yet full.  Given the shortage of primary places in the borough this is quite unusual. The closing date for this round of applications is today - Friday June 26th.

Another aspect of the 'offer' is that the school receives the pupil premium for chldren entitled to free school meals so in terms of accounting that means the pupil premium subsideses the school uniform discount. Currently the pupil premium is worth £1,300 per child.

Whether this is the best use of the pupil premium, designed to improve the educational opportunities and attainment of poorer children in order to 'close the gap' with better off children, is arguable.

A Scrutiny Committee Task Group recently published a report on good practice in Brent on the use of the pupil premium. LINK

They stated: 

The task group found that Brent schools are already very innovative and creative with their interventions on closing the attainment gap. There were wonderful examples of Brent secondary and primary schools trying unconventional interventions and being able to show impact and improved outcomes for children. 

This diagram shows the range of uses of the  pupil premium in Brent primary schools.

Subsidising a uniform is about easing access to a school with an expensive school uniform  school rather than spending it on teaching and other activities once the child is at school in order to close the gap in attainment.

Brent gears up to register more voters

Daily Mirror NOVOTENOVOICE Campaign 2010

Cllr Neal Nerva presented the report of the Task Group on Electoral Engagement at the Scrutiny Committee this week. LINK The report deals both with the repercussions of Individual Electoral Registration which replaces registration by head of household and the wider issues of lack of  engagement by different communities in the democratic process of registering and voting.

Individual regestration will not impact on the 2015 General Election but will do so at subsequent elections.

The Task Group assessed the extent of registration by matching information from the Department of Work and Pensions with data on the Electoral Register. The highest match was Kenton ward  at 79% and the lowest 56% in Mapesbury and Willesden Green.

The Task Group also looked at the characteristic of each ward which yielded some interesting results:

Cllr Nerva said that there was a particular challenge in the population of 20-30 year olds who were renting privately and perhaps only living in the area for one or two years. There was a need to communicate with these residents and make the case for the wider advantages of registration such as enabling people to get credit ratings and sign up to mobile phone contracts as well as  accessing a range of other 21st century trappings.

He also made the point that if a person was registered it made deciding NOT to vote an 'active' choice.

The context of different wards meant that different stratagies are necessary in each and the report outlines some of the possibilities and different  voluntary groups and organisations that could be involved. LINK

Citing the 97% registration rate in Scotland before the Referendum, Nerva suggested that the percentage of the population registered to vote should be a key council performance indicator.

One suggestion by Nerva that may prove controversial was that elected members should be involved in voter registration through what he called 'supplementary door knocking' and stalls in public places encouraging registration.

He said this would not be party political and there would be no rosettes except perhaps Brent identification. 

In a contribution to the Committee I suggested that in addition to the strategies outlined officers should go into primary schools to address Parent Forums, which often have high attendance,  about registration and suggested this was a good way of spreading the word as those parents would then speak to family and friends.

This is a solid report and well worth looking at in detail. It will be going to Cabinet in January 2015.