Build-to-Rent starts down 80% year-on-year in London as inflation and uncertainty hits capital intensive schemes

 From British Property Federation comes this Press Release with implications for Quintain and others in the Build to Rent market. involved with large capital-intensive schemes.

• Total number of homes completed and in the pipeline increases 12% year on year to more than 250,000
• Pipeline boosted by major housebuilders agreeing to deliver a pipeline of over 2,000 homes for rent
• Construction starts down 55% year-on-year as cost inflation slows delivery of schemes, particularly in London

 

The number of completed Build-to-Rent homes in the UK has increased 13% in the past year to 88,100 units despite market conditions slowing development activity, according to new analysis by the British Property Federation (BPF). 

The research, undertaken in partnership with Savills, shows the total number of Build-to-Rent homes completed, under construction or in the planning pipeline stands at 253,402, up 12% in the past twelve months. Single Family Housing continues to expand strongly with 28,000 units completed or in the pipeline, making up 12% of the Build-to-Rent sector. 

The number of homes under construction increased by 9%, buoyed by major housebuilders agreeing forward funding transactions with investors comprising over 2,000 homes for rent. Meanwhile, the number of new Build-to-Rent homes in the design and planning phase increased 13% to 111,815.

However, build cost inflation and wider economic uncertainty looks set to slowdown delivery with construction starts totalling 5,549 units in the first half of the year, down 55% on the same period in 2022. In London, where high land values mean schemes are typically larger and more capital intensive, construction starts totalled just 836 units, down 80% year-on-year (from 4,415 in H1 2022). 

Ian Fletcher, Policy Director, British Property Federation, said: 

Build-to-Rent is continuing to expand but the sector is not immune to the current economic uncertainty and cost inflation. At the current time it is very challenging to deliver large-scale capital intensive schemes, particularly in London, but there are fewer obstacles to the delivery of smaller developments in regional cities and single-family housing both which continue to grow as a proportion of housing supply in UK cities.

Jacqui Daly, Director, Residential Research and Consultancy, Savills commented:

With interest rates now expected to stay higher for longer demand for new homes for sale is likely to be weaker which will constrain housing delivery. Build-to-Rent will have a key role to play in maintaining overall housing supply, and in the last quarter we have seen examples of major housebuilders agreeing to deliver a pipeline of rented homes, which has boosted the pipeline. The continued diversification of the profile of BtR deliverers is critical to its continued growth.

Islamia Primary move to new site and closure strongly opposed in informal consultation.

Islamia Primary School has responded to my Freedom of Information Request with some of the information requested over the proposed move of the school to another site, Strathcona, in Preston war of Brent.

The summary of informal consultation responses shows that the majority of parents and the wider community reject both Options offered in the consultation. 96 parents did not want to move to Strathcona and want Islamia to be offered the new South Kilburn building (currently ear-marked for Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Junior School) or another suitable site in the area.

Options offered in the consultation.

 

Option 1. For the school to relocate to a new site (the only one offered was Strathcona)

Option 2. For the school to close with pupils moving to other local schools with spare places.

 

I requested pupil mobility data to see how uncertainty over the future may have affected the school. There has been movement but Islamia operate a waiting list and state that the school is full at 420 pupils. 

 

 

The timetable for the move as tabled by Brent Council is now way behind and there appears to be little prospect of the school moving in time for a September 2024. The Council paper said that the Yusuf Islam Foundation had agreed an extension of the eviction to January 2025 only if there are unforseen events. The delay in the start of statutory consultation, apparently in order that mitigations for the move be agreed between the school and Brent Council, may not qualify as an unforseen event. 

 

 

The school responded to my request for copies of all correspondence with the Yusuf Islam Foundation and Brent Council regarding the eviction notice on the school and the subsequent search for alternative premises, survey/s of the Strathcona site and refurbishment/new build proposals, by saying that the request should be made to the Foundation and Brent Council.

Following the school's response I have sent another FI request:

1. Are the Governing Body going to undertake a statutory consultation on the move of Islamia to the Strathcona site (or another site)?

2. If so, what mitigations have been agreed with Brent Council?

3. If so, what is the timeline for the statutory consultation?

4. If the school is to move what is the timeline/target date for opening of the school on the new site?

5. Has a new eviction date been agreed with the Yusuf Islam Foundation?

 

Calling local campaigns - zoom meeting with Brent Fights Back! Tomorrow 7pm

 From Brent Fights Back

We are relaunching Brent Fights Back tomorrow Tuesday Jily 18th at an online meeting at 7pm.  Hope you can join us.

Below is our new leaflet, with our aims.  

We'd like to hear from local organisations - what you're doing and how working with other groups might help.  

We'll be maintaining an online calendar to publicise local actions and events, meetings, pickets, demos etc.

Program for Tuesday 18^th July

Zoom link:  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85444498096

• Welcome by Pete Firmin, Chair of Brent Fights Back 
• Speakers (5 mins each): 
  
• Unite St Mungo’s rep about their current strike 
• Adam Bulewski 
• Brent Renters Union and the “Not another winter” campaign 
• Jack Ainsworth 
• Equalities Trust and how they support local organisations 
• Rob Donnelly 
• Brent Fights Back - current work + aims 
• Elaine Shepherd 
  
   
  
• Discussion:   Ideas and suggestions how we can work together to support one another's campaigns.

We will be meeting online on the 3^rd Tuesday of each month from now on.

 

 

Some free places on Orchard Management Course in Brent starting September (criteria apply)

 From Sufra NW London

Anyone interested in our next orchard management course that’s being run in Brent between September and May – 7 Saturdays?

 

Anyone can apply but we also happen to have 10 free places which people can apply for by 6th August. 

They have to live and work in Brent or Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, City of London, Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth and Westminster and match some or all of these criteria:

· from a minoritised ethnic group;

· aged 18-30;

· unemployed, economically inactive or on low income (below £20,000 p.a.)

More details: https://www.theorchardproject.org.uk/events/cico12/

Thanks!

 

Best wishes,

 

Billie Beckley
Community Garden Manager | Sufra NW London 

 

Key questions on Brent Council's disposal of shared-ownership homes at Cabinet this morning

 Cllr Anton Georgiou has just asked this question re Item 13 on today's Cabinet Agenda

I am here to request clarifications on the report which focuses mainly on the proposed disposal of 23 shared ownership homes in my ward of Alperton but has wider implications for other schemes in the borough.  

I note the report has an Appendix which is not publicly available, that I have seen a redacted version of, however have been advised by Officers to not make reference to the information I have seen regarding the bids for these properties.

I also note that at the Full Council meeting on Monday 10^th July, I asked the Lead Member about this report and the response did not seem in line with the content of the document in front of us.

Where this report states that its purpose is to “seek authority to dispose of 23 shared ownership homes on the open market”, the Lead Member implied, with the Leader of the Council’s intervention, that these homes would in fact be repurposed by the Council.

So, my first question is:

-          What did the Lead Member mean by repurposing the 23 homes, is that the same as disposing of them? Perhaps Cllr Knight would like the opportunity to correct the record at this stage?

For historical context, I would like to understand how the Council initially defined these homes.

-          Were these 23 units referred to in this report counted in the 1,000 promised “New Council Homes” programme 2019/24?

 

-          If yes, why did the Council define these Shared Ownership units as Council Homes, something I have received assurances previously does not happen in Brent.

We all know that Shared Ownership is not an affordable housing model let alone helping to reduce the boroughs housing waiting list, which ought to be the Council’s number one housing priority.

This Council is often vocal about its record on Council House building, however, as I have argued we need to understand the full facts on what is actually being delivered and whether it is truly delivering Council Homes for Council tenants at the levels stated in Brent Council press releases and on Brent Council communications.

Assuming the decision is agreed to ‘dispose’ of these 23 homes:

-          Could you confirm that the units disposed of will be disposed to a Housing Association fully, to be rented at the London Living Rent level, which is what I assume is being referred to when a “new model” is mentioned in the report?

 

-          If that is not the case, could you please enlighten us as to what the “new model” the report refers to actually is?

I understand that the Council bought these properties under a 999-year lease.

-          Are the Council’s plans to sell the full 999-year lease, or is your plan to only grant a 125-year lease to the successful buyer?

 

-          This has implications for the legality of the sale, as mentioned in the report. You will be aware that local authorities cannot dispose of HRA assets without permission of the Secretary of State unless they are disposed at equal to market value. Are you confident this will be the case?

The financial implications for this sale are in the public’s interest.

-          How much money will Brent Council be losing or making out of this sell-off?

The delay in deciding what to do with these homes is concerning to me.

-          Can you explain why 22 of these units have remained empty since October 2022 and why this decision was not made earlier? We are now more than halfway through 2023, in light of the housing crisis in our borough and city, it is alarming that there has been such a delay in making this decision.

 

-          What was the cost of debt financing during this period for the Housing Revenue Account?

I would appreciate if Cabinet and Officers could address these questions at earliest convenience, as I believe it is important that when decisions like this are made by the Council, the full facts are known to residents and all stakeholders involved.

It is important to state that this may not be the only time a decision like this will need to be taken by the Council.

Earlier in the General Purposes Committee I made reference to the Shared Ownership units at Watling Gardens. It seems to me that there is considerable uncertainty and confusion around the Council’s plans on the delivery of affordable homes in the borough. In light of this report and potential upcoming decisions that will need to be taken regarding other schemes in the borough, I urge the Cabinet to review its housing plans.

I also recommend that an independent Scrutiny Task Group is set up urgently to provide the accountability and scrutiny needed in this important area, to be Chaired by Member not from the Majority Group on Brent Council.

 

Leader of the Council, Cllr Muhammed Butt, was clearly annoyed by the questions and said they should have been emailed in advance and in a testy exchange said that Cllr Georgiou should be grateful that he had been given the courtesy of an opportunity to speak to Cabinet. Georgiou replied that this was his right as a member of the council.

 

There was no direct response to the questions when the item was discussed. Lead Member Cllr Promise Knight  said that people in Brent still needed shared ownership homes and she was one of those people. Any surplus from the disposal would go back to providing homes via the HRA (Housing Revenue Account).  The model chosen would support reduced service charges.

Cllr Tatler commended the work carried out on this proposal and it was important that this decision still met the needs of local people.

Cllr Muhammed Butt reiterated that any surplus from the sale would go back to the HRA account and there was no loss to the council. The council would continue to provode homes at the right sort of tenure and was working with the GLA and Homes for England. The council was willing to have conversation with 'people out there' to provide homes.

Brent NEU members urged NOT to support acceptance of the 6.5% pay offer

Brent NEU debated the Goverment offer  at their  end of year meeting and a majority of reps present voted to continue strike action if the award was only 6.5% or if it were not fully funded.  That is the case, so this remains the Brent NEU position; a demand for an above-inflation fully-funded pay rise.

The Tories are arguing that the award is fully funded because of the funds they have put into schools. But these funds come on the back of  years of  cuts which mean that many Brent schools now have a deficit budget and some are already making redundancies as a result. 

Brent NEU told members that the 6.5% is now agreed and will be added to salaries in the next school year regardless of what happens next.

They continued:

Many members are demanding MORE than 6.5%; 6.5%is well below inflation and is effectively ANOTHER real terms pay cut. It will NOT make up for all we have lost after years of cuts and freezes. We suspect it won't do enough to help recruitment and retention of teachers in London schools with our high rents, transport and property prices.

 We are facing so many restructures that we don't have enough officers to even attend all the meetings about them which is a terrible and unprecedented situation.

In the event that members vote to reject the "offer", strike action would continue into the next school year which is the reason for the current reballot of teaching and support staff.

This is the choice facing teachers:

1. VOTE ACCEPT- Receive the 6.5% award and this will CLOSE our dispute which will mean that regardless of the outcome of our ballots we will NOT by law be able to take STRIKE ACTION for a year on pay or funding.

2. VOTE REJECT- You will still receive the 6.5% award but will be able to continue strike action to try to get a higher award and better funding going forward. This will mean an escalation of action (eg same number of days as before in 3 months instead of across 6 months).

 

 EDUCATORS SAY NO - DETAILS

Affinity Water: Stanmore water should be flowing again soon

 From Affinity Water

Your water will be back flowing again

We’re really sorry for the problems with your water today. We’ve fixed the burst water main and you’ll see your water flowing back to normal soon.

Appearance of your water

If your water is discoloured or cloudy, don’t worry this is normal. We know it doesn’t look nice, but it’s not harmful and you can help by running your cold tap until it’s clear. To find out more, please click here.

We updated this message at 19:35 and we'll remove it on Saturday 15th July at 08:00

South Kilburn 'Carnivale' Saturday 15th July - 12-5pm - Carlton Vale