MEETING CABINET HOUSING & REGENERATION COMMITTEE DATE AND TIME MONDAY 9 MARCH 2009 AT 11.00AM VENUE BARNET HOUSE, 1255 HIGH ROAD, WHETSTONE, N20 0EJ

MEETING CABINET HOUSING & REGENERATION COMMITTEE DATE AND TIME MONDAY 9 MARCH 2009 AT 11.00AM VENUE BARNET HOUSE, 1255 HIGH ROAD, WHETSTONE, N20 0EJ Please note time of meeting - 11.00am TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE (Quorum 3) Chairman: Councillor Lynne Hillan Councillors: Melvin Cohen Richard Cornelius Anthony Finn Mike Freer You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached. David Seabrooke Democratic Services Manager Democratic Services contact Nick Musgrove 020 8359 2024 i

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Barnet House has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting please telephone Nick Musgrove on 020 8359 2024. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All our Committee Rooms also have induction loops. To view agenda papers on the website: http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE ii

ORDER OF BUSINESS Item No. Title of Report Page Nos. 1. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 27 OCTOBER 2008 2. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS - 3. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS - 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - Reports of the Cabinet Member for Community Services 5. Review of Housing Revenue Account Subsidy System and Council Rents 1 7 6. STATUS Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2008 8 15 7. Temporary Accommodation and Non-Secure Tenancies on Regeneration Estates 16 20 8. Plans to Update the Barnet Housing Strategy 21 26 Report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Development 9. Regeneration Schemes Progress Update 27 36 10. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT - Fire/Emergency Evacuation Procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed staff. It is vital you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lifts. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so. iii

AGENDA ITEM: 5 Page nos. 1 7 Meeting Date 9 March 2009 Subject Report of Summary Housing and Regeneration Cabinet Committee The Review of HRA Subsidy System and Council Rents Cabinet Member for Community Services This report provides an overview of the national review of the HRA Subsidy System and progress with work to determine the best option for managing the Council s housing stock beyond 2010, as well as information about the council rents and HRA subsidy contributions to the treasury from Barnet. Officer Contributors Status (public or exempt) Wards affected Enclosures For decision by Function of Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate) Paul Shipway, Acting Head of Housing and Environmental Health Public All None Cabinet Executive Not Applicable Contact for further information: Paul Shipway, Housing Strategy and Business Support Manager, 020 8359 4924, paul.shipway@barnet.gov.uk 1

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the Committee notes plans to progress work to determine the best option for the management of the council s housing stock beyond 2010 that take into account: Work already undertaken by the Council and Barnet Homes The need to carry out a more detailed assessment of the investment needs of the housing stock The need to consult with residents on their aspiration and priorities for maintaining and improving their homes The outcome of the national review of the HRA subsidy system expected later this year. 1.2 That the Committee comments on the contributions that are made from the HRA to the Treasury and that this is noted. 1.3 That the Committee receives a further report once the outcome of the national review of the HRA subsidy system has been published. 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Cabinet approved the existing HRA Business Plan on 3 November 2003 (Decision Item 5) 2.2 Cabinet approved the establishment of Barnet Homes on 19 Jan 2004 (Decision Item 8) 2.3 Cabinet approved programme of work to update HRA business plan 29 th Oct 2007 ( Decision 6 regarding Item 5) 2.4 Housing and Regeneration Cabinet Committee 27 th October 2008 - The Committee noted the options identified in sections 9.9 9.12 of the Cabinet Member s report to meet these needs, the appraisal of which would now need to get under way. 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan supports the council s objective to support the vulnerable, and the council s Housing Strategy Housing objectives of improving the quality of Housing and delivering Decent Homes, and providing quality services. 3.2 The review of the HRA will also support the corporate priority of more choice, better value, by ensuring the council's housing stock is managed and maintained efficiently and in a way that takes account of the views of council tenants and leaseholders 4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 A preliminary analysis of the HRA shows existing reserves will be exhausted in 2013/14 if the current national subsidy system does not change. 2

4.2 The Council s housing stock will start to fail the Decent Homes standard beyond 2010 if a plan to fund the capital investment needs of council homes is not developed. 4.3 Delays in our estate regeneration programme associated with the current economic downturn could result in addition financial demands on the HRA to manage and maintain stock on the regeneration estates over an extended period. 5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 Analysis shows that council tenants in Barnet are very diverse and often from vulnerable groups. Face to face surveys undertaken by Barnet Homes show that 36% of tenants are aged over 60 of which 12% are aged over 80. Closely related to this is that 35% of tenants consider themselves as having a longstanding illness, impairments or infirmities that limit their activities. 25% of tenants are from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds with 13% black and 8% Asian. 5.2 If the Council s housing stock is not well maintained, this will impact negatively on these households who are among the most vulnerable in our community. 6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The HRA is regulated by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under its terms local authorities are not permitted to budget for a deficit on the HRA, and if during the course of a year it finds it is heading for a deficit, it must take such action as to prevent this occurring. 7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 No legal comments outside the context of this report 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Constitution, Part 3 Responsibility for Functions Section 3.6 Terms of reference of Cabinet Housing and Regeneration Committee To monitor the delivery of the Council s housing needs, both within and outside the regeneration schemes, including delivery through Barnet Homes, Registered Social Landlords and the regeneration development partners. To make recommendations on the above to Cabinet or Cabinet Resources Committee as appropriate 9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Review of Council Housing Finance 9.1 In March 2008 the Government launched a major review of Council Housing Finance. This was to be a joint review led by the Treasury and the 3

Department for Communities and Local Government and would seek views from all interested stakeholders. 9.2 The genesis of the review came with the blue-sky debate that began in 2002, which in turn led to the six self-financing pilots which explored the impact of local housing authorities coming out of the national subsidy system. In addition, the Decent Homes programme was coming to an end for Round 1 ALMOs and there was a debate around what the future held for ALMOs. 9.3 Further it was clear that the national housing subsidy system was no longer fit for purpose. Based on an annual settlement it meant that there could be no long-term planning for asset management, there was too much volatility in the fixing of management and maintenance allowances (which in any case did not fully reflect the need to spend), and rent restructuring and convergence with Housing Association rents meant that rent increases were effectively controlled by central government meaning there was no link between rent levels and services provided in effect the tenants were disenfranchised. 9.4 Following the Decent Homes programme which would bring all homes up to at least a given standard there was insufficient funding available to maintain the stock and environment at an acceptable level, and there was real danger that the significant investment in Decent Homes would be wasted. 9.5 The nature of the subsidy calculation also meant that nationally the housing revenue account subsidy was moving into surplus and that this surplus would increase year on year. Although the housing revenue account (HRA) is ringfenced locally this is not the case nationally, and in 2008/9 an estimated 194m surplus was utilised by the Treasury for non-council housing purposes. The present Comprehensive Spending Review requires this surplus to rise to around 300m in 2010/11. 9.6 The Review covered four work streams: - Costs and Standards, Rents and charges, Mechanisms of support and the HRA itself. There have been a series of workshops for each work stream as well as regional workshops, a web forum and other opportunities to contribute to the debate. 9.7 The key issues arising from each have been as follows:- Costs and standards Were the allowances for management and maintenance allowances adequate? The Government s own research had shown that there was a greater need to spend than the allowances made available. The changing nature of housing services:- there was a growing emphasis on non-core services such as those in relation to anti-social behaviour. Widespread support for notion that the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) was under-funded by at least 40% what should it be and what should it cover? The geographical destitution of allowances? 4

Rents and charges General principles of rent restructuring and convergence accepted Linking with the previous workshop was there a role for service charges to cover services to specific tenant groups? How did charges for leaseholders fit with the current HRA practices? Mechanisms of support Was a national subsidy system appropriate for 21st century? Should all authorities choose the self financing route? How should current debt be treated? If financial responsibility, how should it be done? HRA itself Operational practice and how it differs from subsidy assumptions? The ring fence (re)building it or dismantling it? Changing nature of services and how these are funded? 9.8 There was also a fifth cross-cutting work stream looking at issues arising from the other four and at the overall picture. 9.9 The Review is due to report in the Spring 2009 and will then feed into the next Comprehensive Spending Review timetable. The options appear to range across from tweaking the present subsidy system, tweaking but retaining any surpluses for redistribution, to self-financing for all. 9.10 If the first of these then many of the problems of volatility, uncertainty and a shortfall of resources are likely to remain. If this is combined with retention of the national surplus then, over time, this would provide for the shortfall in MRA or management and maintenance allowances, though not both fully. However there would still be the uncertainty of annual or three-year settlements and redistribution. 9.11 The third option appears to be the most favoured amongst practitioners. There are issues as to whether it is possible for all to move to self-financing at one time, and also how this is done. The Government are keen to retain the distributive feature of the present system this could be achieved through a one-off debt redistribution among housing authorities, or possibly through a fixed capital charge or dowry. The benefit of this approach is that there would then be the scope for real decision-making at local level e.g. the relative levels of investment in stock or services and consultation with tenants on rentsetting would become more meaningful than under the present arrangements. 9.12 There is also an issue with this model as to what happens with future surpluses, and how much (if any) should be returned to the Government. They could be retained locally but ring-fenced (say) to major repairs or new build, or shared with Government. The problem with the latter is that there remains an ongoing relationship with the centre. 5

9.13 Whatever the outcome of the review there is a need to consider the options for the future investment in the housing stock. To this end we have approached the new Homes and Communities Agency to start the Single Conversation about Barnet s Housing Investment priorities which will include the investment strategy for HRA stock. 9.14 Over the coming year, Barnet Homes will carry out a more detailed assessment of the investment requirements of the stock and consult with residents about their aspirations and priorities. 9.15 This work will link into the review of the Councils Housing Strategy which we expect to conclude in the autumn, by which time we expect to have identified the council s preferred option for management of the Council s Housing stock. 9.15 The impact of the present system can be illustrated from the table below:- Payments to DCLG 2008/09 ( ) 2009/10 ( ) (+/-) % Guideline Rent Income 44,992,440 47,600,027 2,607,587 5.80% Mortgage Interest 54,309 48,157-6,152-11.33% Payments from DCLG 45,046,749 47,648,184 2,601,435 5.46% M&M allowance 19,999,558 20,709,770 710,212 3.55% Capital Charges 5,004,884 5,516,706 511,822 10.23% MRA allowance 8,060,402 8,543,680 483,278 6.00% Other 57,420 54,278-3,142-5.47% 33,122,264 34,824,434 1,702,170 4.89% Net Payment to/from DCLG 11,924,485 12,823,750 899,265 7.54% This illustrates that for 2009/10 whilst allowances totalled 1.702m, the guideline rent (and mortgage interest) withdrawn was 2.601m, a net increase in payment of 0.899m. 9.16 Since Barnet s actual rent is close to the guideline rent, of the 2.6m additional rent collected, some 0.9m goes back to Government, and around 1m meets additional capital financing charges for borrowing for the Decent 6

Homes funding and for the MRA, also supporting the capital programme. Thus only 0.7m, or 27% of the rent increase is available to support services to tenants. 9.17 This will worsen in 2010/11 and following years as a higher inflation rate is applied by Government to the rent guideline (as it is linked to rents convergence) than that for management and maintenance allowances. 9.18 In effect, the average council tenant rent will increase by 6.2% from 79.30 a week to 84.22 a week. The amount of this that has to be paid back to the treasury will increase from 21.01 to 22.82 or from 26.5% of the average rent to 27.1% of the average rent. 10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 Barnet s HRA Business Plan Update 2003/4 10.2 Any person wishing to inspect this document should telephone Paul Shipway, Housing Strategy and Business Support Manager, 020 8359 4924 Legal: DA CFO: JB/HG 7

AGENDA ITEM: 6 Page nos. 8 15 Meeting Date 9 March 2009 Housing and Regeneration Cabinet Committee Subject STATUS Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2008 Report of Summary Cabinet Member for Community Services The report provides information about the outcome of the recent tenant satisfaction survey conducted by Barnet Homes as required for reporting against the National Performance Indicator 160, Overall Satisfaction of Tenants with Landlord Services. A postal survey was issued to 3,500 randomly selected tenants and between October and December 992 returns were received. A response rate of 28%. In summary, the outcome was that overall satisfaction levels remained at 71%, the same level as when a survey was last carried out in 2006. The priorities identified by tenants in the survey were repairs, particularly speed and quality; security/ dealing with anti-social behaviour and activities for young people. Officer Contributors Status (public or exempt) Wards affected Enclosures For decision by Function of Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in Paul Shipway Acting Head of Housing & Environmental Health Public All None Cabinet Executive Not Applicable Contact for further information: Paul Shipway paul.shipway@barnet.gov.uk 0208 359 4924 8

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the Committee notes the outcome of the tenant satisfaction survey and actions being taken by officers to address the issues and concerns raised by tenants. 1.2 That the Tackling Crime & Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee be requested to monitor the action plan referred to in 9.37 below. 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Cabinet approved the establishment of Barnet Homes on 19 Jan 2004 (Decision Item 8) 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Barnet Homes contributes to the delivery of the Council s objective to Support the Vulnerable by delivering the Decent Homes programme to improve the condition of council properties, and by providing services to vulnerable people. 4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 As a National PI, Overall Satisfaction of Tenants with Landlord Services will be taken into account as part of the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) of the Council, and could impact on the CAA adversely if it does not show improvement. 5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 Questions were included in the survey relating to a number of diversity and equality headings: ethnicity, age, disability, faith and sexual orientation. The results will be cross-tabulated by these areas to inform further analysis of the findings and action planning. 5.2 In summary based on the initial findings, Ethnicity: BME residents represent 26% of responses The Overall Satisfaction of BME respondents while lower than white respondents by 4% is within the +/- 4% confidence interval and was not noted by MORI as significant BME satisfaction with rent as Value for Money is 10% lower than white and can be considered significant BME respondents were just as likely as White respondents to have reported anti-social behaviour Age: Profile of respondents: o 16-35 11% o 35-64 55% 9

o 65+ 33% Results show that younger tenants are consistently less satisfied while older residents are generally more satisfied. The numbers of respondents under 30 are low and this reflects a common difficulty in accessing young people s views through postal surveys. 5.3 Ipsos MORI have undertaken analysis of STATUS surveys from across London as part of their Frontiers Analysis project. This aims to take into account the differences between boroughs in ethnic profiles, levels of deprivation, size of council housing stock and age of residents to give a predicted satisfaction score. Their analysis for Barnet gave a predicted score based on local factors of 71%. 6. USE OF RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS (Finance, Procurement, Performance & Value for Money, Staffing, IT, Property, Sustainability) 6.1 None 7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 None outside the context of this Report. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Constitution, Part 3 Responsibility for Functions Section 3.6 Terms of reference of Cabinet Housing and Regeneration Committee To monitor the delivery of the Council s housing needs, both within and outside the regeneration schemes, including delivery through Barnet Homes, Registered Social Landlords and the regeneration development partners. To make recommendations on the above to Cabinet or Cabinet Resources Committee as appropriate 9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 As part of the change over from Comprehensive Performance Assessment to Comprehensive Area Assessments a range of national performance indicators were adopted with effect from April 2008. 9.2 One indicator(ni160), which was already an existing Best Value Performance Indicator, relates to Overall Satisfaction of Tenants with Landlord Services and to measure this independent standardised tenant satisfaction survey (known as STATUS) must be undertaken every two years beginning in 2008/9. A STATUS postal survey was last undertaken in 2006. 9.3 Barnet Homes commissioned Ipsos MORI to undertake the STATUS survey and this was carried out between October and December 2008. Ipsos MORI 10

1. 9.4 To comply with guidance at least 625 responses were required to give a confidence level of +/- 4%. Data was un-weighted and based on all valid responses ( don t know / no opinion /not stated responses were excluded). This approach was consistent with the last STATUS postal survey in 2006. 9.5 A total of 992 returns were received which is a response rate of 28% compared to 1245 response in 2006. This fall may be a reflection of the number of surveys carried out by Barnet Homes and its partners in the last year, however MORI have confirmed that the response rate is acceptable and meets government requirements. Overall Satisfaction with Landlord Services 9.6 Overall satisfaction was 71% which is the same as 2006. In the context of the 14 London boroughs surveyed by MORI this year: Across all 14 boroughs the mean was 67% For Outer London only the mean was 70% For Outer London MORI reported an average change from 2006 of - 2% 9.7 Across the borough the overall satisfaction results by area were: Hendon 77% Edgware 76% Barnet 71% Finchley 69% Grahame Park 68% Other Regeneration Estates 59% The low score for Finchley is reflected in other parts of the survey and is an area for further examination. The types of property (more large estates) may be a factor. 9.8 Overall, there difference in satisfaction levels between regeneration and non regeneration stock were as follows: Non-Regeneration Combined 73% Regeneration Combined 63% 9.9 Across our residents the most dissatisfied group were 35-54 year olds and in general younger tenants were less satisfied. Black and Minority Ethnic overall satisfaction was 69% compared to White satisfaction of 73%. Satisfaction with Repairs and Maintenance 9.10 Overall Satisfaction with Repairs and Maintenance was 70% which is a drop of 6% from 2006. 1 Sheltered housing residents and non secure tenants are not included in the survey. 11

9.11 The principal reasons for dissatisfaction were: Time taken before work starts 19% rated this as poor Being told when workers would call - 14% rated this as poor Quality of repairs 13% rated this as poor 9.12 Of residents who had not had any repairs completed in the last 12 months the overall satisfaction was 55%. Respondents who had repairs in the last year had a satisfaction level of 73%. This suggests that residents have had positive recent repair experiences and also that repairs is a very important driver for overall satisfaction levels. 9.13 The profile of respondents shows younger residents are least satisfied. Black and Minority Ethnic overall satisfaction was 68% compared to White satisfaction of 73%. 9.14 In the context of the 14 London boroughs surveyed by MORI this year: Across all 14 boroughs the mean was 68% For Outer London only the mean was 70% 9.15 Across the borough the results by area were: Hendon 78% Edgware 75% Barnet 71% Finchley 69% Other Regeneration Estates 58% Grahame Park 57% 9.16 Overall, there difference in satisfaction levels between regeneration and non regeneration stock were as follows: Non-Regeneration Combined 73% Regeneration Combined 58% Satisfaction with Major Works 9.17 54% of respondents were satisfied. However 16% stated they had not had any major works, if these are removed the overall satisfaction becomes 64% 9.18 This question was added to the STATUS questionnaire by Barnet Homes and so there are no London-wide comparisons. 9.19 Across the borough the results by area were: Edgware 65% Hendon 60% Barnet 55% Finchley 50% Grahame Park 43% Other Regeneration Estates 38% 12

9.20 Although the regeneration estates have not had Decent Homes works there will have been large schemes undertaken so this question reflects views on other works as well as Decent Homes. It should be noted that the expression major works is our own term and it may have been interpreted differently by respondents. Satisfaction with Neighbourhood 9.21 Overall satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live was 70% compared to 68% in 2006 9.22 In the context of the 14 London boroughs surveyed by MORI this year: Across all 14 boroughs the mean was 67% For Outer London only the mean was 67% 9.23 Across the borough the results by area were: Barnet 83% Finchley 77% Hendon 69% Edgware 66% Grahame Park 50% Other Regeneration Estates 48% 9.24 In summary by regeneration and non regeneration stock, the results were: Non-Regeneration Combined 75% Regeneration Combined 49% Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) 9.25 17% of respondents had reported ASB in the last 12 months, of these: 42% were under 45 44% were on regeneration estates 30% were satisfied with the final outcome of their report The MORI London mean for satisfaction with outcome is 32% This is a new area of questions for this year s survey so there is no 2006 comparator. Contact with Landlord 9.26 85% of respondents stated they had contacted Barnet Homes in the last 12 months: MORI London mean for contact is 77% 88% contacted by phone (80% 2006) and is very clearly the preferred means of contact for most of our customers 69% made contact about repairs 62% were satisfied with final outcome (55% 2006) 13

Communication 9.27 74% felt that Barnet Homes was good at keeping them informed which is a drop of 2% from 2006. 9.28 In the context of the 14 London boroughs surveyed by MORI this year : o Across all 14 boroughs the mean was 69% o For Outer London only the mean was 70% 9.29 There is a clear relationship between being kept informed and overall satisfaction. Of those who felt informed the satisfaction with landlord was 84% whilst those who felt less informed only had a 22% satisfaction score. 9.30 In summary by regeneration and non regeneration stock, the results were: Non-Regeneration Combined 75% Regeneration Combined 65% Tenant Priorities 9.31 In summary the survey has highlighted the following as priorities for tenants: Repairs and Maintenance Tackling security issues and ASB Providing activities for young people 9.32 Other areas have a bearing on tenant satisfaction such as being kept informed and taking views into account but when asked to prioritise tenants felt these to be less important. 9.33 From the survey overall two clear themes emerge: Addressing the low satisfaction of those living on Regeneration estates Increasing satisfaction of younger tenants Other Surveys/In-House Context 9.34 Barnet Homes carried out a number of in-house surveys during 2008 which showed similar results and confirm the key drivers for satisfaction as: Repairs (inc Decent Homes) ASB/Security Youth activities Next Steps 9.35 Barnet Homes will develop an action plan to address concerns and issues raised by the survey as described in 9.33 to 9.55 above, to be agreed with the Council and presented to the Barnet Homes Board on 16 th March 2009 14

10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 Barnet Homes Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2008 10.1 Any person wishing to inspect this document should telephone Paul Shipway 020 8359 4924 Legal: DA CFO: CM 15

AGENDA ITEM: 7 Page nos. 16 20 Meeting Date 9 March 2009 Subject Report of Summary Cabinet Housing & Regeneration Temporary Accommodation and Non- Secure Tenancies on Regeneration Estates Cabinet Member for Community Services To provide an overview of the use of temporary accommodation in Barnet including proposals and actions being considered to reduce its use in the borough. Officer Contributors Status (public or exempt) Wards affected Enclosures For decision by Function of Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate) Paul Shipway Acting Head of Housing & Environmental Health Public All None Cabinet Executive Not applicable Contact for further information: Paul Shipway paul.shipway@barnet.gov.uk 0208 359 4924 16

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the actions being taken to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation are noted 1.2 That Cabinet Members consider the options set out in relation to the use of properties as temporary accommodation on the regeneration estates, including maintaining the status quo and letting some properties in the later phases on a secure basis. 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 None 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Council s Housing Strategy Update 2007 includes an objective of Tackling homelessness and reducing the use of temporary accommodation. 3.2 The Council s draft corporate plan 2009/10-2012/13 includes a priority improvement initiative to Reduce homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation by improving access to the private rented sector in Barnet 4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 There is a national target to reduce the use of temporary accommodation by 50% from 2004 levels by March 2010. Lack of progress towards achieving this target could impact on the Council s Comprehensive Area Assessment. 4.2 Proposals to let properties in the later phases of some of the Council s estate regeneration schemes on a secure basis could present a risk to these schemes over a longer timescale, by incurring additional costs. Officers will evaluate this risk in more detail and include details in the report to Cabinet referred to in 9.9 below. 5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 Analysis shows that almost 70% of households in temporary accommodation are from non- white households, compared to 20% of the borough s population as a whole. This suggests that the black and ethnic minority households are a greater risk of the potential negative effects of living in temporary accommodation. 6. USE OF RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS (Finance, Procurement, Performance & Value for Money, Staffing, IT, Property, Sustainability) 6.1 The Department for Work and Pensions is planning to reform the housing benefit subsidy thresholds and caps for temporary accommodation used by 17

local authorities to discharge their obligations under homelessness legislation. For 2009/10 these thresholds and caps have been frozen at 2008/9 levels for London authorities and the reformed system is due to come into effect from April 2010. 7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 There are no legal reasons why non-secure tenancies can not be converted to secure, but such scheme will need to be designed to minimise the risk of legal challenge by way of Judicial Review. 7.2 Recent legal challenges to Barnet s Allocations Policy have been on the basis that the award of a low number of points to a particular class of Applicant is tantamount to giving that particular class of Applicant no preference at all and therefore contrary to law. Despite the Court of Appeal recently deciding in Barnet s favour (stating that a preference must exist, but the extent of the preference should be decided by a Local Authority, in accordance with local needs), the risk is that Applicants other than the homeless may assert that allocating secure tenancies to previous non-secure tenants denies them any preference whatsoever and is therefore illegal. 7.3 Furthermore, there would be a high possibility of challenge to the allowing of non-secure tenants being converted to secure tenants and so jumping the choice-based lettings system (CBL) compromising the CBL regime and the whole lettings and allocation. Successfully defending these challenges need to be weighed against the risks. 7.4 Vacant possession of the units will ultimately be required as part of regeneration. Converting all non-secure tenancies to secure tenancies would mean Court possession proceedings being taken against every tenant refusing to vacate the units to allow the demolition/reconstruct of the building. In these circumstances the Courts will not grant possession of secure tenancies unless suitable alternative accommodation is available. 7.5 Those individuals being offered a (converted) secure tenancy will also acquire the right to buy and the subsequent repurchasing of the properties to enable regeneration to proceed will require additional Demolition Notice(s) and/or Suspension of Right to Buy will need to be served under Section 138A and Schedule 5A para.2(2) Housing Act 1985 (as amended). Additional costs would be incurred by way of decanting and disturbance payments. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Constitution, Part 3- Responsibility for Functions- Section 3.6 Terms of Reference of Cabinet Housing and Regeneration Committee: To monitor the delivery of the Council s housing needs, both within and outside the regeneration schemes, including delivery through Barnet Homes, Registered Social Landlords and the regeneration development partners. To 18

make recommendations on the above to Cabinet or Cabinet Resources Committee as appropriate. 9. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 There were 2375 households in temporary accommodation as at 31 st December 2008. This included 245 in nightly purchased stock 1, 1045 in private sector leased schemes, 138 in council run hostels and 941 in nonsecure tenancies on the Council s regeneration estates. 9.2 The national target to reduce the use of temporary accommodation by 50% is based on the number of households in temporary accommodation at December 2004, which if applied in Barnet would mean reducing temporary accommodation to 1153 by March 2010. 9.3 Whilst it will not be possible to achieve the 50% target in Barnet, actions are being taken that will see a reduction in the use of temporary accommodation in the borough as detailed below. These have seen a reduction of numbers in temporary accommodation from 2489 on 31 st March 2008 to 2375 on 31 st December 2008. A target has been included in the draft Corporate Plan to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation to 1975 by March 2010 and to 1200 by March 2013. 9.4 Through the housing options approach, which seeks to provide alternatives to homelessness, the Housing Service has successfully reduced the number of new households being accepted as homeless and admitted into temporary accommodation. During the last twelve months this figure has fallen from 546 in 2007/8 to an estimated 445 during 2008/9 2. 9.5 The number of households being housed directly into the private rented sector through the Council s Home Choice scheme has increased from 509 in 2007/8 to an estimated 600 in 2008/9 3. This has included targeted work to help 92 existing households in temporary accommodation to move directly into the private rented sector. 9.6 Officers have been in discussion with Choices for Grahame Park about the feasibility of letting some of the properties in the later stages of the estate regeneration scheme on a secure basis. There are approximately 317 properties which are not expected to be demolished during the next 10 years, of which 87 are occupied by non secure tenants. 9.7 There may be scope for letting other properties on the regeneration estates on a secure basis. At West Hendon, for example, there are 107 properties which are not due to be demolished until 2017 at the earliest, of which 11 are 1 Short term accommodation where households are usually placed pending investigation 2 Based on 296 new households admitted to temporary accommodation between April 2008 and January 2009. 3 Based in 547 households placed in private rented sector between April 2008 and December 2009. 19

let as temporary accommodation, and at Dollis Valley, there are more than 117 non secure tenants. 9.8 Careful consideration will need to be given to balancing the flexibility of using non-secure tenancies on the regeneration estates with the potential benefits of letting some properties on a secure tenancy, such as providing more certainty for the occupants. 9.9 Any proposals to convert existing non secure tenancies to secure tenancies or to let properties on the regeneration estates on secure tenancies would be subject to Cabinet approval, and it is intended to take a more detailed report on this matter to Cabinet in June 2009. 10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 None Legal: DA CFO: HG 20

AGENDA ITEM: 8 Page nos. 21 26 Meeting Date 9 March 2009 Subject Report of Summary Cabinet Housing and Regeneration Committee Plans to update Barnet Housing Strategy Cabinet Member for Community Services During 2009 the Council s existing Housing Strategy is to be reviewed. The strategy was designed to cover the period 2003 to 2010 and so is due for updating and review. Consideration has to be given to ensuring that the Council s strategy is in line with the Mayor of London s Housing Strategy and supports the direction of the emerging Local Development Framework. Officer Contributors Status (public or exempt) Wards affected Enclosures For decision by Function of Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate) Chloe Horner, Acting Housing Strategy Team Leader Public All None The Committee The Executive Not applicable Contact for further information: Chloe Horner, Acting Housing Strategy Team Leader, 020 8359 4775, chloe.horner@barnet.gov.uk 146

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the Committee notes the timetable and approach set out below for production of the Council s revised Housing Strategy. 1.2 That the Committee supports officers in working with the GLA on setting realistic housing targets. 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Cabinet approved the Council s current Housing Strategy at its meeting on 3 rd November 2003 (decision item 5) and approved the Housing Strategy Update on 27 th November 2006 (decision item 4).. 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Housing Strategy supports the Council s corporate priority to Support the Vulnerable by ensuring that all residents have access to good quality housing that meets their needs. The Housing Strategy also supports the Council s corporate priority Successful City Suburb by providing more sustainable mixed tenure communities through regeneration of the priority estates. 3.2 The forthcoming Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) will form a crucial aspect of the evidence base required for the Council s Local Development Framework (LDF) and it will support the development of the revised Housing Strategy. Greater synergy with the LDF will help the Council to deliver the housing necessary to meet future need. The existing Housing Strategy was developed in very different economic circumstances and the more difficult market conditions that are currently faced will have to be reflected in the new Housing Strategy. 3.3 The Council will want to ensure that its Housing Strategy is reviewed in the context of the Mayor of London s Housing Strategy. A draft for consultation with the London Assembly and functional bodies was published on 20 November 2008. Statutory consultation on the final draft will commence in March 2009. 4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 There is a risk that the Housing Strategy does not conform to the Mayor s Housing Strategy. In particular, there is a risk that the Council does not achieve its affordable housing targets, which the Mayor is seeking to increase from the Barnet LAA target of 2597 affordable homes to 3369 by 2011. Officers are currently undertaking an appraisal of options to maximise affordable housing supply in Barnet, including any additional funding that may be required. However, even the original LAA target is considered to be increasingly unachievable given the sharp downturn in the economy. 4.2 The Council s Housing Strategy objective to improve access to home ownership could be compromised as a result of the downturn in the housing 22

market. This is why it is important for the Council to understand the local housing market through the SHMA and to review the commitment to home ownership in the Housing Strategy and consider other approaches, such as providing more housing at an intermediate rent with the option to buy later. 5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 By promoting individual choice in housing solutions the Strategy will enable the council to respond more sensitively and appropriately to diverse individual needs, in particular by extending choice to vulnerable groups. The Strategy will continue to improve services to prevent homelessness and reduce the use of temporary accommodation. This will particularly benefit groups of people and individuals who have been disproportionately likely to experience housing need and/or homelessness, for example members of some BME groups and those with physical or mental health problems. 5.2 The timetable and plan for reviewing the Housing Strategy includes within it the need for wide consultation on the Council s housing priorities. This will include partner organisations, such as Barnet Homes, housing associations and developers and tenant groups through involvement of a Local Housing Partnership and wider consultation with the community. This will ensure that the Housing Strategy review involves and takes into consideration the widest possible views and stakeholders. 6. USE OF RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS (Finance, Procurement, Performance & Value for Money, Staffing, IT, Property, Sustainability) 6.1 There are no resource implications as a direct result of this report but a relevant and up-to-date Housing Strategy will assist the Council in its negotiations with the Homes and Communities Agency on allocating its affordable housing grant to enable the Council to deliver on its affordable housing targets. 7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 None outside the content of this report. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Constitution, Part 3- Responsibility for Functions- Section 3.6 Terms of Reference of Cabinet Housing and Regeneration Committee: To monitor the delivery of the Council s housing needs, both within and outside the regeneration schemes, including delivery through Barnet Homes, Registered Social Landlords and the regeneration development partners. To make recommendations on the above to Cabinet or Cabinet Resources Committee as appropriate. 9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 23

9.1 The Council s existing Housing Strategy was signed off as fit for purpose by the Government Office for London in January 2004. Subsequently, an update to the strategy was produced in March 2007 following a review of housing data in Barnet and a new Housing Needs Survey undertaken in 2006. 9.2 The original Housing Strategy was drafted to cover the period 2003 to 2010, and is therefore coming to the end of its life. The economic position has changed significantly over this period and this has to be taken into account in developing a new strategy. 9.3 In addition, the Council is developing its Local Development Framework to replace the Unitary Development Plan, and the work that is being undertaken in relation to this, including a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), that is being procured sub-regionally, will need to be reflected in the new Housing Strategy. 9.4 There are also a number of work streams that it would be helpful to include within the Council s overall Housing Strategy. These include the private rented sector, homelessness and older people. 9.5 There is also a new Mayor for London and a new approach to housing has been set out in the draft London Housing Strategy. The strategy emphasises choice and home ownership but also recognises the importance of the private rented sector in London in terms of helping councils to meet housing need. London Housing Strategy 9.6 The Greater London Authority Act 2007, section 28, requires borough housing (and related) strategies to be in general conformity 1 to the Mayor s Housing Strategy. The new London Mayor s Housing Strategy has been produced in draft form and is due to be finalised for public consultation by March 2009- Barnet s Housing Strategy will need to be reviewed to ensure it is in general conformity. 9.7 The Mayoral Housing Strategy raises some particular issues for Barnet in the review of the Council s Housing Strategy. Although the Mayor is abandoning the 50% affordable housing target for new developments, he is committed to providing 50000 affordable homes by 2011, and is seeking an increase based on existing delivery targets apportioned across the capital. In Barnet, this would mean an increase from our LAA target of 2597 2 affordable homes to 3369 by 2011. Officers are currently reviewing options to maximise affordable housing supply in Barnet. This includes increasing supply through non-new build and engaging with the Homes and Communities Agency on exploring the potential 1 London Councils has said that there will be room for local flexibility, provided that differences are backed by evidence of need. There is no framework for assessing whether local strategies are in general conformity. The Mayor can challenge the boroughs about general conformity through judicial review but does not have statutory powers to direct boroughs on housing matters. 2 Gross target including acquisitions of second hand homes through schemes such as Open Market Homebuy 24

for additional funding that could bring forward the building of affordable units on the regeneration schemes over the next 3 years. 9.8 The Mayor has also set a target for not more than 1% of private residential stock being empty for more than 6 months. In Barnet, 1.64% 3 of the private sector residential stock has been empty for more than 6 months in March 2008 and this is higher than the London average of 1.14%. The Council will have to consider whether it wants to pursue the Mayor s suggestion of removing discounts for empty properties as part of the review of the Housing Strategy. Local Housing Partnership 9.9 As when the Housing Strategy was updated in 2006, it would be beneficial to establish a Local Housing Partnership (LHP) to include representatives from local stakeholders, including Housing Associations, Developers, Private Landlords, the PCT, resident representatives, Barnet Homes and other council departments, including Adult Social Services and Children s Services. It is proposed that the Partnership Board is led by the Cabinet Member for Community Services. 9.10 The role of the LHP will be to give a strategic steer to the new Barnet Housing Strategy and ensure that a wide range of stakeholders assist in establishing the Council s housing priorities. 9.11 A sub-regional Housing Market Partnership comprising of a range of housing stakeholders is being set up to guide the work of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It will be important to link this with the LHP and make sure that the emerging Housing Strategy takes account of cross-borough housing markets and population movements. Timetable for updating Barnet s Housing Strategy 9.12 The first step is to produce an evidence base to provide an overview of housing in Barnet as the basis for a discussion around key issues for the borough. Much of the evidence is already in place and it will be a relatively easy task to bring it together into one document. The evidence includes data on homelessness, older people s housing issues, private sector housing issues, and data on the local housing market. 9.13 The results of the SHMA will also be presented to the LHP, along with a briefing note on what the Council considers to be the key issues- this will also be the focus for a cabinet briefing paper. 9.14 Following engagement with the LHP, a draft strategy will be produced and consulted upon more widely, culminating with the draft being the main agenda item at the next Barnet Housing Conference with cabinet approval to follow in the Autumn. 3 This equates to 1967 long term empty properties in Barnet and would need to reduce to 1200 25

9.15 Draft timetable: February 2009 to March 2009 End of March 2009 April to May 2009 June 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August to September 2009 October 2009 November Finalise evidence base 1 st meeting of LHP to explore key issues for housing in Barnet SHMA assessment available, feed into evidence base Report to Housing and Regeneration Cabinet Committee on emerging issues 2 nd meeting of LHP to consider first draft of housing strategy Cabinet briefing paper Wider consultation on housing strategy Barnet Housing Conference Cabinet approve Housing Strategy 10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 London Housing Strategy- implications for Barnet 10.2 Any person wishing to inspect this document should contact Chloe Horner, Acting Housing Strategy Team Leader, 020 8359 4775. Legal: DA CFO: HG 26

AGENDA ITEM: 9 Page nos. 27 36 Meeting: Date 9 March 2009 Subject Report of Summary Housing and Regeneration Cabinet Committee Regeneration Schemes: Progress Updates Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development This report summarises progress on the housing regeneration projects, current issues and the future programme. Officer Contributors Status (public or exempt) Wards affected Enclosures For decision by Function of Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in Nicola Bird, Acting Head of Regeneration, Angela Latty, Assistant Project Manager, Roger Arkell and Andrew Westcott Project Directors Public Colindale, Burnt Oak, West Hendon, Edgware, Underhill, and Childs Hill None Not Applicable The Committee Not Applicable Contact for further information: Nicola Bird on 0208 359 4862 27

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 This report is provided for information and comment 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 West Hendon 2.1.1 22/07/02 Cabinet: Election of Regeneration Partners (Item 4) 2.1.2 27/07/05 Planning & Environment Committee: Approval of Outline Planning Application (Item 9) 2.1.3 30/08/05 Cabinet Resources Committee: Approval of Principle Development Agreement (Item 5) 2.1.4 11/10/05 Cabinet: Comments from Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee on PDA (Item 7) 2.1.5 03/04/06 Cabinet: Approval to enter into PDA (Item 8) 2.1.6 25/03/08 Cabinet Resources Committee: Approval for transfer of land for the pilot phase (Item 14) 2.1.7 22/12/08 Planning and Environment Committee: Reserved matters planning consent for phase 2a 2.2. Stonegrove & Spur Road 2.2.1 18/06/07 Cabinet: Stonegrove and Spur Road Estates Area Regeneration (Item 6) 2.2.2 03/03/08 Planning and Environment Committee: (W13582E/07) Stonegrove and Spur Road Estates, Edgware, London (Item 7) 2.2.3 25/03/08 Cabinet Resources Committee: Stonegrove and Spur Road Estates Regeneration (Item 4) 2.2.4 02/09/08 Cabinet Resources Committee: Stonegrove and Spur Road Housing Estates Regeneration Scheme (Item 11) 2.3 Grahame Park 2.3.1 18/03/02 Cabinet: Selection of Regeneration Partners (Item 4) 2.3.2 08/09/04 Planning & Environment Committee: Approval of Outline Application (Item 8) 2.3.2. 03/04/06 Cabinet: Approval Head of Terms for PDA (Item 7) 2.3.3 24/07/06 Cabinet: Approval to enter into PDA (Item 5) 2.3.4 28/11/06 Cabinet Resources Committee: Approval for Transfer of land for Phase 1A (Item 14) 2.4 Dollis Valley 2.4.1 01/12/03 Cabinet: Selection of Regeneration Partner (Item 9) 2.4.2 21/02/05 Cabinet: Approval of Vision Statement (Item 7) 28