AGENDA ITEM NO 7
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
CABINET
24 March 2011
Report of: Alison Comley, Strategic Director Neighbourhoods
Title: (Parkinson and Woolaway) PRC Proposal – Business Case
Ward: Kingsweston, Lockleaze, Henbury
Officer Presenting Report: Alison Napper, Priority Stock Programme Manager
Contact Telephone Number: 3525168
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that 1. Cabinet approve the detailed proposal to deal with the Parkinson and Woolaway properties in Sea Mills, Lawrence Weston, Lockleaze and Henbury as set out in this report 2. Cabinet approves the procurement of a contractor or contractors to deliver the PRC repair programmes. 3. Cabinet approve the proposal to prudentially borrow up to £12m, and dispose of all or some of the identified sites, total potential estimated value of £7.6m, on the open market for private housing or for affordable or social housing delivered through a provider – to fund the anticipated £15m total scheme costs in the most economically advantageous way for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The aspirations are to ensure sufficient capital receipts are raised to fund the scheme as required, as well as to meet wider strategic objectives and make the best use of our assets. Summary
In February 2010, Cabinet approved the broad proposal to deal with the Parkinson and Woolaway properties in Sea Mills, Lawrence Weston, Lockleaze and Henbury. In summary, the proposal was to clear certain PRCs and sell the land, along with some additional sites, for redevelopment. The proceeds from the land sold for redevelopment will be used to fund the repair of all other PRCs. Some additional Housing Revenue Account (HRA) funding will be required to make up the shortfall.
The project is on track to deliver the objectives agreed. The structural survey results are positive, indicating that all PRCs scheduled for repair can indeed be repaired using the proposed system. This results in savings on previous estimates as no properties are expected to require a full rebuild. The proposed repair packages have been trialled on pairs of both Woolaway and Parkinson type PRC homes. The site valuations have been reconsidered and confirmed.
1
The significant issues in the report are:
The total scheme costs have reduced significantly from approximately £19m to £15m
There are 414 PRCs to repair and 160 properties to be demolished, and the land cleared for redevelopment.
Structural surveys were completed on all Woolaways and Parkinsons scheduled for repair – the results indicate that all can be repaired using our proposed package of works contributing to the proposed savings. (The February 2010 report suggested that up to 10% of these properties would need to be completely rebuilt.)
The repairs work is to be tendered as two contracts for 164 Woolaway homes and 246 Parkinson homes. The intention is to start work in Autumn 2011, run the contracts concurrently and completing all repairs before the end of 2013.
The proposal recommends 160 PRCs be demolished and the land appraised and sold for private housing, if this is the most economically advantageous route for the HRA. 134 of these properties are tenanted, and the affected tenants have all been contacted and consulted on the proposals. To date 12 tenants have moved.
Since the February 2010 report, Bristol failed to secure the estimated £10.5m Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) grant funding to build 76 new council homes. However, Bristol has been awarded over £775,690,grant from the HCA, and is match funding the grant with £907,268 from the HRA to build 12 new council homes. The homes are due to be complete in July 2011 and will be a source of rehousing for some of the displaced PRC tenants.
There remain nine privately owned properties to acquire to assist the redevelopment. Good progress has been made with negotiating with seven of these nine owners. Three are due to move in April 2011.
• The site valuation estimates have been tested, and we are cautiously optimistic that the total site value of £7.6m is realistic and achievable.
• Indicative figures on the impact on Bristol’s HRA following the government’s HRA Subsidy Review indicate that we may have various options to investigate as to how fund this PRC programme. Further work will be carried out in the next few months to develop the option that provides the best use of our assets, be that through prudentially borrowing or using our reserves, and the extent to which we fund this by selling land.
• The total scheme costs are estimated to be £15m – which includes all repair costs, costs associated with rehousing tenants and acquiring owners, and demolition and site maintenance costs.
• Comparison with previous cross-subsidy PRC Redevelopment Project
2 New scheme Previous Scheme Displaced PRC tenants 134 £1m 565 £3.5m PRCs demolished, void 121 £2m 565 (costs within cross subsidy management costs, etc. deal) Owners to acquire 9 £1m 9 £1m Repaired homes 414 £11.25m 0 New build council homes 0 £0 300 The cross-subsidy deal Additional new private 370 600 was £7.7m adrift when the homes scheme was withdrawn TOTAL COUNCIL 414 repaired 300 new homes HOMES homes TOTAL INCOME £7.6m capital £0 receipt TOTAL COSTS £15m £12m (including new build) NET COSTS £7.4m £12m
Policy 1. Priority Stock Strategy Asset Management Strategy Private Housing Renewal Policy Corporate Land Policy
Consultation 2.Internal Executive Member, Neighbourhoods Ward Councillors Steven Barrett, Service Director - Landlord Services Mary Ryan, Service Director - Landlord Services Nicky Debbage, Landlord Business Unit Manager Claire Burston, HRA Finance Business Partner Tim Bruce, Renewal and Investment Manager Peter Quantick, Property Services Manager Angela Kendrick, Senior Solicitor Sheelagh Dawson, Principal Solicitor Matt Sands, Environment Adviser Christopher Brake, Project Officer
3.External Tenants of the affected properties Tenants of the affected garages Residents adjoining the sites
3 Context 4. 4.1 Table 1
PRCs to be cleared for Option PRCs to be repaired TOTAL redevelopment To be Pilot units Sub- Tenanted Void Private Sub- repaired completed Total Total
Sea Mills 246 2 248 0 0 0 0 248 Lawrence 98 2 100 58 4 2 64 164 Weston Lockleaze 45 0 45 60 10 4 74 119 Henbury 21 0 21 16 3 3 22 43 TOTAL 410 4 414 134 17 9 160 574
The table above gives a breakdown of the PRCs to be repaired or redeveloped by area. Since the scheme was approved by Cabinet in February 2010, the number of homes included in the project has reduced from 579 to 574 as five homes previously proposed for repair have been purchased under the right to buy. The number of homes to be redeveloped has increased from 159 to 160 following, firstly, an arson attack on a void property in Lockleaze. The damage was so severe that it was deemed appropriate to demolish the property and it’s adjoining property, due to both the amount of damage caused and it’s location next to a vacant plot of land. In addition, one property previously proposed for redevelopment is now being repaired, as it adjoins a private owner in Lockleaze not previously identified as crucial to future development.
4.2 Redevelopment The proposal recommended 160 PRCs be demolished and the land sold for private housing. We have 160 PRC homes to be cleared for redevelopment, of which 134 are tenanted. The affected tenants were consulted on a draft of the Rehousing Strategy, spelling out how need and priority would be assessed and what the rehousing opportunities were. All tenants have been encouraged to complete the standard rehousing paperwork, and offered a home visit. To date, 12 tenants have moved through the Homechoice Bristol system.
4.3 In addition to properties available though Homechoice Bristol, there will be a large pool of homes ring-fenced for PRC tenants. Direct offers will be made to PRC tenants for the 12 new build homes in Lawrence Weston, 32 long-term PRC voids proposed for repair and various new build properties built on former prefab sites across Bristol. We estimate that all tenants should be rehoused by April 2013. Please see Appendix A for details. Tenants receive statutory Homeloss Compensation (currently £4,700), as well as a disturbance allowance to cover all reasonable costs incurred as a result of the move. Dedicated housing officers are available to offer advice and support throughout the rehousing process.
4.4 As part of the original PRC Redevelopment Project, the acquisition of 20 privately owned properties was considered essential to the redevelopment. To date, 11 of the 20 properties have been acquired. The remaining nine properties are all located in the redevelopment areas. The private owners willing to sell their homes to the council can opt for an outright sale – with the council offering market value, plus 10% as Homeloss Compensation as well as help and assistance in moving, or can swap their existing home for an alternative council property again attracting the compensation and moving assistance.
4.5 A preliminary assessment of the likely receipts generated from the sale of PRC sites identified for clearance and sale, as well as the additional parcels of land in and around the estates (garage sites, etc.) originally indicated a value in the region of £7.6m. This estimate has been tested, and we are cautiously optimistic that the figure is realistic and achievable. Repairs 4.6 Those homes not identified for redevelopment are proposed to be repaired. Structural surveys were undertaken on all Woolaways & Parkinsons proposed to be repaired and the results showed that all are repairable using our proposed repair method. The intention is to undertake localised repairs and external cladding work and that this will be a viable solution to extend the life of the properties by 30 years. In addition, the homes without new double-glazed windows will have them installed, and any outstanding Decent Homes improvements will be undertaken.
4.7 A pair of Woolaways in Lawrence Weston and a pair of Parkinsons in Sea Mills were identified to pilot the proposed repair package. The Woolaway homes were successfully repaired in August 2010. The Parkinson PRCs are located in Sea Mills conservation area, and works required planning consent. Negotiations over the planning application, as well as discussions over the appropriateness of uPVC windows within the area, delayed consent and agreement, and therefore the repair works were delayed. However, the works have now been successfully completed. Please see Appendix B for details.
Proposal 5. 5.1 Broadly speaking, the proposal is to: • Procure a contractor or contractors to repair 246 Parkinson PRCs and 164 Woolaway PRCs over the next three years. The Contract sums are estimated to be in the regions of £5.75m and £3m respectively. The Parkinson contracts will include new windows and roofs where necessary, and the Woolaway contract will include new roofs where necessary. • Invest a further £2.5m in the homes identified for repair through further decent homes works contracts to install new roof and heating systems where required, and new windows in the Woolaway PRCS where required. • Rehouse the remaining 122 tenants, thereby clearing 160 PRCs to make way for redevelopment (total costs approximately £2.5m) • Acquire the remaining nine privately owned properties in the estates to enable the land to be assembled for sale – estimated cost £1m • Appraise the garage sites, sites cleared of PRC homes and other available land to produce a programme of disposal – selling all or some of the sites to raise upto £7.6m to help fund the scheme • Prudentially borrow upto £12m to help fund the scheme • Total scheme estimated cost £15m
Redevelopment 5.2 Rehousing There are 134 PRC tenants who need to be rehoused. Of the remaining nine owners, it is likely that six will opt for outright sale and three will want to swap their home for an existing council property. These three owners are included within the rehousing statistics. Therefore we have a total of 137 households to rehouse. We will be making direct offers for the 12 new build Mansell homes, void PRCs being brought back into use and spare new build properties built on former Prefab sites around Bristol. We estimate that a minimum of 73 residents will move following a direct offer on one of these homes, with the remaining 64 residents either moving to homes advertised through Home Choice Bristol or choosing to relocate away from the area. We estimate that 122 residents will be rehoused by March 2012 and the remaining 15 residents with either very specific housing needs or wanting properties in scarce supply, should have found accommodation by April 2013. Please see Appendix A for details on the source of homes, estimated moves and predicted timescales 5.3 Sites The robustness of the original site valuation estimate has been checked with selected national house builders and this level of receipt should be achievable in the present climate. Once more research and investigations are undertaken on the sites, we should be able to refine this figure.
There are 54 sites, as follows, under consideration. • 18 PRC sites • 36 garage sites, backland sites and other pieces of land These include the nine sites (previously cleared of garages and a depot) prepared for new build council housing, but where the council was not successful in securing the funding.
More work needs to be carried out in order to formulate a disposal strategy for the sites. Some sites will be disposed of on the open market, some sites may be sold to an affordable housing provider whilst the council may retain some sites for it’s own development in the future. The site appraisal will need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of selecting a development partner or the council undertaking a lot of preparatory work including planning permission prior to disposal. The key will be striking the right balance between risk and reward in order to achieve value for money, as well as making the best use of our assets. The disposal strategy will include a timetable for sale, and it is anticipated that the sites to be sold will be released over the next three years.
The Lockleaze Regeneration Programme area includes sites that are part of this separate project tackling the Parkinson and Woolaway PRC properties. Any potential issues affecting the successful outcome of either initiative will be resolved at the Lockleaze Programme Board.
Repair 5.4 The main PRC repair contracts have been advertised via one OJEU notice and as two contracts, separating the Woolaway and Parkinson homes. Following a rigorous selection process, the aim is to appoint contractors and for works to start in Autumn 2011, providing there are no programme delays or issues with planning consent. Planning consent will be required for the repair work to Parkinson house repairs. Applications are to be submitted by phases, and applications for all phases should be submitted by early June 2011 with a target date for consent of August 2011.
We are aiming to let the replacement window work as a separate contract for Woolaways, and for new windows to be installed in all Wooloway homes (where required) during 2011. There will be no separate window contract for Parkinsons and new windows will be
installed, where required, as part of the main repair programme as there are potential technical and liability problems with fitting them separately. New roofs, where required, will be installed at the same time as the main concrete repair works for all homes. Properties needing electrical rewires or new kitchens will have these works completed over the next two years. A programme of works listing each address within phases, and a target start and finish date for each phase, is to be developed with the tenants of the homes. The target date for completion of all works is the end of December 2013.
Costs 5.5 The business case has been reviewed and updated, and indicates that the total estimated costs are approximately £15m, which includes PRC Repair costs (approximately £8.75m) Decent Homes works (approximately £2.5m) Homeloss payments and PRC and garage demolition costs for clearance areas (approximately £2.5m) Void management and relet costs (approximately £1m) Outstanding acquisition costs (approximately £1m)
5.6 The initial proposal estimated that up to 10% of the properties identified for repair would be beyond economic repair and require rebuilding, with significantly higher costs. The structural surveys have shown that all properties identified for repair can be economically repaired. This change alone is set to deliver a saving of over £4m. Please see Appendix C for a summary of the forecast income and expenditure
5.7 This saving brings a new set of issues to be addressed – whether we proceed with prudentially borrowing £12m to fund the scheme and whether we proceed in clearing and selling all available sites as originally intended – raising an estimated £7.6m. The HRA Business Plan has the capacity to prudentially borrow up to £12m, on the basis of repairing 416 homes, and using the rental income from these homes to repay the loan. It is a sound financial option to do pursue this opportunity. 5.8 A site appraisal framework is being developed, with a robust rationale for selecting the most appropriate solution, which will assist in ensuring we make the best use of our assets whilst meeting the requirements of the PRC proposal. 5.9 The proposal then is to fund the anticipated £15m total scheme costs in the most economically advantageous way for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) by prudentially borrow up to £12m, and disposing of all or some of the identified sites, total potential estimated value of £7.6m.
PRC Private owners 5.10 There are a number of privately owned defective PRC properties within the areas in addition to the nine homes we have identified for acquisition. There is no obligation on either the owner or Bristol City Council to undertake any repairs or improvements. However, we are aiming to offer an assistance package to owners of private defective PRC properties to help them access the council’s repair scheme, in the form of a loan. The loan capital pot is held by Wessex Home Loans.
Other Options Considered 6. These sites were originally to be developed as part of the PRC Redevelopment Project. The procurement process for this was ended due to significant project risks and concerns that the cross-subsidy project was not viable following the economic downturn.
As part of arriving at this revised proposal, the following options were considered: • Repair • Rebuild • Demolish and redevelop the area • Demolish and sell the land
The proposal outlined considers the most appropriate solution for each PRC, and when considered as an overall scheme delivers a solution for all PRCs in a way which the council can afford.
Risk Assessment 7. That the repair estimates prove inaccurate Efforts have been made to substantiate the figures. 100% structural surveys have been carried out, and pilot repairs undertaken.
That the valuations for the land are not achieved The preliminary assessment of the value of the sites has been reconsidered, and discussions held with private developers who have confirmed our forecasts.
That the remaining owner-occupied PRCs cannot be acquired – thereby reducing the development opportunity and value of the areas of land earmarked for redevelopment. There are a range of options on offer to the owners of the remaining privately owned properties, and we aim to be as flexible as possible throughout the negotiation process. As a last resort, the council could apply for a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire the land, which could cause delays and increase costs. Currently, we are confident that at least seven of the nine will move during 2011.
That the repaired and newly built homes are bought through the Right to Buy The repaired homes will not be to mortgageable standard and so this will reduce the likelihood of purchases, as tenants will be have to raise finance through means other than mortgages. The newly built homes will, however, be mortgageable and may well be attractive to tenants to purchase. The legislation protects new build properties in that we will not be able to sell them for less than they cost to build (known as the Cost Floor) regardless of discount. The Cost Floor applies for 10 years but this is unlikely to prevent sales. If the market value of a house is less than the Cost Floor then the tenant can still purchase the house for the lower amount. In addition, the Cost Floor can’t include the cost of the land where it was previously owned by BCC. The grant agreement for the HCA funded new build homes states that the HCA can recover a proportion of market uplift and the grant attributable to the sold property where sold through the RTB.
That there will be issues with or delays to gaining planning consent for the repair works to Parkinson homes in the Sea Mills Conservation Area. Applications are due to be submitted by phase – Parkinsons of the same design in the same street will form a phase – from April to June 2011. The target date for consent for all phases is August 2011. Part of the rationale behind piloting the repair works was to test the planning application process, including consultation, on a pair of Parkinson homes. Permission was granted, and we will be seeking views on the pilot pair prior to finalising the scheme to minimise this planning risk.
Equalities Impact Assessment 8. Please see Appendix D
Environmental checklist
The significant impacts of this proposal are.... Short-term increase in environmental impacts through the consumption of fossil fuels, production of waste and use of raw materials during demolition, repair & refurbishment and private redevelopment of sold sites.
Longer term, there will be on-going consumption of energy for heat and power, production of waste and occupant travel to / from the new homes.
Repair & refurbishment works will bring homes to Decent Homes Standards, resulting in energy efficiency improvements to homes that are currently inefficient.
Potential exists for both positive and negative net effects for example on biodiversity or energy use.
The proposals include the following measures to mitigate the impacts ... The main body of this Eco Impact Checklist (see above) sets out a number of mitigation measures which will be delivered as part of this project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures will also be delivered by this project:
Repair and refurbishment works: Repair & refurbishment works will bring homes to Decent Homes standards, resulting in Energy Efficiency improvements to homes that are currently inefficient.
Repair & refurbishment works will require that all construction elements covered by the BRE Domestic Green Guide to Specification are rated B or above unless there are significant technical or financial reasons why this cannot be achieved. Equivalent ranking schemes will be considered.
Repair & refurbishment works will aspire for all timber and wood-derived products used in the project to be certified to FSC or an equivalent standard. However, as a minimum, in line with UK Government policy (CPET), all timber and wood-derived products for supply or use in performance of these works must be independently verifiable and either: • From a legal and sustainable source; or • From a FLEGT-licensed or equivalent source.
Demolition of 160 PRCs: In accordance with WRAP guidelines, demolition works must: • Implement Site Waste Management Plans that not only meet any minimum regulatory requirements, but exceed these requirements by setting project specific targets for waste reduction and recovery and measuring performance. • Measure and report progress against KPIs for waste and waste to landfill. • Recover a minimum of 80% of demolition and strip-out materials, and aim to exceed 90%.
Development on disposed sites: Land sales will be subject to a Building Agreement to ensure that any development on disposed sites must be built to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 as a minimum.
In line with the Bristol Development Framework any development on disposed sites must also: • Provide sufficient renewable energy generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residual energy use in the buildings by at least 20% • Not increase peak surface water run-off from the site and must include sustainable urban drainage.
In addition to this the Building Agreement will also ensure that any development must: Include a Sustainability Statement in line with BCC's Supplementary Planning Document 5 “Sustainable Building Design and Construction” which sets out how the development addresses the issues raised in SPD5. Wherever possible protect and ideally enhance any existing pedestrian and cycling routes including informal ones.
The net effects of the proposals are.... The improvement of energy efficiency of 410 existing homes and the construction of new homes meeting good environmental standards.
It is therefore considered that the short term negative effects associated with demolition, repair & refurbishment and construction of new homes will be outweighed by long term positive effects. The extent to which this will be achieved depends on the specifications of individual schemes, and the success of their implementation.
Legal and Resource Implications Legal
All contracts let by the Council must be in accordance with all UK and European Union legal requirements and the general EC treaty principles of transparency, equal opportunity and equal treatment.
As the value of the proposed repairs exceed the EU threshold of £3,927,260 a full EU procurement process will need to be conducted to include the publication of the contract notice, short listing of suitable companies issue of invitation to tender and finally the award.
Tenders should be awarded following evaluation on what would be most economically advantageous to the Council so as to ensure value for money and the achievement of best value. In addition consideration should be given to whether additional security in the form of a Bond will be required from the successful contractor
Advice given by Sheelagh Dawson, Principal Solicitor
Section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 authorises local authorities to dispose of land held for housing purposes subject to the Secretary of State's consent. General Consent E3.1 of the General Consent for the Disposal of Part 11 Land 2005 permits a local authority to dispose of any land held for housing purposes for the best price reasonably obtainable. The Capital Finance Regulations of 2003 permits the authority to use 100% of the capital receipt it obtains from selling vacant HRA land or HRA properties in disrepair if the receipt is spent on providing affordable housing. This can include the improvement of existing stock to bring it up to the Decent Homes Standard. The Council has to have made a decision or resolution to spend a particular amount on affordable housing within a set period eg. the financial year to take advantage of this relaxation in the former rules.
The Council has powers to obtain possession of secure tenancies if the Council intends within a reasonable time of obtaining possession to demolish or re-construct the property and cannot reasonably do so without obtaining possession or if it intends to dispose of the tenanted property under a re-development scheme. As with compulsory purchase of land privately owned there is a right to Homeloss Compensation as mentioned in Paragraph 4.3 of the report. There is also a right to suitable alternative accommodation. There are various safeguards for owners and tenants in these circumstances and the individual personal circumstances, and human rights of such persons as well as the Council's equality policies, have to be very carefully considered before any of the powers described above can be exercised.
Advice given by Angela Kendrick, Senior Solicitor
Financial
(a) Revenue Implications on the HRA Business Plan – We have been through the costing assumptions within this report and feel that they are appropriate. These costings and the loss of stock have been run through our 30 year business plan to see the long term impact on the HRA. The HRA has a range of options as to how to fund these costs and work is being undertaken to determine how best to do this given the new opportunities that look like it could be facing under self-financing.
(b) Capital See above
Advice provided by Claire Burston, Finance Business Partner
Land
Personnel Not applicable
Appendices:
Appendix A – Rehousing timetable Appendix B – Pilot repair results Appendix C – Detailed estimated income and expenditure Appendix D – Equalities Impact Assessment Appendix E – Environmental Checklist
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 Background Papers:
ADDENDUM Re: AGENDA ITEM NO 7
CABINET – 24 MARCH 2011
ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON PARKINSON AND WOOLAWAY PRC PROPOSAL BUSINESS CASE
Report of: Alison Comley, Strategic Director Neighbourhoods
Title: (Parkinson and Woolaway) PRC Proposal – Business Case
Ward: Kingsweston, Lockleaze, Henbury
Officer Presenting Report: Alison Napper, Priority Stock Programme Manager
Contact Telephone Number: 3525168
REPORT ADDENDUM
Appendix B Woolaway and Parkinson Pilot Repairs U-values quoted for the repaired houses should read - Woolaway – U Values for the external walls have been reduced to 0.28 w/m2k Parkinson - U Values for the external walls have been reduced to 0.28 w/m2k
Appendix C – Detailed estimated income and expenditure Under Expenditure the unit costs for Parkinson and Woolaway repairs are interchanged. The correct figures are below.
General Parkinson repair cost per unit = £ 22,450 General Woolaway repair costs per unit = £ 19,242
Appendix A PRC Proposal Business Case
PRC Rehousing Timetable
Summary: PRC Tenants / Owners to Rehouse
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Nov 2010 / March 2011 April 2011 / March 2012 April 2012 / April 2013 Date Last Total Total Occupant PRC Prefab Mansell Prefab Total Moved Area Start Dates Moved To Date HCB Moved HCB Moved HCB TOTAL MOVED Expected To Voids Spares Homes Spares Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2 Move
Lawrence Weston Nov - 2010 May - 2012 6 14 1 6 27 12 3 12 27 4 4 58
Lockleaze Nov - 2010 Feb - 2013 5 1 6 3 15 0 31 10 41 6 6 62
Henbury Nov - 2010 Apr - 2013 1111403585517
Total Nov 2010 April 2013 12 16 8 10 46 12 37 27 76 15 15 137
Summary of Offers
Total Offers & Category Estimated Moves
Moved To Date 12
PRC Voids 16
Mansell Voids 12
Prefab Spares 45
HCB 52
Total 137
* 137 PRC Residents to rehouse = 134 tenants + 3 owners wanting to swap for BCC property * 73 Direct offers have / will be made on Mansell homes, PRC voids & Prefab spares Appendix B
PRC Proposal – Business Case
Woolaway Pilot repairs
The works began in late August 2010 with new PVC-U windows, and completed in Mid September. Since the new central heating systems had previously been installed, the old fresh air vents were redundant and could be sealed. Other original fixed vents (now redundant) were sealed internally and externally to prevent condensation from coming into contact with the concrete frames. External walls were then drilled with 25mm holes and cavities were then filled with a beaded insulant, which was applied with an adhesive.
Following temporary removal of all external fittings, solid insulation panels were then fixed to the external walls with a timber framework, and finished with Stenni rainscreen cladding. External rainwater goods etc were refixed, and soffits, fascias and gutters renewed. New front porches replaced the original concrete structures, and both houses have recently been rewired.
Both tenants and their families remained in occupation during the duration of the works and were kept informed of progress on a regular basis. Inspections were carried out at each stage by the Project Manager and Consultant Engineer, and the contract was completed within budget, timescale and to the standard of quality required.
Both tenants have completed a satisfaction survey and the results were overall excellent. With periodic maintenance, the lifespan of the houses should be extended by a minimum of 30 years. U values for external walls have been reduced to 28w/m2K.
Woolaway pilot repair – post-completion.
Appendix B
Parkinson Pilot Repairs
A planning application for one pair of houses in Coombe Dale, Sea Mills was made in late June 2010 and consent gained at the Planning Committee in October 2010, subject to various conditions. These were subsequently discharged, but works were further delayed due to Rok entering administration as Rok were due to manage the window replacement contract.
Following the transfer of the window scheme to Mears, all windows were renewed in early 2011 and the main contract began on 24th January 2011. Frames were re-positioned in the opening forward of their original position to prevent cold bridging and retain final external reveal depths. Soffits and fascias were renewed, together with all guttering. Concrete frame repairs had previously been completed to this pair of houses.
External wall cavities were filled with a beaded insulant and external plumbing temporarily repositioned. An external wall insulation system was applied, comprising 50mm phenolic insulation boards fixed directly to all external elevations using both adhesive and mechanical fixings. Front door frame mouldings were removed and later refixed to the new profile. A 3-coat render system was applied to all elevations and all plumbing and fitting re-fixed. Works finished on 23rd February 2011.
Both tenants have remained in occupation during the duration of the works and were kept informed of progress on a regular basis. Inspections were carried out at each stage by the Project Manager and Consultant Engineer, and the contract was completed within budget, timescale and to the standard of quality required.
New central heating systems were installed in late 2010 and the houses are due to be re-wired in March 2011.
With periodic maintenance, the lifespan of the houses should be extended by a minimum of 30 years. U values for external walls have been reduced to 28w/m2K.
Parkinson pilot repair – post-completion.
Appendix C - Detailed Estimated Income Expenditure
Summary PARKINSON AND WOOLAWAY PRC HOUSES - OPTION APPRAISAL 2011
TOTAL NO PROPERTIES 574 = 565 + 9 OWNERS TO COMPLETE 414 REPAIR / 160 REDEVELOP
EXPENDITURE
General Parkinson repair cost per unit = £ 19,242 General Woolaway repair costs per unit = £ 22,450 Minor brick / clad repairs cost per unit = £ 5,000 Roof cost per unit = £ 4,500 Lawrence REPAIRS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 1 Weston Units Completed 100 45 248 21 414 General repair cost to 246 Parkinsons @ £22,450 per unit (inc windows) 0 0 4,733,532 0 4,733,532 General repair cost to 146 Woolaways @ £19,242 per unit 1,712,538 692,712 0 404,082 2,809,332 Minor repairs to 18 brick / clad Woolaways @ £5,000 per unit 45,000 45,000 0 0 90,000 New roofs - 69 units @ £4,500 per unit 58,500 9,000 225,000 18,000 310,500 Pilot works to 4 units & structural surveys 75,000 0 75,000 0 150,000 Total Cost £ 1,891,038 746,748 5,822,700 404,082 8,864,568
Kitchen cost per unit = £ 5,332 Rewire cost per unit = £ 2,964 Windows cost per unit = £ 3,208 Lawrence DECENT HOMES WORKS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 2 Weston Kitchens - 182 units @ £5,332 per unit 191,952 138,632 586,520 53,320 970,424 Rewires - 320 units @ £2,964 per unit 189,696 148,200 569,088 41,496 948,480 Windows - 166 Woolaway units @ £3,208 per unit 314,384 144,360 0 67,368 526,112 Total Cost £ 696,032 431,192 1,155,608 162,184 2,445,016
Cost per unit = £ 95,000 Disturbance allowance = £ 1,500 Lawrence REBUILDS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 3 Weston No of Units 00000 Cost £ 00000
Homeloss Cost per unit = £ 4,700 Disturbance cost per unit = £ 1,500 Lawrence HOMELOSS & DISTURBANCE Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 4 Weston No of Units (less voids & owners) 58 60 0 16 134 Cost £ 359,600 372,000 0 124,000 855,600
Lawrence HCA NEW BUILD Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 5 Weston Round 1 12 0 0 0 12 Round 2 00000
Cost per unit = £ 6,000 Lawrence DEMOLITION OF UNITS ON PRC SITES FOR SALE Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 6 Weston No of Units 64 74 0 22 160 Cost £ 384,000 444,000 0 132,000 960,000 Appendix C - Detailed Estimated Income Expenditure
Lawrence VOID MANAGEMENT / SECURITY COSTS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 7 Weston Cost £ 115,660 115,207 0 32,830 263,697
Cost per unit = £ 20,312 Lawrence VOID RELET WORKS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 8 Weston No of Units @ £20,312 per unit 6 1 24 1 32 Cost £ 121,872 20,312 487,488 20,312 649,984
Average cost per unit = £ 150,000 Lawrence ACQUISITION COSTS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 9 Weston No of Units (less four owners expected to swap) 2 2 0 2 6 Cost £ 300,000 300,000 0 300,000 900,000
Lawrence TOTAL BCC UNITS Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 10 Weston Number Repaired 98 45 246 21 410 Pilot Repairs 20204 Number Rebuilt 00000 Number HCA 12 0 0 0 12 Total Units 112 45 248 21 426
Total Cost 3,868,202 2,400,997 7,494,258 1,193,429 14,956,886
INCOME
Grant figure per unit 60% (£15,000) = 9,000 Lawrence CESP GRANT Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 11 Weston No of Units 00000 Total Grant Figure 0 0 0 0 0
Lawrence SALE OF VACANT SITES Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 12 Weston Income £ 2,100,000 4,500,000 0 1,000,000 7,600,000
Lawrence TOTAL INCOME Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 14 Weston £ 2,100,000 4,500,000 0 1,000,000 7,600,000
Lawrence SUMMARY Lockleaze Sea Mills Henbury Total 15 Weston EXPENDITURE 3,868,202 2,400,997 7,494,258 1,193,429 14,956,886 INCOME 2,100,000 4,500,000 0 1,000,000 7,600,000 BALANCE -1,768,202 2,099,003 -7,494,258 -193,429 -7,356,886
16 AVERAGE COST PER UNIT = £ -17,269.69
NOTES - 1 BCC SITES INCLUDE 11 OWNERS ALREADY ACQUIRED 2 CEPS GRANT ONLY APPLIES TO SOME PARTS OF L.W. 3 SIX OWNERS ARE ESTIMATED TO TAKE CASH WITH THE REMAINING THREE EXCHANGING FOR BCC PROPERTIES 4 DECENT HOME WORKS COSTS ARE SUBJECT TO SURVEY RESULTS. THEY INCLUDE KITCHENS, REWIRES AND WINDOWS (FOR WOOLAWAYS ONLY) 5 ASSUMED ALL DEMOLISHED UNITS (LESS VOIDS / OWNERS / U&O TENANTS) WILL ATTRACT HOME LOSS AND DISTURBANCE ALLOWANCE 6 18 PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY BRICK / CLAD AND REQUIRE ONLY MINOR REPAIRS 7 FOUR PROPERTIES REPAIRED (INC DECENT HOMES WORKS) DURING PILOT REPAIR WORKS 8 DISTURBANCE COST OF £1,500 INCLUDES: DISCONNECTIONS & RECONNECTIONS / SKIP / REMOVALS / FITTING NEW CARPETS 9 GENERAL REPAIR COSTS INCLUDE NEW UPVC WINDOWS FOR PARKINSON'S 10 ADDITIONAL COST OF £736,032 IF STEEL WINDOWS ARE INSTALLED IN SEA MILLS 11 139 BCC HOMES ARE LOST DURING PROJECT. 190 & 192 ROMNEY AVENUE WERE MOVED FROM REPAIR TO REDEVELOP FOLLOWING FIRE DAMAGE 12 NEW ROOFS TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL 50 PRCS WHERE REPLACEMENT WAS DUE BEFORE 2021 13 £300k CONTRIBUTION TO BE RECEIVED FROM RELET BUDGETS FOR VOID RELET WORKS Appendix D
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL Equality Impact Assessment – Part One – Screening PRC Proposal
Name of service, function or policy PRC Proposal being assessed
Directorate and Service Neighbourhoods, Renewal and Investment Section, Priority Stock Team Alison Napper, Priority Stock Programme Manager Names and roles of officers Kajal Parmar, Project Officer completing the assessment Chris Brake, Project Officer
Main contact telephone number 352 5168 (Alison Napper) 12th January 2010 (Reviewed Feb 2011) Date assessment completed
1. Identify the aims of the policy/service/function and how it is implemented
Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom? 1.1 Is this a new policy/service/function or a This project – PRC Redevelopment Project was review of an existing one? formally approved in December 2005 by Cabinet, however the redevelopment did not begin as the procurement process was ended due to significant project risks and concerns that the cross-subsidy project was not viable in the current environment.
1 Appendix D Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom?
Therefore, this is an alternative policy for the PRC homes.
1.2 What is the main purpose of the policy/ service/function? The broad proposal is to repair most of the PRCs, rebuild those which are beyond economic repair and clear and sell larger areas of PRC land for redevelopment (such as additional land and some garage sites).
The successful delivery of this project will see 416 homes repaired and 12 newly built.
1.3 What are the main activities of the policy/ The following activities have been completed or are to service/function? be completed, before work can commence:
Pilot repair studies Further property surveys Produce repair programmes Produce programme for rehousing tenants and demolishing PRCs ready for sale
The main activities for this project will be as follows:
• Sites prepared for when building work commences • Affected tenants/garage tenants advised of further decisions, the impact of the decisions etc
2 Appendix D Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom? • Contractor appointed to build the new homes • Repair programme to be agreed • Rehousing programme to be completed • Build programme for clearance to be agreed, and affected tenants advised
1.4 Who are the main beneficiaries? Delivery of the project will benefit: Whose need is it designed to meet? • Bristol City Council, in terms of improving the PRC homes to meet the Decent Homes Standard, building new council housing for the City. • The mixed solution – repair/rebuild/redevelop will benefit existing tenants who are living in these homes, as their homes will be repaired etc. after a time of uncertainty.
1.5 Which staff carry out the policy/ service/ Delivery of the project will involve different staff. function? Internal : Council Officers, ranging from Project Managers, Construction Managers, Project Officers and also other internal departments, such as the Planning Department for example.
External organisations: Planning Consultants and Building Contractors.
1.6 Are there any areas of the policy or Allocations of the homes ring fenced for PRC tenants function that are governed by the service including Lawrence Weston new builds, PRC voids provider's judgement? and spare new homes built on former prefab sites eg. home visits "where appropriate". If so, were completed in accordance with an agreed is, there clear guidance on how to Rehousing Strategy. exercise this to prevent bias/ prejudice from creeping into the process? The Councils Rehousing Service, tenants and local 3 Appendix D Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom? councillors all contributed to the strategy, while formal consultation events were held in each PRC estate. Feedback showed that the policy was well received.
1.7 Is the Council working in Partnership with The City Council appointed Planning Consultants, EqIA to be considered as other organisations to implement this who will be working in partnership up until submission part of the procurement policy/ function? Should this be taken into of the planning applications for the sites. consideration? eg. Agree equalities process for contractors. monitoring categories Contractors will be appointment to undertake the Should the partnership arrangements main repair programmes and site demolition have an EqIA? programme.
4 Appendix D Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom? 1.8 Do you have any initial thoughts that any Garage tenants who live near the sites will be of the six equalities strands have affected. Garage tenancies will be terminated, those particular needs relevant to the policy? ie.: tenants that enjoyed having a garage will have to give up their tenancies for their garage in order for the sites to be cleared.
Garage tenants with disabilities/health issues that have disabled parking for example will be affected by this project, therefore alternative parking provision must be given to tenants.
In terms of health/disability – All PRC tenants being displaced from their homes have / will be assessed and recommendations made by Health & Housing relating to their rehousing needs.
Tenants information will be collected through questionnaires and home visits to ensure individuals/families needs are recognised, and to ensure we can provide help and support throughout the duration of the project.
Gender (include Transgender)
5 Appendix D Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom? Disability Garage tenants with disabilities/health issues that Adequate alternative have disabled parking for example will be affected by parking provision will be this project, therefore alternative parking provision must be given to tenants. offered for those tenants
that have a real need. PRC tenants – Issues and needs to be discovered through questionnaires and home visits. Health & Housing to make decisions on housing needs. Age Garage tenants with health issues, that have an Regular newsletters, allocated (disabled) parking for example will be letters, phone calls, home affected by this project, therefore alternative parking provision must be given to this group of tenants. visits, consultation events
PRC tenants - Older tenants living in the homes will need extra support, particularly those needing to find a new home. We are aware that older PRC tenants will need regular communication and home visits from officers, so that they are able to discuss their queries, or concerns face to face.
Tenants living in PRCs due to be repaired will need careful explanation of the repair package and what it consists of to eliminate any possible worry or distress. Race Contact will be made with all affected tenants, therefore any issues tenants have will be recorded, and we will ensure that we are able to provide the right level of help and support. Tenants experiencing racial abuse to be referred to appropriate support agencies and appropriate actions taken – eg: moving them quicker if living in a PRC to be demolished. Sexual Orientation
6 Appendix D Key Questions Notes Actions needed? By whom? Religion/Belief PRC tenants have been given lots of information about how they and their home will be affected. Contact will be made with all affected tenants, therefore any issues tenants have will be recorded, and we will ensure that we are able to provide the right level of help and support. Do any other specific groups have Garage tenants/Older/Disabled tenants as mentioned particular needs relevant to the above. policy/service?
1.9 Taking the six strands of equalities, is Garage tenants who have allocated parking due to As mentioned above, there anything in the policy that you can their health will be disadvantaged, because their alternative parking think of at this stage that could tenancies will be ended. discriminate or disadvantage any groups provision will be offered. of people? ie.: People currently living in a 3 / 4 bed house, particularly the elderly, who are assessed as having Monitoring of rehousing only a two bed rehousing need may find it difficult to find a house due to the severe lack of two bed options and changes to the houses. These people would effectively only be rehousing policy may need eligible for flats within the PRC estates as there are so few two bed houses. Careful monitoring and to be applied. flexibility may need to be applied to the rehousing policy to ensure these tenants are suitably be rehoused.
7 Appendix E
Eco Impact Checklist Title of report:(Parkinson and Woolaway) PRC Proposal - Business Case Report author: Alison Comley, Strategic Director Neighbourhoods Anticipated date of key decision: 24th March 2011 Summary of proposals: ● There are 410 PRCs to repair and 160 properties to be demolished, and the land cleared for redevelopment. ● Structural surveys were completed on all Woolaway's and Parkinson's scheduled for repair – the results indicate that all can be repaired using proposed package of works (The February 2010 report suggested that up to 10% of these properties would need to be completely rebuilt.) ● The proposal recommends 160 PRCs be demolished and the land sold for private housing. Will the Yes +ive If yes... proposal / or Briefly describe impact Briefly describe Mitigation impact on... No -ive measures Emission of Yes - In the short-term, there is Overall mitigation measures are Climate a potential for secondary proposed at the end of this Changing emissions of climate checklist. In addition: Gases? changing gases arising through the use of energy ■ Contractors performance in this and materials during all area will be assessed during the stages of the project tendering process for all BCC (demolition, repair & commissioned works refurbishment, BCC (demolition, repair & rebuild, and private refurbishment works) redevelopment) ■ The viability of incorporating renewable energy measures In the longer term new into repair and refurbishment dwellings on previously works will be considered in undeveloped and former conjunction with BCC's Energy garage sites will increase Efficiency specialists. the overall carbon footprint of these sites. + It is likely that all new homes will have lower emissions than future occupier's present dwellings.
Repair & refurbishment works will result in Energy Efficiency improvements to homes that are currently inefficient Will the Yes +ive If yes... proposal / or Briefly describe impact Briefly describe Mitigation impact on... No -ive measures Bristol's Yes - Private redevelopment Overall mitigation measures are vulnerability to works will see new proposed at the end of this the effects of homes which may: checklist. In addition: climate change? - Be at risk of flooding. Sites will be screened by Planning - Increase the flood plain Officers to identify the appropriate making surrounding mitigation in relation to any impacts areas more vulnerable to identified. flooding. - Place additional demand on the mains drainage system. - Increase water run-off by creating more impermeable surfaces. - Not be robust enough to cope with extreme temperature variations, or violent storms - Increase water consumption + It is likely that all new homes will be more water efficient than future tenant's present dwellings. Will the Yes +ive If yes... proposal / or Briefly describe impact Briefly describe Mitigation impact on... No -ive measures Consumption Yes - In the short-term, fossil Overall mitigation measures are of non- fuels and other non- proposed at the end of this renewable renewable materials and checklist. In addition: resources? products are likely to be used during all stages of ■ These issues will be considered the project (demolition, as part of determining any repair & refurbishment planning application submitted and private for development upon disposal redevelopment). ■ Contractors performance in this area will be assessed during Pedestrian and cycling the tendering process for all routes may be lost BCC commissioned works through development. (demolition, repair & This includes informal refurbishment works) routes.
In the longer term new dwellings on previously undeveloped and former garage sites will increase the consumption of fossil fuels for heating, power and travel to and from the dwellings. + However, once built, it is likely that all new homes will consume less non- renewable resources than future tenant's present dwellings.
Repair & refurbishment works will reduce consumption of non- renewable resources by retained homes Production, Yes - Waste will arise from Overall mitigation measures are recycling or demolition, repair & proposed at the end of this disposal of refurbishment, and checklist. In addition: waste private redevelopment. ● The contractor will be required Waste will arise from the to prepare Site Waste normal occupation of any Management Plans in an new homes. approved format or all BCC commissioned works (demolition, repair & refurbishment works). ● Contractors performance in this Will the Yes +ive If yes... proposal / or Briefly describe impact Briefly describe Mitigation impact on... No -ive measures area will be assessed during the tendering process for all BCC commissioned works (demolition, repair & refurbishment works) The Yes May The new homes and The suitability of the buildings’ appearance of be - repair & refurbishment appearance will be considered as the city? or + works will alter the part of the planning applications appearance of the city Pollution to Yes - Redevelopment sites may Overall mitigation measures are land, water, or have been contaminated proposed at the end of this air? by previous activity. checklist. In addition:
Demolition, repair & ● Contaminated land issues will refurbishment works will be considered as part of create run-off, noise and determining any planning air source pollution risks application submitted for and emissions. development on disposal sites. ● Legislation is in place to reduce Construction and the adverse effects of the operation of new impacts of development. developments will create ● Contractors performance in this sewage discharges, road area will be assessed during the run-off, noise and air tendering process for all BCC source pollution risks and commissioned works emissions. (demolition, repair & refurbishment works). Wildlife and Yes - The new homes and Overall mitigation measures are habitats? repair & refurbishment proposed at the end of this works may: checklist. In addition: • Impact upon legally protected species or ● Guidance on protecting species habitats & habitats will be sought from ● Impact on priority the Natural Environment team species or habitats asap during demolition, repair & listed in the UK or refurbishment works. Bristol Biodiversity ● This issue will be considered as Action Plan. part of determining any planning • Reduce green spaces/ application submitted for corridors. development on disposed sites. ● Remove trees. On-site or off-site mitigation of ● Create opportunities wildlife impacts may be needed to incorporate existing for some sites. trees or plant new ● Dependent on Planning Advice, trees. an ecological assessment of affected buildings and sites may be needed, and if necessary any protected species licences Will the Yes +ive If yes... proposal / or Briefly describe impact Briefly describe Mitigation impact on... No -ive measures will be obtained from Natural England. Consulted with: Steve Ransom - Environmental Performance Programme Coordinator Celia Beeson - Climate Change and Built Environment Coordinator Checklist completed by: Name: Matthew Sands Dept.: Neighbourhoods Extension: 25545 Date: 18/2/2011 Verified by Steve Ransom - Environmental Sustainable City Group Performance Programme Coordinator