NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES LIMITED GOVERNING BOARD MEETING
Date: THURSDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2017 Time: 5.30 PM Place: SHEILA ROPER CENTRE, OFF BASLOW DRIVE, LENTON ABBEY, NOTTINGHAM, NG9 2SU
Directors of the Board are requested to attend the above meeting on the date and at the time and place stated to transact the following business:
George Pashley Company Secretary
AGENDA
Page Time No. Welcome to the refurbished Sheila Roper Centre from Angie Stanton, Centre Caretaker 5.30 1 INTRODUCTORY ITEMS 1.1 WELCOME 5.40 1.2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1.3 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS 1.4 ITEMS FROM THE CHAIR 1.5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26 JANUARY 2017 Attached 3 - 9 5.40 1.6 MATTERS ARISING
2 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION 2.1 HOUSEMARK CORE BENCHMARKING REPORT 2015/16 Attached 10 - 64 5.40 Presentation from Rachael Collings (Housemark)
3 ITEMS TO NOTE 3.1 QUARTER THREE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 2016/17 Attached 65 - 69 6.40 Report Of The Performance Manager, Business Transformation
3.2 2016/17 FINANCE REPORT – PERIOD 9 (DECEMBER 2016) Attached 70 - 79 6.55 Report of the Assistant Director of Finance and Procurement
1 3.3 ‘FIXING OUR BROKEN HOUSING MARKET’ THE Attached 80 - 97 7.10 GOVERNMENT’S HOUSING WHITE PAPER, PUBLISHED IN FEBRUARY 2017 Report of the Director of Investment and Business Services
3.4 COMPANY SECRETARY’S REPORT Attached 98 - 106 7.25 Report of the Company Secretary
3.5 FEEDBACK FROM BUILD A BETTER NOTTINGHAM Attached 107- 110 7.35 STEERING GROUP ON 2 FEBRUARY 2017 Report of the Chief Executive
4 CLOSING ITEMS 4.1 ANY OTHER BUSINESS - 4.2 DATE OF NEXT MEETING – 30 MARCH 2017 -
2 ITEM: 1.5
THE BOARD 23 FEBRUARY 2017 NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES LIMITED
THE BOARD
MINUTES of the PUBLIC MEETING held on 26 JANUARY 2017 at the St Ann’s Valley Centre, 2 Livingstone Road, St Ann’s, Nottingham, NG3 3GG.
Board Members
Dave Bennett-Bull Bill Blincoe Scott Campbell Anne Dean Patience Ifediora Julian Owen Sarita-Marie Rehman-Wall Michael Savage Malcolm Sharp, MBE (Chair) Sam Webster
Also in Attendance:
Chris Culleton Director of Repairs and Maintenance Cathy Dobb (Minute taker) Head of Governance Elizabeth Ekaeteh (Observer) Board Development Attendee Dan Lucas (for Item 9) Strategy and Research Manager Tom Moulsdale (Observer) Governance Officer Gill Moy Director of Housing and Customer Services Nick Murphy Chief Executive George Pashley Company Secretary Darren Phillips (for Item 7) Assistant Director of Finance and Procurement Jonathan Shaw Director of Investment and Business Services
1 WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS & CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed Board Members including Sam Webster, the new Council Board Member. The Chair also welcomed Elizabeth Ekaeteh to the meeting. Attendance as an observer at Board Meetings forms part of her Board Member training.
2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies have been received from Glenn Harris, MBE and Steve Young.
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3 None declared.
4 ITEMS FROM THE CHAIR
4.1 The Chair presented to Richard Whittaker the Building Excellence Award for the best new social housing in the country for the Palmer Court development. The Chair thanked everyone who was involved in the project.
4.2 The Chair was pleased to inform the Board that Nottingham City Homes (NCH) had jumped 71 places in the last year to achieve 89th place nationally in Stonewall’s prestigious Top 100 Employers. Congratulations to NCH and to the Board who have continually supported this LGBT initiative.
5 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 NOVEMBER 2016
These were agreed as a true record. The Chair signed the minutes.
6 MATTERS ARISING
None.
7 2017/18 BUDGET SETTING
7.1 The Chief Executive introduced the report presenting the proposed NCH budget for 2017/18. This follows the discussion after the last Board meeting, which called for a clear message to be taken back to Nottingham City Council (NCC) regarding the increased return that NCC were requesting. The Chair and the Chief Executive presented the Board’s concerns to the Partnership Forum. NCC asked for a further meeting and stated that they will reconsider the extra £125k requested, and NCH are awaiting their decision.
7.2 The Chief Executive informed the Board of the external factors that would impact on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which included welfare reforms, the 1% rent reduction and the Right To Buy (RTB). There are also additional staffing pressures to be dealt with including the requirement to pay a 1% staff pay award and any relevant incremental pay points and higher employer pensions contributions. However, rather than shrink its business, NCH is looking to grow and increase its scope, so the overall budget next year is planned to increase from £63m to £68m. This requires commercial growth including the successful delivery of the in-sourcing agenda.
7.3 The proposed budget has a deficit of £80k and Board were informed that should NCC not agree to reduce the £125k return, this deficit would be covered by reducing the refurbishment costs of the Harvey Road accommodation move.
7.4 Board discussed whether there was a benefit of having a separate meeting dedicated to Budget Setting in future years, with more detailed presentations on the budget or whether it was more appropriate for Board to have the strategic overview of the budget and for managers to decide the more detailed resource allocation within this.
4 RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To approve the 2017/18 budget. 2. To approve the 2017/18 NCH Social Housing Rent Policy.
8 COMPANY SECRETARY’S REPORT
8.1 AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
8.1.1 The Company Secretary introduced the report by stating that Standing Orders have been amended as follows: • To reflect changes to EMT delegated powers • To update Directors job titles • To require the granting of a tenancy agreement to a relative of a Nottingham City Councillor to be reported to Board • The inclusion of the authority for all payments to be made within NCH Ltd powers up to £150k by EMT and reported to Board • Changes to group and committee structures • The inclusion of the Board agreeing that the current Nottingham City Homes Enterprise Limited (NCHEL) Board will comprise of NCH EMT members.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the update to Standing Orders.
8.2 REGISTERED PROVIDER BOARD MEMBERSHIP UPDATE
8.2.1 The Company Secretary stated that the internal Governing Board Members who will be sitting on the Registered Provider (RP) Board will be Scott Campbell, Julian Owen and Malcolm Sharp, MBE. Paul Moat, Ann McCarthy and Audra Wynter, who have expressed an interest in being Independent RP Board Members, have been invited to meet with the remainder of the RP Board Members to hear about the plans for NCH RP and what will be required from new Board members. This meeting will take place immediately after the Governing Board Meeting.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the membership of the RP Board.
8.3 TENANT BOARD MEMBER VACANCY UPDATE
8.3.1 The Company Secretary stated to Board that an interview was held for the Tenant Board Member position on 21 December 2016. The post was not filled; however, the applicant, Elizabeth Ekaeteh, has been offered a support plan, including sitting in on Board Meetings, in order to develop her potential. It is hoped that with this additional support, Elizabeth will be able to apply for the Tenant Board Member
5 role in the future. In the meantime, the current vacant Tenant Board Member post will remain unfilled.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the update to the Tenant Board Member vacancy.
8.4 BOARD TRAINING PLAN UPDATE
8.4.1 The Company Secretary informed Board that NCH is currently reviewing the way we deliver Board Training and are proposing to split this into three distinct areas – Induction, Mandatory and Bespoke learning. Board Members were invited to provide feedback outside of the meeting.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the update on the Board Training Plan.
8.5 TASK AND FINISH GROUP UPDATE
8.5.1 The Company Secretary informed Board that a sickness absence Task and Finish Group has been created following the last meeting. The Group is made up of three Board Members; Dave Bennett-Bull, Bill Blincoe and Glenn Harris, MBE, who will support the Company Secretary and the Head of Organisational Development, as management deal with and understand, the key issues surrounding sickness absence and the proposals to reduce absence.
8.5.2 The Board were informed that sickness absence costs NCH between £700k and £1m per annum. The average number of sick days taken is currently 12.2 per employee per annum, with 70% of sickness absence made up of long term sickness, mainly muscular skeletal and stress. By comparison, local authorities have a rate of 8.5 days and 58% long term sickness absence. One issue is the current Record Management and Reporting system which is weak and not fit for purpose.
8.5.3 The Task and Finish Group made a number of recommendations to tighten up the process with managers and look to improve visibility on Oracle or to have a bespoke database. Occupational Health is under review and we are looking to use NCC in the first instance through a three year contract with break clauses. There is also a recommendation to employ a full time Sickness Absence Manager to raise the profile of this issue. The next Task and Finish Group will be in April.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the update on the Task and Finish Group.
8.6 BOARD MEMBER AWAY DAY
6 8.6.1 An Away Day for Board Members has been arranged for 27 February 2017 at the New Art Exchange, 39-41 Gregory Boulevard, Nottingham NG7 6BE, to discuss the planning and preparation for the next Corporate Plan from March 2018 onwards. The second half of the day will be spent touring some of the many active NCH building sites.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the update on the Board Away Day.
8.5 USE OF THE COMPANY SEAL
8.5.1 The Seal was affixed on the following occasions:
8.5.2 The Seal was affixed on 24 November 2016 to the contract with Trentside Fixings Limited for the supply of small plant fastenings and fixings. This is a two year contact with the option to extend for a further year with a total contract value of £903,048.
8.5.3 The Seal was affixed on the 24 November 2016 to the contract with Kaefer C&D Ltd for asbestos surveys and removal works. This is a four year contract with the option to extend for a further year with a total contract value of £1,624,278.
8.5.4 The Seal was affixed on the 24 November 2016 to the contract with Dodd Group Ltd for the supply of electrical rewires and repairs. This is a four year contract with the option to extend for a further year with a total contract value of £1,769,512.
8.5.5 TR1 Transfer of Registered Title - The Seal was affixed on the 21 December 2016 for the purchase of 9 Wycliffe Grove, Mapperley, Nottingham, NG3 5FP for £132,000.
8.5.6 TR1 Transfer of Registered Title – The Seal was affixed on 9 January 2017 for the purchase of 1 Russell Court, 562 Woodborough Road, Mapperley, Nottingham, NG2 3NJ for £94,000.
RESOLUTION:
The Board agreed: 1. To note the use of the Company Seal.
9 NEW GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS AND EXTERNAL POLICY DEVELOPMENTS WITH AN IMPACT ON NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES
9.1 The Strategy and Research Manager introduced the report by informing Board Members that the report contains an update on key housing policy and information announcements made since the last report to Board in September 2016. There has been a significant focus on housing issues, with political party conferences being held. These fed into the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement with the announcement of an overarching Housing White Paper, which has yet to be published. This will be brought back to Board when it has been published.
7 9.2 The Board were informed that the Government did a U turn on its Pay to Stay policy, and as the Board and tenants did some significant lobbying on this point, and as it would have been a massive burden on Social Landlords, it is a victory for tenants.
9.3 Consultation on a new housing costs funding model for supported and sheltered housing from 2019/20 is now open and NCH is responding to the consultation. This follows the introduction of a cap on Housing Benefit for social tenants, which was deferred until 2019/20, after which the new funding model will apply, with ring- fenced top up funding for local authorities to distribute to supported housing providers.
9.4 Board discussed if there is now a more clement attitude from the Government towards Council housing. The Chief Executive stated that it may appear that Council housing was being considered part of the solution to the country’s housing crisis.
9.5 The Chief Executive also informed the Board of the joint working between Derby Homes and NCH under the Metropolitan Strategy. Half a dozen areas for such working were identified at the initial meeting.
10 FEEDBACK FROM AUDIT COMMITTEE ON 9 JANUARY 2017
10.1 Scott Campbell informed the Board that the last Audit Committee continued its scrutiny into each Corporate Risk and the Financial Risk Register was audited and found be thorough and in good shape. Two risks remain high; Universal Credit and Budget Setting. Audit felt that they were scrutinising the right areas. Audit reports that went to the Committee were the draft risks associated with Board, planning or governance arrangements, Universal Credit, Human Resources and Key Performance Indicators. All achieve significant or high assurance. The Committee also looked at the appointment of internal auditors for the following year and the need to have housing expertise in this area.
11 FEEDBACK FROM NCC/NCH PARTNERSHIP FORUM ON 12 JANUARY 2017
11.1 The Board were informed that the Partnership Forum is the formal meeting between NCC and NCH, and the NCH representatives are the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive. The NCC representatives are Cllr Urquhart and David Bishop. The Forum discussed NCC signing off the new subsidiaries, the Corporate Plan, Repairs and Maintenance insourcing and modernisation and that NCH were not getting as much work from NCC as we would like. NCC supported the proposals to establish and in-house new build team and is committed to finding future sites for development. The Forum also discussed the budget paper and the Boards concerns on the return NCC expect from NCH. NCC has bought Sutton House as an Independent Living Scheme, and NCH project managed NCC buying that property. The residents are pleased that NCH is now managing this property.
12 FEEDBACK FROM BUILD A BETTER NOTTINGHAM STEERING GROUP MEETING ON 22 DECEMBER 2017
8 12.1 The Chief Executive informed the Board that this Steering Group oversees the delivery of NCC’s new homes target. There are a number of sites that have been transferred to NCH, such as Padstow, and there are other sites coming through. NCH is project managing a number of sites around the city on behalf of NCC as well as NCH’s own development projects.
12.2 The Chief Executive stated that Stepney Court in Aspley has been redesigned to fit in with the NCC budget and in doing so we can build six additional flats. Clifton Miners Welfare Club in the Meadows area and Knights Close in Top Valley are two more additional sites which NCC are purchasing for future development.
12.3 Board were informed that the Willoughby Street development will not be proceeding and that the Padstow development will come back to Board in due course for a development discussion.
13 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
14 DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
The next scheduled meeting will be on the 23 February 2017.
The meeting closed at 19.17
SIGNED………………………………………………… DATE ……………………..
Return to Agenda
9 ITEM: 2.1 THE BOARD 23 FEBRUARY 2017
HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Nottingham City Homes
January 2017
10 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
1. Introduction
1.1. Operational context
Housing continues to feature highly on the political agenda. The government is focused on increasing new housing supply and promoting home ownership. Limited funding is available for new affordable rented housing with the majority of government funding for affordable homes being directed at home ownership schemes. Achieving government housing targets alongside its home ownership aspirations may prove increasingly challenging in the event of a post-‘Brexit’ downturn.
The Housing and Planning Act 2016 brings in a number of significant challenges for local authority housing that will have important implications for ALMOs. Each of these policies has its own set of cost implications.
Local Authorities now have a duty to consider selling higher value stock that becomes vacant, so the proceeds can offset a levy set up to fund the voluntary right to buy for housing associations. The proposals to implement this scheme are still being finalised, but the Act allows the government to estimate the amount of money it would expect each authority to receive from sales and to pay this to the Treasury.
The Act also brings to an end the principle of lifetime tenancies, with most new local authority tenancies being for fixed terms of between 2 and 10 years. Where households contain a child under the age of 9, the authority will be able to grant a tenancy which lasts until the child is 19.
The Housing and Planning Act has also created some issues for ALMO governance. In limiting or removing the ability of local authorities to exert influence over private registered providers, the Housing and Planning Act seeks to ensure that stock transfer (LSVT) housing associations cannot be defined by the ONS as public sector. However, this seems to inadvertently apply to those ALMOs who have independently registered with the HCA.
Alongside these measures, social landlords are being required to reduce their rents by 1% per year over the next four years as the government seeks to reduce housing benefit costs.
The uncertainty created by the current operational context means that local authorities and ALMOs have cut back plans to develop properties by as much as 90%1 and focused on keeping a tight control on operating costs in order to maintain a viable service while balancing the housing revenue account.
1 http://www.cih.org/resources/PDF/Investing%20in%20council%20housing%20CIH- CIPFA%20July%202016.pdf
HouseMark 2016
11 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
1.2. Benchmarking
Benchmarking is important to any business. It provides key comparisons with similar organisations, enabling understanding of strengths and weaknesses and underpinning an evidence based approach to resource allocation, cost reduction and target setting.
Commercially, this information would be used to maintain competitive advantage. In social housing, particularly around the landlord function, competition is less of an issue; but understanding differences and identifying areas for improvement are essential business intelligence.
Our benchmarking provides essential insight into your detailed service costs and how they compare with others. HouseMark’s methodology ensures all costs are allocated in the same way to clearly defined categories. Our systems also allow flexible peer group selection, ensuring comparisons are made with organisations of a similar profile facing similar challenges.
At HouseMark, we continue to review our benchmarking offer to ensure it remains relevant and insightful. We are currently in the midst of a member-driven ‘systems thinking’ review of our benchmarking service. This is a two-year improvement project incorporating the re-platforming of our data entry and reporting systems.
The objectives are to:
Make data collection easier for you Deliver outputs more quickly and flexibly Ensure you gain value from participation
For 2016, we continue to offer the full range of benchmarking outputs, enhanced in line with customer feedback. Full details of enhancements, new performance indicators and new products (including our exciting new online maps tool) can be found in the HouseMark Benchmarking Offer 2016 document.
This benchmarking report is one output among many drawn from HouseMark’s core benchmarking service, aimed at all levels of staff and management within our member organisations, as well as residents. The report has been enhanced to include powerful information on trend, and includes additional information on: development; maintenance management to service provision ratios; and new information on transactional satisfaction (StarT). It is just part of our evolving offer, which enables a changing, diversifying sector to drive efficiency and value for money, understand customers and manage risk.
HouseMark 2016
12 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Other key benchmarking outputs include:
Flexible VFM Scorecard – the VFM Scorecard featured in this report is flexible and can be edited online. Members can choose from a basket of available indicators to bespoke the VFM Scorecard to their organisation. The VFM Scorecard is designed to provide you and your stakeholders with a high-level value-for-money summary of your business activities.
Social Housing Dashboard – developed with boards and residents in mind, this quadrant-based chart provides at-a-glance understanding of an organisation’s costs and performance across key social housing service areas. It can also be embedded directly into your own website or intranet. The dashboard has been refreshed in 2016 in line with customer feedback. More granularity is now provided on housing maintenance, and performance indicators have been refreshed to ensure the suite of measures used to calculate the ‘performance score’ remains appropriate. The original version has been retained for those who prefer it.
HouseMark 2016
13 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Spreadsheet schedules – supplied with this report, these contain in-depth figures for each organisation in the peer group and are broken down into operational service areas
HouseMark 2016
14 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Online reporting – this provides full flexibility to analyse different peer groups over various timescales, look at service areas in detail, and extract charts and data. Our scenario facility also allows you to model changes in staffing and non- pay costs to assess the impact of potential changes on your relative position
Sector analysis – using aggregated benchmarking data alongside other publicly available relevant data, HouseMark’s in-house team of analysts produce several reports throughout the year to identify emerging patterns and understand the effect of external issues on the housing sector. For example, our voids and lettings storyboard which can be viewed on-line https://www.housemark.co.uk/subscriber-tools/data-and-analysis/voids-and-lettings- analysis-2010-15
HouseMark 2016
15 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
1.3. Key operational issues
Changes in the operating environment may impact on your costs and performance in a number of ways. Your benchmarking data will help you assess how you have managed these changes compared to your peers.
The table below sets out a number of current issues and how the relative impact on your organisation can be analysed using benchmarking data:
Operational issue Response In spite of delays to the full adoption of Benchmarking data provides a Universal Credit, our survey of Welfare comprehensive overview of rental Reform Impact Club members found that income and arrears performance its continued incremental roll-out was a measures alongside the costs of risk, as arrears levels were around three collection. Peer group comparison helps times higher for UC claimants than HB you assess the effectiveness of your claimants. strategies to cope with change. Changes to welfare benefits and The impact may be seen on performance legislation impact on the relative in areas such as re-let times, vacancy affordability of social housing for many rates and tenancy turnover. actual and prospective tenants. This may Comparisons of resourcing and costs in make it more difficult to attract and these areas can be utilised to assess the retain tenants. value for money of services such as choice-based lettings, and provide an evidence base for strategies such as change of use. Extension of right-to-buy discounts and Losing rented stock through sale of the sale of higher value voids are likely to higher value voids and right-to-buy sales increase diminishing stock numbers. may impact on cost per property and the While time-frames for higher value void ratio of staff to properties. A reduction in sales have yet to be confirmed, the stock without a reduction in expenditure effects are likely to be significant. would show as a rise in these measures, suggesting less value for money. Loss of stock in this way also impacts on rental income streams. Planned reductions in rent by 1% per Organisations are likely to seek year for the next four years and levies efficiency savings to compensate for relating to higher value voids regulations reduced revenue. But will savings be will have a significant impact on local across the board or focused on areas of authority housing revenue, which may be lower priority, will they be sufficient to reflected in ALMO fees. maintain service levels – and how will this impact on performance? Benchmarking enables you to understand the impact of these changes on your own organisation compared to your peers.
The Housing and Planning Act Effective assessment of the impact of introduced a number of provisions that these changes on your organisation (and impact on local authorities including the ability of your structures to sales of higher value voids and lifetime effectively manage them) is facilitated by tenancies. comparisons with your peers, backed up by shared learning.
HouseMark 2016
16 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Reductions in stock and shrinking HRA The benchmarking tool allows income may impact on ALMO fees organisations to link performance, cost creating additional challenges if and satisfaction and measure the impact performance and satisfaction levels are of dwindling resources on service levels. to be maintained.
HouseMark 2016
17 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
1.4. Making use of your data
HouseMark benchmarking has a key role in supporting local authorities to ensure that core landlord activities are being managed in an efficient and effective manner.
The table below sets out examples of how benchmarking can help this process:
Challenge Solution Understanding of the costs and Our benchmarking identifies the costs outcomes of delivering specific services and key cost drivers for specific and which underlying factors influence services alongside key performance these costs and how they do so. metrics.
Ensuring performance management and The presentation of comparable cost scrutiny functions are effective at and performance data in a single report, driving and delivering improved value with the ability to look at trends over for money. time allows landlords to use HouseMark data to flow between performance management and scrutiny functions. ALMO business plans should be built on You can access performance and cost robust and prudent assumptions about trends over time. income and fees based on past performance as well as future projections. Managing and addressing risk should The scenario function within core involve developing plausible scenarios benchmarking enables you to model that test the business plan against changes in operational expenditure and adverse movements in the operating assess the impact on outputs. environment.
The data collated for this report is an asset that can be sweated like any other - the more the data is used, the better value it provides. Our data is comprehensive and robust, it balances with statutory accounts, it is validated against statutory returns as well as previous submissions and sector norms. It is the richest source of data that housing organisations have access to on a daily basis.
HouseMark 2016
18 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
1.5. About this report
HouseMark now offers a range of formats for your annual core benchmarking report. This report uses histograms to display your benchmarking results.
Following communication with your organisation, you have opted in to this report template by requesting it specifically. Alternative templates that use boxplots, stacked bar charts and scatter charts (similar to last year’s report but refreshed for 2015/16 reporting) or bar charts (as per 2013 report) are available online. A separate document providing more detail on the available reporting options is available on request.
If you think your peer group isn’t quite right, HouseMark will be happy to liaise with you to agree an alternative peer group. HouseMark can use a wide range of profile data sourced from both benchmarking returns and publicly available data to recommend a peer group suitable to your needs.
If you’d like to edit the indicators included in your VFM Scorecard, you can do so online.
To discuss any or all of the above options, we would be happy to hear from you. You can contact our data services helpline on 024 7647 2707 or email [email protected]
The data used in this report is the most recent data available. Performance measures for you and your peers are therefore all based on 2015/16 performance.
Cost measures for your peers are either based on 2015/16 costs or 2014/15 costs uplifted in line with inflation2 where 2015/16 cost data has not yet been submitted. Where this report shows historical figures for your organisation, these figures have not been uplifted in line with inflation.
For organisations in London and the South East we apply an area cost adjustment to reflect the generally higher costs experienced in these regions.
Comparisons can be made with or without inflation and / or area cost adjustment by using our online reporting tool.
All references to the ‘average’ in this report refer to the median average, rather than the mean.
2 Based on September 2015 RPI of 0.8%
HouseMark 2016
19 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
1.6. Your peer group
If you are going to use benchmarking data as part of your business planning and improvement process, you will want to be sure that your peer group is appropriate for your needs. We are able to create peer groups based on a variety of factors such as stock size, region or organisation type or service provided. We can also advise on organisations which operate in local authority areas with similar socio- demographic characteristics.
We have therefore, discussed and agreed with you that the peer group to be used for producing this report is based on all open share organisations.
The table below provides the names of the organisations within your peer group alongside some key contextual information.
Number of Units Units Units standard managed Adjusted Landlord name managed managed DLO units GN & turnover GN HfOP developed HfOP in the year Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 24,360 2,068 26,428 NoData Y 122 A1 Housing Bassetlaw 4,140 2,724 6,864 27,384,107 Y 25 A2Dominion Group 17,903 928 18,831 190,503,452 N 1,129 Aberdeenshire Council 11,385 1,494 12,879 58,974,345 Y 165 Accord Group 6,980 728 7,708 71,727,224 N NoData Acis Group 5,020 234 5,254 26,045,330 Y 78 Adur DC 2,308 288 2,596 12,761,905 N 0 Aldwyck Housing Group 6,793 355 7,148 55,665,495 Y 152 Alliance Homes 4,958 1,073 6,031 41,579,477 Y 20 AmicusHorizon 20,595 1,395 21,990 141,997,254 N 101 Apex 3,845 350 4,195 32,951,727 N 220 Aragon Housing Association 4,624 1,675 6,299 38,500,712 N 169 Arawak Walton Housing Association 860 147 1,007 5,043,436 N 7 Arches Housing 1,006 0 1,006 4,956,997 N 32 Arcon Housing Association 1,082 0 1,082 5,508,540 N 13 Ashfield Homes 6,780 0 6,780 NoData Y NoData Ashton Pioneer Homes 929 NoData 929 4,568,382 Y 11 Aspire Housing 8,445 634 9,079 49,355,492 Y 54 Aster Group 21,841 3,508 25,349 150,651,311 N 772 Axiom Housing Association 1,399 510 1,909 15,741,061 N 27 B3Living 2,953 621 3,574 24,744,397 Y 91 Barnet Homes 9,766 421 10,187 51,255,465 N 8 Barrhead Housing Association 874 28 902 3,931,220 N NoData Barrow-in-Furness BC 2,660 0 2,660 12,084,035 N NoData Belle Isle TMO 1,832 105 1,937 7,702,067 N NoData Berneslai Homes 18,003 706 18,709 NoData Y 34 Bernicia Homes 5,373 2,756 8,129 49,603,584 Y 35 Berwickshire Housing Association 1,676 91 1,767 7,661,269 N 58 Black Country Housing Group 1,554 229 1,783 14,832,613 N 27 Blackpool Coastal Housing 3,936 785 4,721 20,991,161 Y 0 Bolton At Home 15,068 2,758 17,826 109,552,955 Y NoData Boston Mayflower 3,599 885 4,484 20,904,136 N 0 Bournemouth Churches Housing 954 76 1,030 22,588,264 Y 4 Association Bournville Village Trust 3,087 263 3,350 28,502,732 Y NoData BPHA 9,730 782 10,512 74,666,091 N 450 Bracknell Forest Homes 5,565 367 5,932 39,647,044 Y 80 Brent Housing Partnership 8,040 0 8,040 49,485,555 N 0 Brighton and Hove City Council 10,699 852 11,551 57,189,503 N 11 Broadacres Housing Association 5,488 218 5,706 36,804,166 Y 189 Broadland Housing Association 4,076 594 4,670 28,483,000 Y 2 Bromsgrove District Housing Trust 2,557 925 3,482 19,770,802 Y 94 Bron Afon Community Housing 7,164 824 7,988 53,230,494 Y 2 Broxtowe BC 3,137 1,393 4,530 18,160,978 Y 6
HouseMark 2016
20 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Cairn Housing Association 2,094 1,048 3,142 15,001,182 Y 0 Caledonia Housing Association 2,067 656 2,723 17,246,345 N NoData Calico Homes 3,435 1,155 4,590 24,395,761 Y 65 Cambridge Housing Society 1,827 205 2,032 24,580,978 N 28 Cannock Chase DC 5,010 124 5,134 20,357,376 Y 18 Castle Point BC 1,236 288 1,524 7,514,829 N NoData Catalyst Housing 12,623 615 13,238 187,539,540 N 613 Central and Cecil Housing Trust 282 1,330 1,612 24,646,216 N NoData Central Bedfordshire Council 4,400 655 5,055 29,139,720 N 4 Cestria Community Housing 3,355 830 4,185 21,649,708 Y 62 Charnwood BC 5,231 455 5,686 25,417,469 Y NoData Cheltenham Borough Homes 4,077 490 4,567 22,743,428 Y 15 Chesterfield BC 9,267 193 9,460 53,313,903 Y 27 Chevin Housing Association 8,226 535 8,761 46,499,152 N 265 Choice Housing Ireland 5,982 2,233 8,215 40,481,772 N 281 CHP 5,820 2,167 7,987 51,428,759 Y 278 Christian Action Housing 887 233 1,120 12,864,715 N 90 City of Lincoln Council 7,428 412 7,840 28,311,388 Y 20 City of London 1,777 143 1,920 12,934,706 N 44 City of York Council 7,398 367 7,765 35,922,529 Y 40 City South Manchester Housing Trust 4,285 28 4,313 18,905,220 Y 0 City West Housing Trust 13,862 871 14,733 66,968,401 Y 99 CityWest Homes 11,011 1,042 12,053 80,723,609 N NoData Clanmil Housing Association 2,337 1,402 3,739 26,038,546 N 215 Coast and Country Housing 10,402 0 10,402 68,776,507 Y 72 Coastline Housing 3,093 651 3,744 20,870,721 Y 103 Cobalt Housing 5,981 0 5,981 28,246,377 N 3 Colchester Borough Homes 5,322 597 5,919 32,601,002 Y 34 Colne Housing Society 2,147 224 2,371 16,088,035 N 65 Community Gateway Association 5,744 421 6,165 30,579,814 Y 54 Connect Housing 1,757 751 2,508 16,177,020 Y 36 Contour Homes 8,984 1,348 10,332 60,751,000 N 77 Cornerstone Housing 1,260 0 1,260 9,124,681 Y 30 Cottsway Housing Association 4,117 175 4,292 29,665,759 Y 27 Cross Keys Homes 8,731 1,229 9,960 54,698,832 N 108 Croydon Churches Housing Association 928 231 1,159 9,768,114 N 16 Curo Group 9,308 1,873 11,181 74,473,857 Y 239 Dale and Valley Homes 2,656 1,548 4,204 15,761,469 N 0 Dales Housing 2,976 240 3,216 17,349,095 Y 51 Daventry and District Housing 2,165 888 3,053 15,830,854 Y 21 DCH Group 16,118 2,379 18,497 107,165,390 Y 557 Derby Homes 11,506 1,670 13,176 65,709,598 Y 105 Derwentside Homes 6,410 258 6,668 36,457,394 Y 104 Dudley MBC 21,195 1,164 22,359 117,514,025 Y 22 Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership 9,879 274 10,153 44,217,039 N 63 Durham Aged Mineworkers Homes Assoc 1,647 75 1,722 8,218,720 N 15 Durham City Homes 5,860 0 5,860 22,530,587 N NoData East Devon DC 2,886 1,336 4,222 18,533,440 N NoData East Durham Homes 8,222 0 8,222 29,866,420 N NoData East Kent Housing 14,530 1,494 16,024 NoData N NoData East Riding of Yorkshire Council 9,463 1,797 11,260 53,190,710 Y 71 East Thames Group 8,201 430 8,631 92,991,630 N 227 Eastbourne Homes 3,325 290 3,615 15,303,810 N 35 Eastend Homes 2,256 0 2,256 29,064,322 N 67 Eastlands Homes 7,578 221 7,799 39,384,187 Y 6 Eildon Housing Association 1,523 681 2,204 10,988,853 N 54 Endeavour Housing Association 1,881 114 1,995 14,206,367 N 47 Equity Housing Group 2,107 644 2,751 19,398,411 N 110 Estuary Housing Association 3,340 78 3,418 33,243,415 Y 150 Exeter City Council 4,421 552 4,973 21,159,992 N 20 Family Housing Association (Wales) 1,847 582 2,429 17,851,380 N 145 Family Mosaic 18,095 490 18,585 163,142,457 N 599 First Ark 12,742 677 13,419 74,386,515 Y 79 First Choice Homes Oldham 11,430 234 11,664 55,399,435 Y NoData First Wessex 13,433 1,383 14,816 135,927,838 Y NoData Flagship Housing Group 18,535 1,504 20,039 117,330,002 Y 181 Fold Housing Association 3,012 2,606 5,618 46,910,881 N 158 Fortis Living 11,610 1,881 13,491 84,452,208 Y 353 Four Housing 4,386 124 4,510 25,319,594 Y 20
HouseMark 2016
21 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Freebridge Community Housing 6,239 612 6,851 35,970,199 Y 59 Friendship Care and Housing 4,045 0 4,045 26,934,774 N 2 Futures Homescape 3,523 2,219 5,742 31,612,718 Y 43 Gateshead Housing Company (The) 18,038 1,528 19,566 NoData N 0 Gateway Housing Association 1,816 435 2,251 16,797,521 N 18 Gedling Homes 2,383 865 3,248 14,649,783 Y 0 Glasgow West Housing Association 1,498 0 1,498 6,172,998 NoData 0 Gloucester City Homes 3,944 473 4,417 20,066,759 N NoData Golden Gates Housing Trust 7,122 1,285 8,407 48,642,899 Y NoData Golding Homes 5,432 973 6,405 34,271,439 N 223 Gosport BC 2,887 182 3,069 13,918,538 N 16 Grampian Housing Association 2,904 0 2,904 15,981,166 N 57 Gravesham BC 5,092 602 5,694 27,769,635 Y NoData Great Places Housing Group 13,342 351 13,693 91,458,879 N 456 Green Vale Homes 3,579 84 3,663 17,508,888 Y 39 Greenfields Community Housing 7,467 393 7,860 45,530,307 Y 47 GreenSquare Group 9,296 784 10,080 72,716,606 Y NoData Grwp Gwalia 3,989 829 4,818 63,148,729 N 105 Guildford BC 4,695 266 4,961 29,423,892 Y 43 Habinteg Housing Association 2,770 193 2,963 20,413,289 N NoData Hafod Housing Association 3,678 115 3,793 21,319,355 N NoData Halton Housing Trust 6,511 142 6,653 36,658,584 Y 146 Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association 181 3,463 3,644 31,316,687 N 0 Hanover Housing Association 158 13,287 13,445 121,878,543 N 121 Havebury Housing Partnership 5,637 403 6,040 35,473,907 Y 164 Herefordshire Housing 4,321 916 5,237 34,858,469 Y 36 Hexagon Housing Association 3,222 0 3,222 22,919,291 N 100 Hightown Housing Association Limited 2,774 81 2,855 42,828,299 N 369 Home Group The Association 33,970 1,549 35,519 311,163,888 N 612 Home Scotland 3,386 122 3,508 16,937,033 N 188 Homes for Haringey 14,317 1,382 15,699 120,306,325 Y NoData Homes in Sedgemoor 3,079 923 4,002 17,830,000 N NoData Housing Pendle 3,237 35 3,272 15,902,570 Y 43 Housing Solutions 3,634 271 3,905 38,069,781 Y 241 Hull City Council 24,203 657 24,860 99,374,969 N NoData Hundred Houses Society 1,123 72 1,195 7,371,422 N 8 Hyndburn Homes 2,116 1,127 3,243 13,193,000 Y NoData Incommunities 19,652 900 20,552 118,205,214 Y 35 Inquilab Housing Association 1,186 0 1,186 8,174,464 N 46 Irwell Valley Housing Association 6,236 452 6,688 33,070,402 Y 0 Isle of Anglesey County Council 3,307 479 3,786 14,599,082 Y NoData Islington and Shoreditch HA 1,539 41 1,580 15,110,322 N NoData Isos Housing 10,550 393 10,943 63,965,521 Y 65 Johnnie Johnson Housing Trust 1,580 2,540 4,120 25,641,221 N 0 Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust 1,154 271 1,425 20,488,167 Y 48 Kettering BC 3,308 413 3,721 17,621,986 Y 3 Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing 22,196 494 22,690 NoData Y NoData LB of Croydon 12,567 1,299 13,866 84,813,210 N NoData LB of Ealing 11,350 1,169 12,519 62,426,890 N NoData LB of Hackney 22,137 0 22,137 131,303,261 Y 0 LB of Harrow 4,300 556 4,856 30,157,867 N NoData LB of Havering 8,345 814 9,159 53,532,351 NoData 21 LB of Southwark 36,283 1,261 37,544 247,040,076 N 24 LB of Wandsworth 13,851 993 14,844 120,181,777 N 6 Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association 1,201 76 1,277 5,752,542 N 27 Lewes DC 2,829 372 3,201 16,068,689 Y NoData Liverpool Housing Trust 9,186 609 9,795 60,309,378 N 40 Liverpool Mutual Homes 14,436 721 15,157 74,021,485 Y 166 livin 5,473 3,005 8,478 35,378,783 N 29 Longhurst and Havelok Homes 6,152 366 6,518 36,923,462 N 182 Loreburn Housing Association 1,861 195 2,056 11,985,020 N 36 Magenta Living 10,806 1,639 12,445 63,078,410 Y 169 Magna Housing Association 4,564 1,446 6,010 41,558,061 Y 0 Magna West Somerset Housing Association 1,739 410 2,149 14,907,345 Y 9 Manningham Housing Association 1,343 0 1,343 8,602,355 N 14 Mansfield DC 4,417 2,100 6,517 31,519,918 Y NoData Medway Council 2,726 285 3,011 13,965,339 N 15 Melin Homes 2,463 646 3,109 20,790,137 Y 123 Merlin Housing Society 6,416 1,366 7,782 49,240,825 Y 79
HouseMark 2016
22 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association 1,055 42 1,097 5,122,790 N 12 Merthyr Valleys Homes 3,959 206 4,165 20,945,330 Y 24 Mid Devon DC 2,410 650 3,060 15,522,095 Y 14 Monmouthshire Housing Association 2,492 1,069 3,561 23,394,041 Y NoData Mossbank Homes 1,118 0 1,118 4,925,487 Y 0 Mosscare Housing 3,175 134 3,309 18,284,139 Y 18 Muir Group Housing Association 3,816 631 4,447 27,848,927 N 73 Nehemiah UCHA 778 265 1,043 5,958,128 N 6 Network Housing Group 10,914 1,473 12,387 100,441,172 N 376 New Charter Homes 14,330 676 15,006 73,923,613 N 118 Newark and Sherwood Homes 2,934 2,514 5,448 NoData Y 26 Newport City Homes 8,117 813 8,930 44,741,404 Y 0 NIHE - Belfast (Managed Entity) 31,643 0 31,643 126,169,392 N NoData NIHE - North (Managed Entity) 28,086 0 28,086 118,272,541 N NoData NIHE - South (Managed Entity) 27,144 0 27,144 115,450,471 N NoData North Devon Homes 2,618 593 3,211 15,533,348 Y 80 North Hertfordshire Homes Limited 7,313 747 8,060 60,547,632 Y 144 North Kesteven DC 3,862 0 3,862 16,164,646 N 22 North Lanarkshire Council 35,024 1,173 36,197 116,831,108 N 64 North Tyneside Council 13,734 1,294 15,028 61,661,569 N NoData North Wales Housing Association 1,953 196 2,149 15,829,074 Y 21 North Warwickshire BC 1,889 774 2,663 13,938,564 Y 2 North West Leicestershire DC 3,235 1,124 4,359 20,117,535 Y NoData Northampton Partnership Homes 9,845 2,045 11,890 60,381,934 Y 0 Northwards Housing 12,576 691 13,267 53,181,676 N NoData Norwich City Council 14,236 920 15,156 72,657,000 N 9 Notting Hill Housing Group 17,246 823 18,069 226,776,813 N 1,160 Nottingham Community Housing Association 6,870 0 6,870 67,045,097 Y 285 Ocean Housing 3,200 751 3,951 21,142,366 Y NoData Octavia Housing 3,444 129 3,573 31,172,417 N 168 One Vision Housing 10,999 1,067 12,066 60,894,368 N 86 Ongo 9,233 491 9,724 48,743,057 Y 48 Orbit Group 27,874 2,774 30,648 202,659,284 N 1,750 Ore Valley Housing Association 659 0 659 2,981,401 Y 0 Origin Housing Group 3,489 416 3,905 37,138,040 N 74 Orwell Housing Association 2,616 440 3,056 25,574,304 Y 43 Oxford City Council 7,467 307 7,774 43,423,290 Y 107 Paradigm Housing Group 9,595 557 10,152 89,433,402 Y 273 Paragon Community Housing 5,915 1,079 6,994 55,150,523 N 167 Peabody Group 21,380 483 21,863 161,131,429 N 1,080 Peak Valley Housing Association 1,314 193 1,507 7,117,662 N 0 Peaks and Plains Housing Trust 3,502 1,506 5,008 31,038,334 N 86 Pennaf Housing Group 3,190 849 4,039 37,598,087 Y 49 Pennine Housing 2000 11,473 348 11,821 59,483,940 Y 40 Perth and Kinross Council 7,167 290 7,457 29,279,829 Y 52 Phoenix Community Housing 5,369 0 5,369 29,105,649 N 0 Pickering and Ferens Homes 0 1,261 1,261 7,133,457 N 0 Pine Court HA (part of One Vision) 416 38 454 2,336,638 N 0 Pioneer Group 2,252 128 2,380 12,878,263 N 0 Plymouth Community Homes 12,414 1,786 14,200 72,556,886 Y 70 Poole Housing Partnership 3,225 1,282 4,507 23,136,337 N 0 Poplar HARCA 6,107 0 6,107 45,415,774 N 109 Port of Leith Housing Association 2,319 105 2,424 12,629,304 N 42 Prospect Community Housing 883 0 883 4,081,937 N NoData Queens Cross Housing Association 3,800 393 4,193 21,485,098 N 108 Radian 15,180 1,238 16,418 146,349,945 Y 229 Railway Housing Association 494 935 1,429 6,724,458 N 10 Raven Housing Trust 4,778 353 5,131 35,538,552 Y 107 Reading BC 5,279 330 5,609 36,043,811 Y 0 Red Kite Community Housing 4,070 1,841 5,911 36,507,023 N NoData Regenda Group (The) 9,486 971 10,457 56,199,878 Y 202 Rhondda Housing Association 1,257 272 1,529 7,443,355 N 40 Ribble Valley Homes 619 599 1,218 5,939,409 N 6 Richmond Housing Partnership 6,354 421 6,775 46,122,442 N 58 River Clyde Homes 5,908 0 5,908 30,304,162 Y NoData Riverside Group 38,517 4,784 43,301 262,136,095 N NoData Rochdale Boroughwide Housing 12,515 954 13,469 69,349,272 Y 0 Rockingham Forest Housing Association 678 0 678 3,802,685 N 0 Rooftop Housing Group 4,788 542 5,330 36,226,898 N 74
HouseMark 2016
23 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Rosebery Housing Association 1,713 185 1,898 15,116,910 N NoData Rosehill Housing Co-operative 953 0 953 3,513,137 N NoData Rotherham MBC 15,055 5,606 20,661 85,374,706 N 0 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 3,951 839 4,790 28,766,868 N 8 Rugby BC 2,470 1,343 3,813 20,846,075 Y NoData Runnymede BC 2,647 210 2,857 16,772,478 N 0 Sadeh Lok Housing Group 1,027 63 1,090 5,460,084 N NoData Saffron Housing Trust 4,613 680 5,293 32,846,199 Y 318 Salix Homes 8,005 333 8,338 45,529,808 Y NoData Saxon Weald 4,018 1,584 5,602 40,148,843 Y 150 Scottish Borders Housing Association 5,638 0 5,638 25,201,559 Y 18 Selwood Housing 4,373 1,427 5,800 33,322,613 N 109 Sentinel Housing Association 7,661 412 8,073 56,668,197 Y 436 Seven Locks Housing 1,342 309 1,651 10,179,475 N NoData Severnside Housing 4,059 1,217 5,276 32,985,559 Y 127 Shepherds Bush Housing Group 3,290 74 3,364 36,010,257 Y 57 Shoreline Housing Partnership 5,665 2,300 7,965 33,612,723 Y 4 Shropshire Housing Group 3,955 477 4,432 24,845,068 N 23 Shropshire Towns and Rural Housing 3,791 308 4,099 20,853,457 Y 0 SLH Group 3,603 118 3,721 18,022,198 Y 0 Soha Housing 4,875 717 5,592 35,197,612 N 274 Solihull Community Housing 10,022 0 10,022 49,385,656 Y 3 Solon South West Housing Association 968 0 968 5,643,278 N 6 South Cambridgeshire DC 4,182 1,065 5,247 30,592,566 N 4 South Derbyshire DC 2,005 968 2,973 13,745,978 Y 80 South Essex Homes 4,438 1,490 5,928 33,485,000 N NoData South Kesteven DC 5,055 1,097 6,152 28,612,577 Y 495 South Lakes Housing 2,662 440 3,102 17,956,505 Y 26 South Lanarkshire Council 23,868 1,218 25,086 91,932,595 Y NoData South Northants Homes 2,093 850 2,943 15,816,805 Y 20 South Yorkshire Housing Association 3,708 315 4,023 44,603,678 Y 137 Southampton City Council 13,095 3,135 16,230 84,184,340 Y NoData Southern Housing Group 17,178 2,291 19,469 126,143,160 Y 171 Southway Housing Trust 5,803 47 5,850 31,613,070 Y 27 Spectrum Housing Group 11,020 1,270 12,290 92,925,051 N 264 Spire Homes (LG) 3,433 1,438 4,871 26,728,725 N 238 St Leger Homes of Doncaster 13,437 7,032 20,469 96,779,999 Y NoData St Vincent's Housing Association 2,455 404 2,859 19,183,561 N 50 Stafford and Rural Homes 4,427 1,416 5,843 30,922,553 Y 73 Staffordshire Housing Association 1,902 440 2,342 15,725,855 N 45 Suffolk Housing Society 2,052 425 2,477 12,049,618 N 67 Sutton Housing Partnership 5,433 505 5,938 35,232,756 N NoData Swan Housing Association 6,734 79 6,813 56,347,023 N 399 Swindon BC 9,195 1,484 10,679 56,056,207 Y 19 Tai Calon Community Housing 5,848 301 6,149 27,389,933 Y NoData Teesdale Housing Association 820 0 820 3,402,753 N 6 Teign Housing 2,512 1,005 3,517 18,157,743 N 3 Thirteen Group 28,737 2,637 31,374 188,451,358 Y 292 Tower Hamlets Community Housing 2,009 0 2,009 14,532,476 N 60 Tower Hamlets Homes 12,076 0 12,076 74,480,767 N 0 Town and Country Housing Group 7,519 516 8,035 50,844,626 N 307 Trafford Housing Trust 6,175 2,547 8,722 51,094,099 Y 31 Trent and Dove Housing 4,795 747 5,542 27,583,263 N 79 Trident Housing Association 1,890 307 2,197 19,073,522 Y 10 Trivallis 9,281 614 9,895 47,189,544 Y 0 Trust Housing Association 341 1,430 1,771 19,911,172 N NoData Twin Valley Homes 7,148 701 7,849 41,585,029 Y 12 Two Castles Housing Association 2,276 522 2,798 16,047,143 N 111 Two Rivers Housing 2,850 931 3,781 22,288,395 Y 29 Uttlesford DC 1,731 677 2,408 15,574,086 Y 14 Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust 6,756 580 7,336 44,028,164 Y 42 Vale of Glamorgan Council 3,530 327 3,857 18,156,497 Y 0 Valleys to Coast Housing 5,578 200 5,778 33,686,255 Y 18 Villages Housing Association 2,372 143 2,515 11,654,112 N 0 Wakefield and District Housing 29,151 1,890 31,041 178,094,174 Y 356 Walsall Housing Group 19,260 0 19,260 115,535,192 Y 261 Wandle Housing Association 5,642 113 5,755 40,451,485 Y 0 Warrington Housing Association 979 157 1,136 6,019,439 N 0 Warwick DC 4,083 1,368 5,451 27,735,099 N 15
HouseMark 2016
24 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Watford Community Housing Trust 4,268 544 4,812 27,925,916 Y 19 WATMOS Community Homes 2,666 0 2,666 13,438,642 N NoData Waverley Housing 1,525 0 1,525 5,917,120 Y NoData Wealden DC 2,535 480 3,015 14,527,274 N 0 Weaver Vale Housing Trust 4,173 1,954 6,127 38,578,286 Y 5 Wellingborough Homes 4,269 0 4,269 21,938,971 N 47 West Kent Housing Association 5,331 912 6,243 41,846,876 Y 140 Westward Housing Group 4,450 1,127 5,577 42,601,862 Y 86 Wigan and Leigh Homes 21,004 1,190 22,194 NoData N 24 Wiltshire Council 4,784 512 5,296 26,095,188 Y NoData Winchester City Council 4,318 633 4,951 27,932,382 N 23 Wokingham BC 2,306 310 2,616 14,917,940 N 0 Wolverhampton Homes 20,547 0 20,547 113,091,000 Y 0 Womens Pioneer Housing 800 179 979 5,931,298 N 1 Worthing Homes 2,994 214 3,208 20,034,116 Y 12 Wrekin Housing Trust 9,546 1,370 10,916 67,659,752 Y NoData Wulvern Housing 4,317 970 5,287 31,851,538 Y 100 Wyre Forest Community Housing 3,523 2,094 5,617 38,760,396 Y 56 Wythenshawe Community Housing Group 13,400 99 13,499 69,765,255 Y 72 Yarlington Housing Group 7,569 1,626 9,195 63,707,513 Y 267 Yorkshire Coast Homes 4,152 208 4,360 24,611,547 Y 11 Yorkshire Housing 12,119 2,947 15,066 97,879,984 Y 313 Your Homes Newcastle 25,175 768 25,943 126,994,676 N 8
1.7. Further information
HouseMark would be delighted to receive feedback on this report format, or any other aspect of our services. We would also be happy to provide you with further information on other services available from HouseMark.
Contact us on: 02476 472 707 or email [email protected]
HouseMark 2016
25 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
2. Cost and performance summary
The below table is a summary of your headline cost, performance and satisfaction measures for 2015/16. The quartile represents where you sit on this measure compared to your peer group.
Note that we have provided quartile symbols for costs measures in this summary table for ease of interpretation. However, please note that high costs / investment (particularly around major works) is not necessarily a bad thing. The VFM Scorecard in section 3 uses different quartile symbols for cost measures, which are colour neutral and simply show high or low. More detail on all of these measures and more is provided in the main body of the report from section 4 onwards.
Headline measures Your value Quartile Costs headlines Overheads as a % of direct revenue costs 18.2
Total CPP of Housing Management 306.33
Total CPP of Responsive Repairs & Void Works 732.93
Total CPP of Major Works & Cyclical Maintenance 1,696.16 Operational performance headlines Current tenant arrears as a percentage of rent due 2.18
Rent arrears of former tenants as % rent due (excluding voids) 1.38
Average re-let time in days (standard re-lets) 23.93
Rent loss due to empty properties (voids) as % rent due 1.15
Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs 10.94
Percentage of repairs completed at the first visit 94.72
Percentage of dwellings that are non-decent at the end of the year 0.00
Percentage of properties with a valid gas safety certificate 100.00
Staff turnover in the year % 10.7
Sickness absence average working days/shifts lost per employee 11.5 Satisfaction headlines Satisfaction with the service provided (%) 88.4
Satisfaction that views being listened to (%) 74.9
Satisfaction with the repairs & maintenance service (%) 85.1
Satisfaction with rent VFM (%) 87.9
Satisfaction with quality of home (%) 89.0
Satisfaction with neighbourhood (%) 83.8
HouseMark 2016
26 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
3. Value for money scorecard
In line with member feedback, we have improved the VFM scorecard’s functionality to enable you to choose the measures you want it to show. You can select the KPIs you wish to include from a comprehensive basket of indicators available online.
The scorecard overleaf displays our list of default measures unless you have customised your scorecard online and advised us to include it in your report. You can modify the PIs contained within your scorecard online at any time. Further guidance is included in the VFM Scorecard User Guide.
The VFM Scorecard is designed as a business effectiveness tool that can be used by boards, executives, tenants and other stakeholders to help them understand and challenge organisational performance in the round.
Borrowing from accepted scorecard practice, the data is set out across four domains:
business and financial – operating efficiency, profitability and maximising income people – getting the most out of your most important resource process – effectiveness of key business processes value – effectiveness of service outcomes
Each domain contains a basket of indicators. For each indicator the scorecard shows:
Value: your performance or cost value for 2015/16 Previous: the corresponding value for 2014/15 (where available) Trend: how your rate of improvement between 2014/15 and 2015/16 compares with the rate of improvement of your peer group (where previous year data is available) Median: the peer group median KPI: how your actual performance in 2015/16 compares with your peer group
HouseMark 2016
27 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
HouseMark 2016
28 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Key to KPI symbols Performance Cost
= Your performance result is in the upper = Your costs are lower than three-quarters of quartile of the peer group (top 25%) your peer group (lowest 25%)
= Your performance result is in the middle = Your costs are less than the average for upper quartile of the peer group (between 25% your peer group & 50%)
= Your performance result is equal to the = Your costs are equal to the median of your median of the peer group peer group
= Your performance result is in the middle = Your costs are higher than the average for lower quartile of the peer group (between 50% your peer group & 75%
= Your performance result is in the lower = Your costs are higher than three-quarters quartile of the peer group (between 75% & of your peer group (highest 25%) 100%) Key to trend symbols Performance Cost = Your performance trend (the actual change = The actual change in your year on year in your year-on-year performance) is upper costs shows that your costs are decreasing quartile when compared to the trend for your more quickly (or increasing more slowly) than peer group three quarters of your peer group = Your performance trend (the actual = The actual change in your year on year change in your year-on-year performance) is in costs shows that your costs are decreasing the middle upper quartile when compared to more quickly (or increasing more slowly) than the trend for your peer group half of your peer group = Your performance trend (the actual change = The actual change in your year on year in your year-on-year performance) is equal to costs shows that your costs are increasing (or the median when compared to the trend for decreasing) at the median rate for your peer your peer group group = Your performance trend (the actual = The actual change in your year on year change in your year-on-year performance) is in costs shows that your costs are increasing the middle lower quartile when compared to more quickly (or decreasing more slowly) than the trend for your peer group half of your peer group = The actual change in your year on year = Your performance trend (the actual costs shows that your costs are increasing change in your year-on-year performance) is more quickly (or decreasing more slowly) than lower quartile when compared to the trend for three quarters of your peer group your peer group.
Polarity
Trend and performance arrows for the cost measures in the scorecard are grey. This is because we have not applied a valuative polarity (i.e. high or low is neither good nor bad). Whilst low cost is generally considered to be good, in many cases an organisation may choose to invest more to achieve certain outcomes. As such, the direction of arrows reflects simply the direction of cost i.e. an upwards arrow in the ‘KPI’ column reflects higher than median costs. An upwards arrow in the trend column indicates costs increasing faster than average for the peer group.
HouseMark 2016
29 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
4. Overheads
This section looks at some key overheads ratios. Overheads refers to what is generally considered ‘back-office’ functions, and includes premises, IT, finance and central overhead costs. Overheads are usually a mix of employee costs and non- pay costs. Whilst it is generally preferable to have low overheads, the right level of investment in this area is key to effectively supporting front line activities.
Generally we use ‘overheads as a percentage of direct revenue costs’ for benchmarking purposes, as it provides a common measure of activity across the whole business and between different types of organisations.
Even so, ‘overheads as a percentage of direct revenue costs’ is not a perfect measure and will vary with the types of activities undertaken. Some activities are more revenue-generating than others. An organisation with a significant market rent portfolio may generate more revenue relative to overhead costs than an organisation with substantial supported housing stock. In view of such differences, we believe that while it is a good broad indication of overhead cost efficiency, it is most useful when comparing organisations with a similar mix of business activities or when considering business diversification plans.
For a rounded view of overheads, other ratios should also be examined. To this end we have also included overheads as a percentage of adjusted turnover in the overheads cost breakdown table.
HouseMark 2016
30 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Overhead costs as a percentage of direct revenue costs
Overheads as a % of direct revenue costs 8.03 : 13.45 : 18.87 : 24.29 : 29.71 : 35.13 : 40.55 : 45.97 : 51.39 : 56.81 : Ranges 13.45 18.87 24.29 29.71 35.13 40.55 45.97 51.39 56.81 62.23 Organisations 21 48 74 78 63 26 17 9 4 2 Nottingham City Homes 18.19 (2015/2016)
Overheads as a % of direct revenue costs Upper 19.82 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 25.94 Lower 32.60 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 18.19 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 18.84
HouseMark 2016
31 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Overhead costs breakdown
Overhead costs as a % of direct revenue costs Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile IT & Communications as % direct 342 4.45 5.97 7.82 5.43 5.70 revenue costs Office Premises as % direct 342 2.40 3.31 4.53 2.50 2.72 revenue costs Finance as % direct revenue 342 2.91 4.10 5.53 2.01 2.00 costs Central & Other overhead as % direct revenue 342 9.16 11.89 15.71 8.25 8.42 costs Total Overhead as % direct 342 19.82 25.94 32.60 18.19 18.84 revenue costs Total Overhead as % adjusted 334 8.72 10.87 13.30 NoData NoData turnover
HouseMark 2016
32 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
5. Housing Management
Housing management is a core landlord function and represents collecting rent and managing arrears, carrying out lettings, managing tenancies and anti-social behaviour cases, as well as enabling resident involvement.
Some organisations have specialist teams delivering some or all of these housing management services, whilst others have generic housing officers.
Generally housing management costs are largely made up of staff costs, although include some non-pay costs such as legal fees and choice-based lettings fees.
The total cost per property of housing management also contains an overhead allocation.
This section compares your total housing management cost per property with your peer group. A breakdown of your housing management costs is also provided unless you have opted to provide your housing management costs only at a high level. This section also covers some headline housing management performance measures.
HouseMark 2016
33 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
5.1 Housing management cost
Housing management total cost per property
Total cost per property of Housing Management 169.64 246.79 323.95 401.10 478.26 555.41 632.56 709.72 786.87 864.03 : : : : : : : : : : Ranges 941.18 246.79 323.95 401.10 478.26 555.41 632.56 709.72 786.87 864.03 Organisations 9 35 82 84 58 37 19 8 5 5 Nottingham City Homes 306.33 (2015/2016)
Total cost per property of Housing Management Upper 358.54 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 440.41 Lower 532.85 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 306.33 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 303.12
HouseMark 2016
34 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Housing management cost breakdown
Housing Management - Cost Summary Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Total CPP of Housing 342 358.54 440.41 532.85 306.33 303.12 Management Direct CPP of Housing 342 230.93 269.27 307.25 216.52 210.67 Management Direct CPP of Rent Arrears & 334 69.34 82.27 98.70 64.90 63.79 Collection Direct CPP of Resident 334 26.82 36.29 49.86 43.80 37.01 Involvement Direct CPP of Anti-Social 334 25.96 35.51 46.02 27.20 26.47 Behaviour Direct CPP of Lettings 334 30.46 39.77 52.67 18.10 22.67 Direct CPP of Tenancy 334 48.53 62.38 82.13 62.51 60.72 Management
The above table shows the breakdown of your housing management costs compared to your peers, but your figures will only display if you have opted in to the detailed benchmarking.
HouseMark 2016
35 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
5.2 Housing management performance
Tenant arrears
A full analysis of arrears requires comparisons of a range of different measures in the round. For example relatively low current tenant arrears may result from a robust approach to evictions. This in turn may impact adversely on former tenant arrears. Former tenant arrears can be reduced where the organisation makes the decision to write them off. An overview of these measures allows you to assess how effective your approach is to income recovery and income maximisation.
The below table shows the full range of income management measures when compared to your peer group.
Rent Arrears Performance Measures Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Rent arrears of current tenants as % rent due 334 1.94 2.72 3.93 2.18 2.06 (excluding voids) Rent arrears of former tenant rent arrears as % 333 0.74 1.17 1.76 1.38 1.53 rent due (excluding voids) Rent arrears of current and former tenants 330 0.21 0.40 0.72 0.54 0.54 written-off as % rent due Evictions due to rent arrears as a 310 0.16 0.30 0.44 0.42 0.56 % of all tenancies
HouseMark 2016
36 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Change in total tenant arrears
The below waterfall chart shows the trend on arrears for your organisation alongside the trend for your peers. Trend is calculated by taking total arrears as at the beginning of year from total arrears as at the end of the year. Hence a negative figure means that your total arrears reduced over the course of the year. Note that total arrears includes both current tenant arrears (prior to any adjustments for late HB payments) and former tenant arrears.
The chart scale reflects the difference between the two years as a percentage of the annual rent due.
Organisation Total arrears Total arrears Difference Median difference for 2015/16 2014/15 peer group Nottingham City Homes 3.56% 3.59% -0.02% -0.12%
HouseMark 2016
37 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Average re-let time in days (standard re-lets)
This is the average time taken (in days) to re-let standard voids. It excludes voids that underwent major works, and is generally considered to be an indication of your voids and lettings performance. We also collect the average re-let time for major works units which can be found in our detailed schedules.
Average re-let time in days during the period benchmarked (standard re-lets) 1.68 : 12.46 : 23.25 : 34.03 : 44.82 : 55.60 : 66.38 : 77.17 : 87.95 : 98.74 : Ranges 12.46 23.25 34.03 44.82 55.60 66.38 77.17 87.95 98.74 109.52 Organisations 17 122 112 42 16 4 6 3 1 2 Nottingham City Homes 23.93 (2015/2016)
Average re-let time in days during the period benchmarked (standard re-lets) Upper 19.20 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 25.00 Lower 33.00 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 23.93 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 28.96
HouseMark 2016
38 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Change in average re-let time
The below waterfall chart is an alternative way of showing the trend on average re- let time for your organisation alongside the trend for your peers. We are particularly interested in your feedback on this new chart type. Trend is calculated by taking your average re-let time for the previous year from your average re-let time for the current year. Hence a negative figure means that your average re-let time reduced.
The scale on the chart is the difference between previous and current year’s average re-let time, in days.
Organisation Re-let time Re-let time Difference Median difference for 2015/16 2014/15 peer group Nottingham City Homes 23.93 28.96 -5.03 -1.14
HouseMark 2016
39 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Rent loss due to voids
This is the rent lost due to dwellings being vacant as a percentage of the annual rent roll. Void rent loss drivers include high tenancy turnover, high void numbers and/or high re-let times. Void rent loss has a direct impact on revenue and low void rent loss is desirable.
Rent loss due to voids 0.09 : 1.43 : 2.77 : 4.10 : 5.44 : 6.78 : 8.12 : 9.46 : 10.79 : 12.13 : Ranges 1.43 2.77 4.10 5.44 6.78 8.12 9.46 10.79 12.13 13.47 Organisations 247 72 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 Nottingham City Homes 1.15 (2015/2016)
Rent loss due to voids Upper 0.60 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 0.88 Lower 1.44 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 1.15 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 1.27
HouseMark 2016
40 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Change in void loss as a percentage of rent due
The below waterfall chart is an alternative way of showing the trend on void loss for your organisation alongside the trend for your peers. We are particularly interested in your feedback on this new chart type. Trend is calculated by taking your void loss for the previous year from your void loss for the current year. Hence a negative figure means that your void loss reduced.
Organisation Void loss as Void loss as Difference Median % or rent due % or rent due difference for peer group 2015/16 2014/15 Nottingham City Homes 1.15% 1.27% -0.12% -0.07%
HouseMark 2016
41 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Tenancy turnover rate
Tenancy turnover is the number of tenancy terminations divided by the total number of units in management. The level of tenancy turnover is likely to impact on void costs per property, rent loss due to voids as well as being an indicator of tenancy sustainment.
Tenancy turnover rate 1.93 : 4.46 : 6.99 : 9.52 : 12.05 : 14.59 : 17.12 : 19.65 : 22.18 : 24.71 : Ranges 4.46 6.99 9.52 12.05 14.59 17.12 19.65 22.18 24.71 27.24 Organisations 28 94 118 54 19 5 0 0 0 1 Nottingham City Homes 5.91 (2015/2016)
Tenancy turnover rate Upper 6.10 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 7.78 Lower 9.51 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 5.91 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 6.63
HouseMark 2016
42 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Change in tenancy turnover
The below waterfall chart is an alternative way of showing the trend on tenancy turnover for your organisation alongside the trend for your peers. We are particularly interested in your feedback on this new chart type. Trend is calculated by taking your tenancy turnover for the previous year from your tenancy turnover for the current year. Hence a negative figure means that your tenancy turnover reduced.
The scale represents the difference in tenancy turnover between previous year and current year, as a percentage of units in management.
Organisation Tenancy Tenancy Difference Median turnover turnover difference for peer group 2015/16 2014/15 Nottingham City Homes 5.91% 6.63% -0.72% -0.45%
HouseMark 2016
43 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Vacant dwellings at the end of the period
This table shows the percentage of units vacant at the end of the period, split between available and unavailable to let. This is then compared to the average for your peer group.
Vacant Dwelling summary Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Percentage of properties vacant and available to 329 0.26 0.50 0.83 0.73 0.74 let Percentage of properties vacant but unavailable to 328 0.13 0.37 0.76 1.07 1.95 let
HouseMark 2016
44 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
ASB resolution rate
This is the percentage of closed ASB cases that were resolved. An ASB case counts as resolved if the landlord has evidence that the ASB is no longer a cause for concern. This figure can be affected by differing practices in ASB case management. For example, some landlords will not close a case until they know it has been resolved.
ASB resolution rate 15.14 : 24.00 : 32.87 : 41.73 : 50.60 : 59.46 : 68.32 : 77.19 : 86.05 : 94.92 : Ranges 24.00 32.87 41.73 50.60 59.46 68.32 77.19 86.05 94.92 103.78 Organisations 2 1 2 2 3 4 16 32 67 147 Nottingham City Homes 99.31 (2015/2016)
ASB resolution rate Upper 99.64 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 95.66 Lower 87.50 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 99.31 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 99.87
HouseMark 2016
45 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
6. Responsive repairs and void works
Carrying out responsive repairs and void works is a core landlord function.
Responsive repairs and void works costs can be split into management (client side) costs and service provision (contractor side) costs. Some organisations outsource some or all of the service provision side to contractors, whereas others may have a DLO (direct labour organisation). Total costs should be comparable no matter the service delivery vehicle, but when carrying out more detailed analysis, organisations with a DLO will have a greater proportion of their costs as employee costs.
In this section we compare your total cost per property of responsive repairs and void works to your peer group. We also look at some other key cost drivers such as the average cost per responsive repair and the average cost per void repair.
The below table also shows management costs as a percentage of service provision spend for responsive repairs and void works respectively. Although the table shows a low proportion of management spend as being desirable, in reality these measures are about achieving the right balance. Investing in staff to manage contractors / operatives can in theory help keep service provision spend low.
We have also included some headline repairs performance measures.
HouseMark 2016
46 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
6.1 Responsive repairs and void works costs
Responsive repairs and void works total costs per property
Responsive repairs and void works investment summary Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Total CPP of Responsive 339 465.70 549.28 652.09 547.82 530.37 Repairs Total CPP of Responsive Repairs (Service 339 353.29 417.96 511.71 476.49 460.08 Provision) Total CPP of Responsive Repairs 339 91.52 123.73 167.18 71.34 70.29 (Management) Responsive repairs management spend as a 339 20.11 29.35 40.22 14.97 15.28 percentage of service provision spend Average cost of a responsive repair 327 99.90 121.05 149.94 142.74 135.08 Total CPP of Void Works 339 182.29 225.26 295.47 185.11 182.10 Total CPP of Void Works (Service 339 138.49 180.28 238.94 165.70 162.63 Provision) Total CPP of Void Works 339 28.49 41.49 57.23 19.41 19.46 (Management) Void works management spend as a percentage of 339 15.50 21.42 33.43 11.71 11.97 service provision spend Average cost of a void repair 317 1,764.71 2,388.09 3,164.66 2,801.71 2,451.71
Note that for the others in your peer group, medians have been used. The sum of the component medians may not necessarily equal the median of the aggregate measure.
HouseMark 2016
47 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
6.2 Responsive repairs performance
Average number of responsive repairs per property
Average number of responsive repairs per property 1.7 : 2.3 : 2.9 : 3.4 : 4.0 : 4.6 : 5.2 : 5.8 : 6.3 : 6.9 : 7.5 Ranges 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.8 6.3 6.9 Organisations 15 43 106 89 42 18 5 1 0 2 Nottingham City Homes 3.3 (2015/2016)
Average number of responsive repairs per property Upper 3.0 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 3.4 Lower 3.9 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 3.3 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 3.4
HouseMark 2016
48 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs
Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs 2.92 : 5.53 : 8.14 : 10.75 : 13.36 : 15.97 : 18.57 : 21.18 : 23.79 : 26.40 : Ranges 5.53 8.14 10.75 13.36 15.97 18.57 21.18 23.79 26.40 29.01 Organisations 44 93 101 46 20 5 4 0 1 2 Nottingham City Homes 10.94 (2015/2016)
Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs Upper 6.75 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 8.60 Lower 10.63 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 10.94 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 8.11
HouseMark 2016
49 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Percentage of repairs completed at the first visit
Percentage of repairs completed at the first visit 59.6 : 63.6 : 67.7 : 71.7 : 75.8 : 79.8 : 83.8 : 87.9 : 91.9 : 96.0 : Ranges 63.6 67.7 71.7 75.8 79.8 83.8 87.9 91.9 96.0 100.0 Organisations 4 1 2 8 7 18 28 47 63 60 Nottingham City Homes 94.7 (2015/2016)
Percentage of repairs completed at the first visit Upper 96.0 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 92.0 Lower 86.8 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 94.7 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 92.2
HouseMark 2016
50 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Appointments kept as a percentage of appointments made
Appointments kept as a percentage of appointments made 63.40 : 67.06 : 70.72 : 74.38 : 78.04 : 81.71 : 85.37 : 89.03 : 92.69 : 96.35 : Ranges 67.06 70.72 74.38 78.04 81.71 85.37 89.03 92.69 96.35 100.01 Organisations 1 0 3 0 5 6 11 18 48 141 Nottingham City Homes 98.66 (2015/2016)
Appointments kept as a percentage of appointments made Upper 99.29 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 97.24 Lower 94.49 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 98.66 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 98.72
HouseMark 2016
51 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
7. Major works and cyclical maintenance
This section compares your cost per property of major works and cyclical maintenance with your peer group.
Major works spend can more accurately be called investment, and high costs in this area are not necessarily a bad thing. Similarly, proactive cyclical maintenance can help minimise reactive work.
Major works and cyclical maintenance costs can be split into management (client side) costs and service provision (contractor side) costs. Major works spend includes capital spend on major works, as well as any revenue spend.
New for 2016, we have included additional figures plus text on management spend as a percentage of service provision spend. We have also included some headline performance measures.
7.1 Major works and cyclical maintenance cost
Major works and cyclical maintenance total cost per property
Major Works & Cyclical Maintenance investment summary Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Total CPP of Major Works 339 878.80 1,170.11 1,594.93 1,350.94 1,698.62 Total CPP of Major Works (Service 339 781.82 1,059.53 1,478.90 1,236.89 1,588.18 Provision) Total CPP of Major Works 339 64.19 97.99 130.74 114.06 110.44 (Management) Major works management spend as a percentage of 339 5.55 8.86 12.47 9.22 6.95 service provision spend Total CPP of Cyclical 339 195.59 267.45 363.05 345.21 338.88 Maintenance Total CPP of Cyclical Maintenance 339 150.98 220.29 297.09 297.37 288.94 (Service Provision) Total CPP of Cyclical Maintenance 339 32.05 48.32 68.42 47.85 49.94 (Management) Cyclical maintenance management spend as a 339 14.51 21.73 31.01 16.09 17.29 percentage of service provision spend
HouseMark 2016
52 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
7.2 Major works and cyclical maintenance performance
Major works and cyclical maintenance performance measures Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Percentage of properties that fail to meet the 287 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 decent homes standard Percentage of properties with a valid gas safety 334 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 certificate Average SAP 300 72.4 70.7 68.4 68.0 65.4 rating
HouseMark 2016
53 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
8. Estate Services
The chart below shows your cost per property of estate services. Some landlords will have significant responsibilities for grounds maintenance or cleaning of communal areas depending on their stock profile and contractual arrangements with local authorities. Different types of properties require different levels of estate services – for example, flats compared with houses or street properties compared with estates where the organisation owns the majority of properties. This indicator should therefore be treated with some caution.
Additionally, the cost per property does not take into account any income received via service charges.
Total CPP of estate services 114.43 197.04 279.65 362.26 444.87 527.48 610.09 692.70 31.82 : 775.31 : : : : : : : : : Ranges 114.43 857.92 197.04 279.65 362.26 444.87 527.48 610.09 692.70 775.31 Organisations 97 125 68 26 5 10 7 1 1 2 Nottingham City Homes 230.89 (2015/2016)
Total CPP of estate services Upper 108.29 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 163.40 Lower 228.46 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 230.89 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 226.98
HouseMark 2016
54 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
9. Development
Units developed as a percentage of stock
The chart below and the subsequent table shows your units developed as a percentage of stock and also your units developed by tenure type.
Units developed as a percentage of current stock 0.00 : 0.80 : 1.60 : 2.39 : 3.19 : 3.99 : 4.79 : 5.59 : 6.38 : 7.18 : Ranges 0.80 1.60 2.39 3.19 3.99 4.79 5.59 6.38 7.18 7.98 Organisations 140 51 30 22 11 9 4 0 1 1 Nottingham City Homes 0.44 (2015/2016)
Units developed as a percentage of current stock Upper 1.87 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 0.74 Lower 0.18 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 0.44 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 0.03
HouseMark 2016
55 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Units developed by tenure type
Units developed as a percentage of current stock by tenure type Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Social units developed as a percentage of 228 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.40 NoData current stock Affordable units developed as a percentage of 266 0.98 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 current stock Intermediate units developed as a percentage 222 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NoData of current stock Market rent units developed as a percentage of 222 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 NoData current stock Shared ownership units developed as a 224 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 NoData percentage of current stock Open sale units developed as a percentage of 226 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NoData current stock Total units developed as a percentage of 269 1.87 0.74 0.18 0.44 0.03 current stock
HouseMark 2016
56 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
10. Corporate Health
Staff are a key business asset and this section provides some headline staffing measures compared to your peer group.
Staff turnover includes voluntary and involuntary turnover. Whilst low staff turnover is generally considered to be a good thing, some staff churn may be desirable for your business. Analysis of staff turnover split between voluntary and involuntary is available online.
Sickness absence includes both long and short term sickness absence.
Staff turnover
Staff turnover in the year % 0.0 : 6.4 : 12.7 : 19.1 : 25.4 : 31.8 : 38.1 : 44.5 : 50.8 : 57.2 : Ranges 6.4 12.7 19.1 25.4 31.8 38.1 44.5 50.8 57.2 63.5 Organisations 21 84 114 58 18 16 6 4 0 1 Nottingham City Homes 10.7 (2015/2016)
Staff turnover in the year % Upper 10.8 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 15.3 Lower 21.0 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 10.7 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 8.6
HouseMark 2016
57 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Average number of days lost to sickness
Sickness absence average working days/shifts lost per employee 1.1 : 3.3 : 5.5 : 7.8 : 10.0 : 12.2 : 14.4 : 16.6 : 18.9 : 21.1 : Ranges 3.3 5.5 7.8 10.0 12.2 14.4 16.6 18.9 21.1 23.3 Organisations 6 19 75 104 61 31 11 3 3 2 Nottingham City Homes 11.5 (2015/2016)
Sickness absence average working days/shifts lost per employee Upper 7.2 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 8.9 Lower 11.1 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) 11.5 Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 14.2
HouseMark 2016
58 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
Staff satisfaction with employer
Staff satisfaction with employer 0.0 : 10.0 : 20.0 : 30.0 : 40.0 : 50.1 : 60.1 : 70.1 : 80.1 : 90.1 : Ranges 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.1 60.1 70.1 80.1 90.1 100.1 Organisations 1 0 0 0 1 8 17 29 44 28 Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016)
Staff satisfaction with employer Upper 89.1 Comparator Group Quartiles Median 83.0 Lower 73.0 Results for Nottingham City Homes Result Quartile Nottingham City Homes (2015/2016) NoData Nottingham City Homes (2014/2015) 70.0
HouseMark 2016
59 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
11. Customer contact and complaints
The below table show a selection of contact centre and complaints measures.
HouseMark recently carried out an in-depth benchmarking exercise of contact centres and complaints in which over 100 housing providers took part. For more information on this exercise, please contact [email protected]
Customer Service Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Percentage of complainants 52 80.11 72.86 58.39 50.98 63.86 satisfied with case handling Percentage of complaints resolved at first 137 93.97 86.67 67.28 NoData 80.75 contact Percentage of calls answered 241 96.3 93.3 89.6 95.3 94.0
HouseMark 2016
60 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
12. Tenant satisfaction (STAR and transactional)
The next two pages contain satisfaction results for your organisation compared to your peer group.
The figures in the first table all sourced from STAR surveys that have been carried out. STAR is a sector wide methodology for measuring satisfaction in a comparable way and is robustly validated by HouseMark to ensure the criteria are adhered to. Crucially, STAR surveys are based on a random sample of all tenants. This is referred to as ‘perceptional’ satisfaction.
The second table shows transactional satisfaction survey results. Transactional satisfaction surveys are carried out following an interaction with the landlord (for example a repair). HouseMark has recently launched StarT, a framework for collecting and comparing transactional satisfaction survey. 2015/16 figures in this report are StarT compliant, but figures for previous year (where available) did not have to be. More information on StarT can be found on our website www.housemark.co.uk
HouseMark 2016
61 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
12.1 Tenant satisfaction (STAR)
Tenant satisfaction (STAR) Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Satisfaction with overall service 290 90.23 87.60 83.08 88.40 87.70 Satisfaction that views are listened to and acted 261 76.00 71.20 65.90 74.90 74.80 upon Satisfaction with the repairs 265 86.10 81.70 76.00 85.10 85.70 service overall Satisfaction that rent provides 277 87.00 84.00 80.00 87.90 83.60 VFM Satisfaction with quality of home 281 88.80 85.90 81.11 89.00 86.90 Satisfaction with neighbourhood 270 89.52 86.49 83.05 83.80 82.50 as a place to live
HouseMark 2016
62 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
12.2 Transactional satisfaction (StarT)
Tenant satisfaction (StarT) Nottingham City Nottingham City Sample Homes (2015/2016) Homes (2014/2015) KPI Size Upper Median Lower Result Quartile Result Quartile Satisfaction with repairs service received on this 89 95.60 92.77 88.00 90.05 88.87 occasion Satisfaction with lettings service 56 97.41 95.21 92.85 87.18 78.77 Satisfaction with outcome of ASB 64 87.00 77.94 62.93 62.73 68.90 case Satisfaction with ASB case 74 89.38 81.13 71.41 73.45 73.20 handling Satisfaction with final outcome of 39 68.59 60.18 47.00 51.43 62.20 complaint Satisfaction with complaints 52 80.11 72.86 58.39 50.98 63.86 handling
63 HouseMark Core Benchmarking Report 2015/16
13. Appendix – Disclosure of information
The information and data contained in this report are subject to the following clauses in HouseMark members' subscription agreements. These refer to future and further use of the information.
Where any compilations of Benchmarking Data or statistics or Good Practice Examples produced from data (other than Data submitted by the Subscriber) stored on the database forming part of the System are made for internal or external reports by or on behalf of the Subscriber, the Subscriber shall ensure that credit is given with reasonable prominence in respect of each part of the data used every time it is used (whether orally or in writing) and such credit shall include the words ‘Source: HouseMark’.
The Subscriber shall use best endeavours to ensure that any and all uses of the System shall be made with reasonable care and skill and in a way which is not misleading.
The Subscriber may not sell, lease, license, transfer, give or otherwise dispose of the whole or any part of the System or any Copy. The provisions of this clause shall survive termination or expiry of this Agreement, however caused.
The Subscriber shall not make any Copy or reproduce in any way the whole or a part of the System except that the Subscriber may make such copies (paper based or electronic) of the data and information displayed on the System as are reasonably necessary to use the System in the manner specifically and expressly permitted by this Agreement.
The Subscriber agrees not to use the System (or any part of it) except in accordance with the express terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Return to Agenda
HouseMark 2016
64 ITEM: 3.1
NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES
THE BOARD REPORT OF THE PERFORMANCE MANAGER, 23 FEBRUARY 2017 BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION
QUARTER THREE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 2016/17
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with an overview of Nottingham City Homes’ (NCH) progress against the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) identified in the Corporate Plan.
1.2 The Customer Excellence Panel (CEP) met on 9 February 2017 to consider the detailed performance report. The panel noted the overall improvement in performance since Quarter Two. More information was requested in relation to certain areas of performance; discussed in section 3.8.1 of this report.
1.3 The main items to bring to the Board’s attention are:
• Customer satisfaction improved across all of the STAR survey questions in this report. Four of the six STAR questions achieved record high scores in the quarter • Performance is exceeding target and showing long term improvement in rent collection, reduction of void property numbers and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) customer satisfaction • Our average property energy efficiency remains at ‘C’, representing top 10 performance level. Gas servicing continues to achieve 100% safety compliance • Sickness levels have worsened for two consecutive quarters. This issue continues to receive significant management focus to improve performance.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Board:
2.1 Note the contents of the report and that Quarter Three performance has been considered in detail by the Customer Excellence Panel.
2.2 Consider the main findings and implications for NCH.
3 REPORT
3.1 As per the approach previously agreed by Board, detailed monitoring of NCHs performance against these KPIs is carried out by CEP, with the
65 summary report presented to Board. The summary of performance up to the end of Quarter Two is attached as Appendix 1. The full, detailed report was circulated separately to Board on 15 February 2017.
3.2 Although Board members have previously agreed that the summary report only would be tabled at Board meetings, the full report is circulated to Board members separately as it explains the reasons behind current performance and details the range of actions being taken to maintain or improve performance levels.
3.3 Performance targets have, in most cases, increased for 2016/17 and are much more challenging in order to move us towards top ten levels of performance.
3.4 Overall customer satisfaction of 91.6% between October and December is a record high for an individual quarter. Customer satisfaction improved across all of the STAR survey questions in this report. The questions relating to NCH taking customer views into account, satisfaction with the neighbourhood and rent offering value for money all achieved record high satisfaction scores in the quarter.
3.5 The Quarter Three STAR survey introduced the option for customers to explain any reasons for dissatisfaction on a question-by-question basis. Some helpful responses were received and, where appropriate, we will follow these up with customers on an individual basis. The comments covered a wide range of issues and collection of more data in future surveys will allow for detailed analysis of any trends.
3.6 Satisfaction with the ASB service is better than target and significantly better than last year’s performance level. We have collected more than 100% of the rent due to us. Empty homes continue to be re-let more quickly and the number of lettable empty properties stands at a record low of 156.
3.7 Gas servicing performance continues to be outstanding, achieving 100% compliance. Our average property energy efficiency rating is a ‘C’, which represents top 10 performance.
3.8 We need to improve our management of staff sickness, the levels of which have worsened in the last two consecutive quarters. We are making progress in important areas of new business such as delivering market rented properties and increasing the number of assistive technology users, but need to accelerate this progress to hit the challenging targets we have set for 2018.
3.9 CEP considered the detailed performance report on 9 February 2017. Overall feedback was very positive; the panel noting the improvement in performance since Quarter Two particularly in relation to customer satisfaction.
3.10 CEP requested more information on the following:
66
1. The apparent difference between customer satisfaction with the repairs service and NCH data regarding this, e.g. right first time completion rate, and what is being done to close the gap
2. The extent to which rent arrears levels have been affected by welfare reforms (although acknowledged that NCH arrears level is relatively low)
3. Comparative data showing the number of new homes being built versus the number lost under right to buy.
A written response will be provided to CEP for each of these points.
4 FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Financial Implications
4.1.1 None.
4.2 Legal Implications
4.2.1 None.
4.3 Risk Implications
4.3.1 Not achieving KPI targets published in our Corporate Plan could be considered a reputational risk to the company.
5 IMPLICATIONS FOR NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES’ OBJECTIVES
5.1 The Corporate Plan KPI set shows how well we are delivering the company vision and goals contained within the Plan.
6 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Has the equality impact of these proposals been assessed? Yes (EIA attached) No (this report does not contain proposals which require an EIA)
7 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN COMPILING THIS REPORT
7.1 NCH quarter three 2016-17 performance report summary – Appendix 1. NCH quarter three 2016-17 performance report NCH Corporate Plan 2015-2018.
Contact officers: Jonathan Weller Nottingham City Homes Loxley House Station Street
67 Nottingham NG2 3NJ 0115 74 69351 [email protected]
Date: 16 February 2017
68 Summary – Corporate Plan Performance Quarter Three 2016-17 1
To be a first class housing organisation in the 2016/17 eyes of our tenants and leaseholders Result Target Status Trend Top 10%
Overall satisfaction with services provided by NCH (STAR survey) 88.4% 91% 93%
Tenant satisfaction NCH takes their views into account (STAR survey) 78.6% 77% 81% Tenant satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service (STAR 85.2% 89% 91% survey)
% of repairs completed right first time 94.5% 94% 98%
Tenant satisfaction with the overall quality of their home (STAR survey) 86.8% 90% 91%
Average energy efficiency rating of our properties C C C
Gas and solid fuel annual servicing 100.00% 100% 100%
% of rent collected 101.22% 100% 100%
Rent arrears as a % of rent due 2.13% 2% 1.32%
Full average re-let time - no exclusions 39.84 35 -
Number of lettable voids 156 186 -
To be a major player in transforming the quality 2016/17 of life in our neighbourhoods Result Target Status Trend Top 10%
Tenant satisfaction with neighbourhood as a place to live (STAR survey) 85.1% 90% 92%
Tenant satisfaction with the ASB service 85.6% 85% -
% of neighbourhood assessments meeting 4 star ACE Inspector rating 100% 80% -
To be a great place to work, widely respected as 2016/17 an efficient and professional organisation Result Target Status Trend Top 10%
Tenant satisfaction with value for money of rent (STAR survey) 86.9% 88.5% 90% % of employees who would recommend NCH as a good employer to 75.7% 80% 95% work for
Staff sickness - average number of days 12.8 9 5.3
To generate new business, securing income to 2016/17 reinvest in Nottingham and our communities Result Target Status Trend Top 10%
Number of new homes completed between 2015 and 2018 184 184 -
£ value of the council's capital programme delivered £37.4m £42.4m N/A -
Increase the number of private customers using Community Alarm 1,666 1,810 -
Increase the number of new Assistive Technology users 7,872 8,234 -
Number of new market rent properties delivered 34 50 -
Return to Agenda 69 ITEM: 3.2
NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES
THE BOARD REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF 23 FEBRUARY 2017 FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT
2016/17 FINANCE REPORT – PERIOD 9 (DECEMBER 2016)
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This report provides an update to the Board on the Company’s current financial position at the end of Period 9 (December 2016).
1.2 The Company is currently achieving a surplus and an improved position compared to the budget and it is anticipated that a full year surplus position of £66k (slightly less than that budgeted) shall be achieved. There is a risk the forecast position may not be achieved if income in the final quarter on Contract Delivery and New Build activities is not secured from the Nottingham City Council (NCC) up to the level of the related expenditure.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 It is recommended that the Board note the financial position at the end of December 2016 and the forecast outturn position for the 2016/17 financial year.
3 REPORT
3.1 The Company’s management accounts show a surplus of £203k at the end of Period 9, a slightly better position than that budgeted of £131k and similar to that reported to Board at the end of period 6 (£223k). The surplus represents less than 1% of the profiled budget at period 9 (£46m).
The full year position net of planned allocations to reserves and the refund to NCC is forecast to be a surplus of £66k (less than 1% of the Company’s turnover) which is below that budgeted of £155k.
3.2 The achievement of the full year surplus position is reliant on the continued delivery of budget savings included in Directorate budgets and the management of cost pressures and overspends, particularly in Contract Delivery and Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) garage sites new build, so that the financial position on these activities does not worsen in the final quarter of the year – see Appendix 1.
3.3 A summary of the financial position at the end of Period 9 together with the forecast outturn for the financial year is shown in Appendix 2. Further
70 analysis of these figures split by Directorate is provided in Appendix 3. Explanations for the main Directorate variances, as shown in Appendix 3, are set out below.
3.4 Repairs & Maintenance (R&M) £419k overspent (3% of profiled budget of £14.1m) The position at the end of Period 9, and the forecast outturn, reflects a loss on Contract Delivery insourcing activities (£204k) and that expenditure in relation to the first NCC garage site new build scheme completed by NCH has been in excess (£304k) of the funding (per property) agreed with NCC. Further details are provided in sections 3.9 and 3.10 below.
3.5 Housing & Customer Services £162k underspent (1% of profiled budget of £11.6m) Overspending on voids works is being offset by underspends elsewhere in Housing Services and this is reflected in the position forecast for the full year. Other underspending is contributing to the variance at Period 9 and this is forecast to remain the position till year end. Majority of underspends have arisen due to vacancies within employee costs.
3.6 Investment & Business Services £416k underspent (10% of profiled budget of £4.2m) Asset Management is underspent by (£425k) at the end of Period 9. This is due in part to the profile of stock maintenance works which is anticipated to be completed by the year-end. Variances to date on employee budgets (£174k) and additional energy team funding (£99k) are though reflected in the full year position.
3.7 Company Secretary £43k underspent (3% of profiled budget of £1.5m) Vacant posts are contributing to a variance from budget which is anticipated to lead to a small underspend in the Directorates full year outturn position.
3.8 Central Charges Income £130k under-recovered (less than 1% of profiled budget - £38m) Income is under-recovered at the end of Period 9 due to market and homeless pilot rental being lower than that budgeted (£99k) and this is reflected in the forecast.
3.9 Contract Delivery
3.9.1 The Contract Delivery team within the Repairs and Maintenance Directorate has been fully established this year to undertake more in- sourcing of work and deliver repairs and maintenance services for NCC in relation to their corporate properties. It had been agreed with NCC Board that an NCH team of up to 27 staff would be required to delivery £2.3m of works this year.
3.9.2 Whilst the Contract Delivery team did not recruit to the numbers above,
71 the level of work awarded by NCC has led to the team being over resourced, notably as a significant amount of works (50%) quoted for by NCH have been awarded to external contractors. NCH was also due to start delivering other building services (including gas works) for NCC last year but these plans were changed and no work materialised. This has been costly for the team to administer and, together with some works being taken on at a significant loss, have led to overall loss of £204k.
3.9.3 The process for agreeing and committing to works has been urgently reviewed as soon as the financial position was identified through our regular monitoring. Mitigating actions are in place and a new procedure has been established to ensure there is greater control over the work that NCH commits to delivering and the basis for agreeing and authorising the price of the work. It is unlikely that the loss can be reduced up to the year-end but actions taken are to mitigate the risk that the loss increases in the final quarter of the financial year. Discussions are also being held with NCC to agree and secure more regular and higher levels of work/income, with some new streams commencing in March.
3.10 Garage sites – New Build for NCC
3.10.1 Following the success of building five new family homes on Eddlestone drive, NCH was commission by NCC to build 26 properties on three different sites at a funding rate of £128k per property. The first site, Colwick Wood, was completed in 2016. The average cost per unit (eight units) was £166k which, if the level of NCC funding cannot be renegotiated, shall lead to a loss of £306k – which is included in the forecast. The budget was exceeded due to:
• Site issues including contaminated hard land, utility service connection delays, Network Rail supervision, permit requirements and additional boundary treatment works • Impact on pay costs of the average bonus entitlement for Repairs and Maintenance operatives • Enhanced window requirements due to planning and location of the railway.
3.10.2 Work on the remaining two schemes is ongoing. To ensure that the build cost for completing those schemes is within the current NCC funding envelope, and mitigate the risk of further losses, the following have been put in place:
• A fixed operative bonus rate on programmed hours • Additional timesheet information to improve non-recoverable hours reports and monitoring of labour on a weekly basis • Identification of value engineered savings.
3.11 Reserves
3.11.1 As reported to Board in September the Company’s reserves carried
72 forward into 2016/17 were £3.663m allocated against agreed priorities. To the end of Period 9, the in-year spend against reserves was £0.579m, leaving £3.084m to fund the agreed one-off initiatives, schemes and material events impacting on the Company – most notably the development of Harvey Road and IT improvements.
3.11.2 Previous reserves totalling £4.8m are now invested in NCH new build and market rented activities to reduce the Company’s loan requirements and the respective interest charges to those activities. The annual targeted in-year contribution from surplus of £1.5m is being achieved each month (£125k) and supports current new build schemes e.g. Lenton. Hence, by the end of the financial year a total of £6.3m will be invested in these activities from reserves.
4 FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Financial Implications
4.1.1 The main financial implications are set out above.
4.2 Legal Implications
4.2.1 There are no direct legal implications of this report.
4.3 Risk Implications
4.3.1 The current risks in relation to the Company’s financial position are:
• Achievement of budget savings across the final quarter of the financial year • Level of NCC support and works awarded to NCH Contract Delivery in relation to the turnover value assumed within the final quarter of the financial year • Ability to complete works on 2nd and 3rd garage site new build projects within NCC funding envelope.
5 IMPLICATIONS FOR NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES’ OBJECTIVES
5.1 A robust financial budget and effective monitoring process to ensure the budget is tightly managed and controlled is essential to support the achievement of all the Company’s objectives.
6 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Has the equality impact of these proposals been assessed? Yes (EIA attached) No (this report does not contain proposals which require an EIA)
7 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN COMPILING THIS REPORT
7.1 DLO In-sourcing job costs – Appendix 1
73 Period 9 Management Accounts – Appendices 2 & 3.
Contact officers: Name: Darren Phillips Address: Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham NG2 3NJ Tel: 0115 746 429 E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 13 February 2017
74 Appendix 1
Procedure for monitoring costs within the Contract Delivery section
Costs are monitored on a daily basis with ongoing updates to commercial reviews for each job. These figures must be accurate for costing purposes and give the costing for labour, materials and sub contractor usage. Once an order is raised for materials from wholesalers it must updated as and when quantities and values alter.
Every purchase order raised must pre agreed with the Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery or Maintenance Manager to ascertain the need for the materials and to check against the quote issued. The name of the craft operative requesting the materials is also noted on the office copy of the purchase order. The importance of ordering correct quantities for each job has been reiterated to all craft operatives in order to project the costs of each job.
The Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery will ensure that sub contractor use is kept to a minimum and that in house work is maximised. When work is passed to sub contractors the costs must be monitored on a daily basis against work in progress to ensure accurate forecasting and job costing.
Labour costs incurred on each job must be captured on the commercial review through the works tickets handed in by craft operatives. Hours are manually inputted by the admin staff within Contract Delivery on a weekly basis and are checked against the allocated labour values with the original quote to ensure income and expenditure are aligned.
Once a job is underway, any variations found to be required result in a site visit from NCH’s QS and a technical officer from the client side to confirm any additional work required. The QS will then inform the Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery of the variation required. Once the variation is agreed in writing with the client, NCH will request an amended purchase order from them, additional works will not commence until the amended order is received.
No works will be carried out by any NCH operatives or sub contractors working on behalf of NCH without an official order being in place and agreed in writing with the client.
All of the inputs stated above enable the Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery to monitor forecasted profit and loss of individual jobs on a daily basis.
Weekly meetings must take place between a member of the Finance team and the Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery to monitor work in progress (WIP), analyse profit on loss of individual jobs and resolve any anomalies. Finance are now monitoring WIP on a monthly basis and sharing this with the Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery.
Once works are completed an invoice will be raised and submitted to the client listing all order numbers. Receipt of payment will be monitored by a member of NCH’s finance team and the Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery. Any identified anomalies raised by the client will be resolved internally or with the client officer.
75 Operational accountability for this process is as follows:
• Monitoring of WIP – NCH Finance team • Monitoring of profit and loss on a daily basis – Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery • Receipt of Payment – NCH Finance team • Ensuring the Contract Delivery income protection process is followed – Head of Commercialism and Contract Delivery
76 Contract Delivery Income protection process Enquiry received
Surveyed/Costed Labour QS Supervisor Materials Overheads Constants Head of Service approves quote
QS submits quote to clients
Quote accepted No Yes/No
Yes Review with client
No order Client issues instruction and official order No work and design phase plan End
Head of Service completes construction phase plan
Work programmed and allocated to supervisor
Site meeting with client
No Instruction as quote (no work to Yes/No commence) NCH purchase order to be raised and authorised in line with the company’s Financial Yes Regulations for approval limits. Induction – confirm allotted time to Re-quote operatives Work commences
Every separate Variation to instruction requested variation
Agree variation with client No confirmation PO to be amended to Agree scope and cost No work new cost NB must be confirmed in writing by client
Omissions to be agreed in advance by client and order amended (in writing). Any materials to be charged where purchased for job
Job completed and practical completion signed off by client
Agree final account
Invoice/Concerto
28 days – follow up payment - record
Payment received 77 Appendix 2 1 COMPANY WIDE SUMMARY PERIOD 9: 31st DECEMBER 2016
BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE Year To Date Year To Date Year To Date Full Year Full year Full Year
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Income
HRA Fees 37,332 37,332 0 49,776 49,776 0 Other Income 9,215 8,943 272 12,511 12,324 187 Total 46,547 46,275 272 62,287 62,100 187 Less :
Expenditure
Employee Costs 26,000 25,968 (32) 34,612 34,763 151 Non-Pay Costs 17,416 17,104 (312) 23,520 23,270 (250) Total 43,416 43,071 (345) 58,132 58,033 (99)
NCC Refund 1,875 1,875 0 2,500 2,500 0 Earmarked for Reserves 1,125 1,125 0 1,500 1,500 0
(Surplus) / Deficit Position (131) (203) (72) (155) (66) 89
PLEASE NOTE: Our convention for presenting financial information is as follows: - Income will be shown without brackets - Expenditure will be shown without brackets - Under achieved income variances will be shown without brackets - Overspent expenditure variances will be shown without brackets - Surpluses will be shown with brackets ` - Deficits will be shown without brackets
78 Appendix 3
DIRECTORATE SUMMARY PERIOD 9: 31st DECEMBER 2016
BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE Year To Date Year To Date Year To Date Full Year Full year Full Year £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 HOUSING & CUSTOMER SERVICES Income H1 3,284 3,013 270 4,337 4,278 59 Expenditure 14,868 14,437 (432) 19,828 19,610 (218) 11,585 11,423 (162) 15,491 15,333 (159) REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE Income P1 3,289 3,307 (18) 4,635 4,443 192 Expenditure 17,374 17,811 437 23,417 23,619 202 14,085 14,504 419 18,781 19,175 394 INVESTMENT & BUSINESS SERVICES Income C1 2,143 2,261 (117) 2,873 2,968 (94) Expenditure 6,347 6,048 (299) 8,451 8,317 (134) 4,204 3,788 (416) 5,578 5,349 (229) COMPANY SECRETARY Income O1 42 35 7 57 57 0 Expenditure 1,552 1,502 (50) 2,070 2,057 (13) 1,510 1,467 (43) 2,014 2,000 (13) CENTRAL CHARGES Income R1 37,789 37,659 130 50,385 50,354 30 Expenditure 6,274 6,274 0 8,366 8,431 65
(Surplus) / Deficit Position (131) (203) (72) (155) (66) 89
PLEASE NOTE: Our convention for presenting financial information is as follows:
- Income will be shown without brackets - Expenditure will be shown without brackets - Under achieved income variances will be shown without brackets - Overspent expenditure variances will be shown without brackets - Surpluses will be shown with - Deficits will be shown without brackets
Return to Agenda
79 ITEM: 3.3
NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES
THE BOARD REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTMENT 23 FEBRUARY 2017 AND BUSINESS SERVICES
‘FIXING OUR BROKEN HOUSING MARKET’ THE GOVERNMENT’S HOUSING WHITE PAPER, PUBLISHED IN FEBRUARY 2017
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This report highlights key points from the recently published Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’, and looks at relevant implications for Nottingham City Homes (NCH) group.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 It is recommended that the Board note the report and consider relevant implications for NCH
2.2 It is recommended that the Board consider if it has views on the White Paper that it wishes to express during the consultation period, which is open until 2 May 2017.
3 REPORT
3.1 As the Board has previously been informed, last autumn the Government announced its intention to publish a Housing White Paper. White papers are policy documents produced by the Government that set out their proposals. They provide a basis for consultation and discussion, and set out the general direction of policy that government intends to take. They can lead to new or amended legislation.
3.2 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CLG), Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, presented the White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’ (Cm 9352) to Parliament on 7 February 2017. The White Paper can be accessed here: www.gov.uk/government/collections/housing-white-paper
3.3 The White Paper focuses on housing supply, accepting that shortage of new supply has driven up housing costs and contributed significantly to problems of affordability. Furthermore, it argues that planning reforms are needed to help ensure more homes are delivered. The White Paper also accepts the need for greater tenure diversification, marking a change from previous policy with its main focus on help to boost owner occupation. In her Foreword, the Prime Minister states: “We will encourage housing associations and local authorities to build more, and
80 we will work to attract new investors into residential development including homes for rent”.
3.4 The White Paper predominantly focuses on planning measures to speed up delivery of new homes, and key aspects of the related consultation relate to proposed changes in that area. Proposals include:
• Ensuring every area has up to date, “ambitious” local plans • Simplifying the plan making process • Ensuring “honest” assessment of local housing need, underpinned by guidance on needs assessments • Making it easier to find available land through Land Registry information • Maximising the contribution that can be made by use of brownfield land, surplus public land, estate regeneration, and the use of small and medium sized sites • Maintaining protections for the Green Belt, but allowing amendments in ‘exceptional circumstances’ • Reviewing space standards to allow higher densities.
3.5 The Government seeks to achieve faster rates of building, and the White Paper outlines proposals to:
• Ensuring council planning services are resourced to improve the speed at which planning cases are handled, and deterring appeals • Ensuring timely provision of infrastructure and connections to utilities • Tackle unnecessary delays caused by planning conditions • Growing the construction workforce • Holding developers to account for delivery • Holding local authorities to account through a new ‘housing delivery test’.
3.6 The White Paper also seeks to achieve greater delivery through diversification of the housing market. This includes:
• Supporting small and medium sized builders, and custom build • Using the Accelerated Construction Programme to widen the pool of contractors that can build more quickly than traditional builders • Encouraging modern methods of construction • Encouraging institutional investment into housing, to boost new build supply, including family rented accommodation • Supporting housing associations and local authorities to build more homes.
3.7 The Paper also recognises the need to help people quickly, whilst increased supply comes on stream. This includes measures to help people aiming to buy for owner occupation, as well as reforms designed to help people in the private rented sector.
• Continuing policies on Help to Buy and Starter Homes
81 • Developing a “sustainable and workable approach” to funding supported housing in the future • Do more to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping • Continue to tackle empty homes, and issues related to areas affected by second homes • Promote transparency and fairness for leaseholders • Encourage the development of housing for the needs of our future population • Making renting fairer for tenants, with family friendly three year tenancies.
3.8 The White Paper was broadly welcomed across the housing sector, in particular the commitment to increased supply, better security in the private rented sector, and measures to free up housing through ensuring better housing options for people wanting to downsize in later life.
The acceptance of the role of councils and ALMOs going beyond planning powers to having “an important role in delivering homes themselves” is most welcome. The White Paper also acknowledges delivery within the sector through local housing companies and states that “we welcome innovations like these, and want more local authorities to get building. To that end we will seek to address the issues that hold them back.”
These statements mark a difference in approach from that of the previous government.
3.9 However, commentators have expressed the view that the White Paper is not as bold as might have been expected, given the profile of speeches by Ministers last autumn.
The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) expressed concern at a lack of clarity regarding new homes at ‘Affordable’ versus Social rents, in the context of reduced social housing supply created through the existing and extended Right to Buy. CIH Head of Policy, Melanie Rees, stated: “It’s too early to say if the White Paper hits the spot but it’s clear that the Chancellor’s Budget Statement in March must come up with some hard cash to translate the government’s ideas … into the solutions we need so urgently.”
The National Federation of ALMOs (NFA) strongly supported the potential for an increased role for councils and ALMOs, and noted the Government’s intentions to set out a rent policy beyond 2020 for social landlords, to help them borrow against future income to support delivery. However the NFA drew attention to the statement: “We want to see tenants that local authorities place in new affordable properties offered equivalent terms to those in council housing, including a right to buy their home.” The White Paper is generally supportive of council owned local housing companies, but this would create a changed operating context for such bodies.
82 The NFA is due to meet CLG officials in March, alongside other housing sector representatives, to discuss in more detail how councils and ALMOs can help deliver more new housing supply.
3.10 The Local Government Association (LGA) has produced a Briefing on the Housing White Paper which will be of interest to the Board. This is included as Appendix 1.
3.11 Implications for NCH
3.11.1 NCH will seek to assess the White Paper in detail, and look to see where opportunities exist to grow the business of NCH group. NCH will work with colleagues at NCC to consider opportunities that arise to make use of land for new development, and funding streams that can help deliver new housing.
3.11.2 NCH already works closely with Nottingham City Planners to ensure proposed developments meet local need and are in line with city planning policies, so it is not expected that the planning changes proposed in the White Paper would have a significant impact on NCH’s work.
3.11.3 NCH will wish to seek to make its contribution to ensuring the supply of a skilled construction workforce through its apprenticeship programme, and NCH will consider opportunities presented by modern methods of construction to drive down new build costs.
4 FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Financial Implications
4.1.1 Financial implications of specific proposals will be brought to the Board’s attention where applicable. It should be noted that matters like a new social rent policy for the period commencing in 2020 will have a significant impact on the Housing Revenue Account after that date.
4.2 Legal Implications
4.2.1 None.
4.3 Risk Implications
4.3.1 Risks for NCH group of any changed requirements relating to tenancy rights (including rights to purchase tenanted homes, especially at any discounted rate) will be assessed as part of future planning.
5 IMPLICATIONS FOR NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES’ OBJECTIVES
5.1 Ensuring that NCH group is fully abreast of developments that affect the core business of the organisation.
83 6 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Has the equality impact of these proposals been assessed? Yes (EIA attached) No (this report does not contain proposals which require an EIA)
7 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN COMPILING THIS REPORT
7.1 Department for Communities and Local Government: ‘Fixing our broken housing market’, Cm 9352, February 2017. The Housing White Paper.
Other comments published by the NFA and CIH in statements following publication of the White Paper.
7.2 Appendix 1: Local Government Association - Housing White Paper briefing, 10 February 2017.
Contact officers: Dan Lucas Policy and Planning Manager Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham NG2 3NJ Tel: 0115 746 9470 E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 14 February 2017
84 Appendix 1
Housing White Paper – Local Government Association briefing 10 February 2017
The Housing White Paper Fixing our broken housing market sets out the Government’s strategy for building more of the right homes in the right places. It was published on 7 February 2017.
The full document is available on the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) website.
This briefing summarises the main announcements of relevance to local government and sets out the Local Government Association’s (LGA) initial response. The LGA’s press release responding to the White Paper is available on the LGA website.
SUMMARY
Fixing our broken housing market includes some encouraging proposals that reflect the recommendations in the LGA Housing Commission report, such as removing the starter homes requirement and increasing funding for planning departments.1 Importantly, it emphasises building the right homes in the right places to meet our wider ambitions for communities.
However, local government’s ambition is much greater than the White Briefing Paper, which lacks substantive measures to support councils in enabling housing growth, and to build the genuinely affordable homes for those at the sharp end of the housing crisis.
The LGA will work with the Government to take forward proposals, We will continue to push for an ambitious vision that recognises local government’s role in enabling additional housing, and in building the genuinely affordable homes that would resolve many of the challenges facing communities, the economy, and public services. In particular, we will continue to call for the housing borrowing cap to be lifted.
Chapter 1: Planning for the right homes in the right places
Proposals to ensure certainty and to simplify the planning system, for instance by standardising process for assessing need, will help with the
plan-making process, as will measures to increase land transparency. k u .
However, it is crucial that the process remains locally led and that measures v o g
do not impose national housing targets on local communities. . l a c o l
New powers for councils to establish local development corporations @ m a
provide an opportunity for councils to innovate in the delivery of sustainable l 7 s
8 , Public Affairs and Campaigns Adviser Campaigns and Affairs Public , a
new communities. While councils support the intention behind proposals to h m . a e l i s n a a l .gov.uk H e 1 e m Final report of the LGA housing commission, 2016 http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publications/- i n a
/journal_content/56/10180/8116240/PUBLICATION l e
M Email 7664 30 020 Tel ww.local 85 require 10 per cent of sites being 0.5 hectare, it will be difficult to achieve in practice and limit local responsiveness and so should be pursued voluntarily.
Chapter 2: Building homes faster
Local planning authorities were under-funded by £195 million in 2015/16 and the LGA had called for local discretion over planning fees to address this.2 The commitment to increase planning fees by 20 per cent will provide additional resources to fulfil duties and deliver homes. It is important that all areas with varying levels of housing growth should benefit from opportunities to access additional funding to respond to demand, and to seek to increase proactive delivery of additional homes.
Applying fees to appeals, allowing councils to compulsory purchase undeveloped land with permission, and to require starts on site within two years are steps in the right direction. However, measures to hold councils to account through a delivery test will only succeed if the councils have greater powers to ensure development than those proposed in the White Paper.
Local government must play a central role in coordinating infrastructure investment linked to housing growth. The LGA will contribute to future consultations on the review of Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy. Reforms should focus on providing simplicity, certainty and transparency that reduce the likelihood of developers overpaying for land. This is crucial to ensuring that the community benefits from approving housing with services, infrastructure and affordable well-designed, sustainable homes. Local government is exploring new routes to financing infrastructure, such as through land value capture.
Chapter 3: Diversifying the market
The LGA has argued for strategies that stimulate wider interventions supporting building by councils, housing associations, developers and other partners through partnership. Local government is at the heart of this and can play a central role in stimulating and attracting new investment.
The commitment to offer some support for councils to build through their Housing Revenue Accounts and other ventures is important. However, it must go much further to ensure all councils have the financial flexibilities and powers to build homes that are able to help those at the sharp end of the housing crisis. Councils need borrowing freedoms and the ability to retain 100 per cent of Right to Buy receipts to build new affordable homes. The housing crisis will persist until there is significant immediate investment in genuinely affordable homes.
Councils must have flexibility to meet local need for affordable rented homes through delivery vehicles and other ventures. We are concerned by the suggestion that the Government wants to see an offer similar to Right to Buy in housing delivered through such ventures. Councils have often sought to build in ownership options into rented property and it is vital that they
2 Local authority revenue expenditure and financing, 2015/16 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing- england-2015-to-2016-individual-local-authority-data-outturn
86 maintain this flexibility so that the delivery of additional homes remains viable.
Chapter 4: Helping people now
We are pleased that the Government has listened to concerns on starter homes delivery and introduced new flexibilities on the affordable home ownership products and a lower requirement of 10 per cent. However, every housing market is different and councils should have further flexibilities to adjust requirements to meet their new objectively assessed need, for instance to provide other affordable rent options.
We want to have further discussion with the Government on how better to provide homes for our ageing population in ways that reduce pressures on health and social care services.
The Government will need to go much further in allowing councils to build homes and to redress the impact of welfare reforms if it is to reduce homelessness.
BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1: PLANNING THE RIGHT HOMES IN THE RIGHT PLACES
Getting plans in place
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Consult on options for introducing a standardised approach to calculating assessed housing need. Set out in regulations a requirement for local plans and other local development documents to be reviewed at least once every five years. Consult on a requirement for local authorities to prepare a Statement of Common Ground, setting out how they will work together to meet housing requirements and other issue that cut across boundaries. Remove the expectation that every authority should be covered by a single local plan, enabling allocation of strategic sites through spatial development strategies produced by combined authorities or elected Mayors. Improve the availability of data on interests in land and consult on improving the transparency of contractual arrangements used to control land.
LGA view:
The LGA has raised concerns about the considerable time and resources required to get a plan in place, including evidence requirements and overall policy uncertainty. Standardised methodology for calculating assessed housing need could help streamline line the plan-making process by reducing inefficiencies and providing certainty to councils. It is important that councils retain the freedom to plan and meet the objectively assessed local housing need and to ensure land with community support for housing is made available. Measures in this White Paper should not set national housing targets on local communities.
Co-operation across wider areas can identify sufficient land for housing, but it can be difficult to achieve. Measures supporting wider strategic planning are encouraging, though it is important that proposals for areas to produce a Statement of Common Ground are not unnecessarily bureaucratic.
87 The LGA has argued that councils should have more tools and flexibilities to engage and shape local land markets. An effective land supply is critical to house building and measures that increase transparency of land ownership and the options on land would help enable councils to fulfil this role.
Making enough land available in the right places
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Deliver more homes on public sector land including provision of a new £45 million Land Release Fund, ensuring authorities can dispose of land with the benefit of planning permission granted by themselves. Introduce legislation that will allow locally accountable New Town Development Corporations to be set up, so that local areas can use them as a delivery vehicle for new settlements including garden cities, towns and villages. Consult on extending flexibility to dispose of land at less than best consideration. Bring more brownfield land back into use through amendments to the NPPF to indicate that great weight should be attached to using suitable brownfield land within existing settlements for housing Support small and medium sites through expectation on local planning authorities to support small ‘windfall’ development sites, where at least 10 per cent of residential sites allocated in local plans are of half a hectare or less. There will also be an expectation that local planning authorities will work with developers to encourage the sub-division of large sites. Maintain existing strong protections for the Green Belt and clarify that boundaries should only be amended in exceptional circumstances.
LGA view:
The LGA has argued for additional levers and support to release public sector land, and the new Land Release Fund will help with this policy ambition. The release of surplus public land is a significant opportunity to boost housebuilding, as demonstrated by the One Public Estate programme.3 It should be pursued in a long- term strategic plan to shape places and as part of a strategy to ensure land that is released is built on within an appropriate time frame.
We will contribute to the proposed consultation extending flexibility to dispose of land at less than best consideration. The LGA will continue to call for the Treasury to issue simple, clear central guidance to public bodies on how to consider land release in terms of wider public value, rather than just a short-term focus on achieving the highest immediate receipt.
The New Towns Act 1946 should be modernised to allow councils to establish and locally account for development corporations, which support councils to deliver sustainable new communities. We look forward to working with the Government to ensure the proposals allow councils to innovate in the provision and stewardship of new places. This may include forward financing infrastructure through land value capture, or enabling the release of land at values enabling mixed communities contributing towards affordable homes and community services.
Councils are seeking to do more to support small and medium-sized builders, including allocating land suitable for a mix of developers. However, the requirement for 10 per cent of sites being at 0.5 hectares or less will be very difficult to implement
3 http://www.local.gov.uk/onepublicestate
88 in practice and restrict the capacity of the local plan to respond to need. Instead, this target should be voluntary.
Strengthening neighbourhood planning and design
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Strengthen the importance of early pre-application discussions, make clear that local and neighbourhood plans should set out clear design expectations, recognise the value of using design standards, and consult on improving energy performance requirements on new homes. Make further funding available to neighbourhood planning groups and amending planning policy so that groups can obtain a housing requirement figure from the local planning authority. Make better use of land for housing by encouraging higher densities.
LGA view:
Councils recognise the importance of ensuring that new developments are sustainable, high quality, and are places where people want to live, work and enjoy their time. The commitment to review current energy performance standards is important. The Government should go further to review on housing standards to look at where improvements can be made to the baseline quality of new homes.
Councils are responding positively to neighbourhood planning. The commitment for further funding to neighbourhood planning groups should be taken further with a full review of the financial support provided to councils to meet their statutory duties in relation to neighbourhood planning.
Approved neighbourhood plans have significant status in the determination of applications for planning permission. As such it is crucial that they are based on a robust evidence base with deliverable policies, in the same way that applies to developing a Local Plan setting out the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area.
Councils recognise the need to maximise delivery on suitable sites, particularly in areas where there is high housing demand. Many are already seeking to secure higher density housing. It is important that councils retain local discretion to decide the right levels of density for new housing across their local areas based on local context, including accessibility, infrastructure capacity and local housing needs.
CHAPTER 2: BUILDING HOMES FASTER
Resourcing planning departments and increasing certainty
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Allow local authorities to increase planning fees by 20 per cent from July 2017 if they commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department, and consider allowing an increase of a further 20 per cent for those delivering a given level of housebuilding, and making £25 million available for areas planning for more homes. Consult on introducing a fee for making a planning appeal, which could be capped at £2,000 for a full inquiry. Give local authorities the opportunity to have their housing land supply agreed on an annual basis, and fixed for a one-year period.
89 LGA view:
The LGA has argued that council planning departments need to be sufficiently resourced to fulfil their functions and to deliver more housing. We are pleased that this has been acknowledged in the White Paper. Currently taxpayers are subsiding approximately 30 per cent of the estimated cost of processing planning applications,4 and we have argued that fees should be set locally by councils. Charging fees for appeals will be another important step for reinforcing the prominence of the Local Plan. Councils should be able to retain the fees to invest in planning departments.
Currently councils that have successfully demonstrated a five-year housing land supply can still be subject to speculative appeals, leading to approval of inappropriate development sites outside the Local Plan. It is important that when councils have spent time establishing a Local Plan and identified land for housing that the assessment is fixed, reducing the opportunity for developers to appeal.
We are pleased that the White Paper will fix housing land supply assessments for a one-year period and will pursue discussions on how areas could fix longer time- frames. There should also be greater recognition of councils longer term housing land supply beyond five years, for example approved major developments have a ten-year land supply.
Infrastructure and skills for housing
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Review the system for how developers contribute towards infrastructure and affordable housing through Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, to be published in the Budget on 8 March 2017. Ensure provision of infrastructure through the £2.3 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund which will be open to bids in 2017 with funding for four years, consulting on requiring council planning policy to deliver digital infrastructure, and to review how utilities companies can be prevented from holding up development. Pursue measures to address skills shortages in the construction industry.
LGA view:
The LGA has argued that local communities are most likely to support development when it is accompanied with the supporting services and infrastructure that places need to prosper. Councils must be at the centre of models for bringing together infrastructure strategy and spending in ways that build homes.
We will contribute to the review on Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, which needs to be robust, clear, transparent and simple. Reforms should also offer absolute certainty in the obligations on developers to provide infrastructure and affordable housing contributions, in ways that reduces the risks that a developer overpays for land.
The LGA has argued for innovation in infrastructure spending. The Housing Infrastructure Fund will provide crucial opportunities for councils to deliver infrastructure-led housing. We will work with the Government on the detail of the programme, and will be keen that councils have maximum flexibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed locally to deliver housing. We want to take forward more
4 LGA media release, December 2016 http://www.local.gov.uk/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/8115844/NEWS
90 ambitious approaches to forward financing infrastructure, such as through land value capture.
The LGA has called for greater tools to hold utilities companies to account when development is held up, including for digital infrastructure. We will push for reforms to planning policy to support local authorities to have more meaningful discussions with broadband providers and help cement the link between digital infrastructure provision and new housing developments.
Councils are well-placed to work with schools and colleges to ensure people can gain the skills that local companies desperately need to design and build homes, and should have greater powers to resolve skills mismatches in local economies. In Skills to Build we have set out our case for how councils can help provide developers with the skills that they need.5
Local authority and developer accountability for building homes
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Introduce a housing delivery test to hold local authorities and their wider interests to account for delivering homes, requiring a local authority to publish an action plan where the numbers of new homes are lower than the number of those suggested are needed. Hold local authorities and developers to account by requiring information about the timing and pace of delivery for new housing, encouraging local authorities to consider potential build out rates when granting permission. Consider options for shortening the timescales for developers to implement a permission from three years to two years, and supporting councils to use compulsory purchase powers to support build out of stalled sites.
LGA view:
The LGA has argued that it is essential councils have real tools to engage and incentivise developers to build out sites where communities have agreed to development. We look forward to working with the Government on the detail.
Support for councils to make greater use compulsory purchase powers to unlock stalled sites is significant in helping ensure development on sites with permission, although this will do little to speed up build-out rates. Similarly, while measures requiring starts within two years of being granted permission would be a step in the direction, it does not ensure homes are completed at a reasonable rate.
House building is generally complex and risky, involving a wide range of partners. Councils are committed to building homes where they are needed but do not have all the planning powers, such as those set out in our Housing Commission report6, to actually ensure it. This must be recognised by the proposal to apply delivery test and requiring action from councils when housing delivery has not met forecast need, and the measures put in place to reduce the risk of reverting to presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5 http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/49942/Skills+to+build+- +Creating+the+houses+and+jobs+our+communities+need/c624085f-6e56-4cb7-9e83-5a37f481fea5 6http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7632544/LGA+Housing+Commission+Final+Report/a84 df8b5-4631-4320-8b33-567c549aadfa
91 CHAPTER 3: DIVERSIFYING THE MARKET
Council and housing association house building
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Determine a rent policy for council and housing association landlords for the period beyond 2020 to help them borrow against future income. Work with councils to understand all the options for increasing the supply of affordable housing, perhaps develop bespoke housing deals with authorities in high demand areas and with an ambition to build, and consider whether additional capacity support is needed for councils to innovate in housing delivery. Encourage councils delivering affordable rented housing through alternative vehicles to offer tenants similar rights to other affordable rented homes, including the Right to Buy. Commit to implementing measures to allow housing associations to be classified as private sector organisations, and urge them to explore every avenue for building more homes and improve efficiency to focus on house building.
LGA view:
Councils play a wide and varied role in enabling housing growth across their areas working with housing association and developer partners. It is important that this enabling role continues to be acknowledged, encouraged, and supported.
The LGA has argued for greater longer-term certainty and flexibilities for Housing Revenue Accounts so that councils can plan investment in delivering new housing that helps them meet their housing duties. Rental certainty after 2020 will be an important first step; however, councils need borrowing freedoms and the ability to retain 100 per cent of Right to Buy receipts to rapidly build new affordable homes. The housing crisis will persist until there is significant immediate investment in genuinely affordable homes.
It is important to acknowledge and encourage the role councils are playing in seeking to plug gaps in local housing markets through local housing companies and other delivery vehicles. Councils must have flexibility to meet local need for affordable rented homes through delivery vehicles and other ventures. We are concerned by the suggestion that the Government wants to see an offer similar to Right to Buy in housing delivered through such ventures. Councils have often sought to build in ownership options into rented property and it is vital that they maintain this flexibility so that the delivery of additional homes remains viable.
Housing associations will be vital partners for councils in helping to build more homes and house the more vulnerable in our society. We are supportive of measures urging housing associations to build more and councils want to work with them to meet the needs of everyone in their local area.
Diversification of private house builders
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Support the market of small and medium-sized builders and custom builders by launching the £3 billion Home Building Fund and partnering with them in the Accelerated Construction programme to build on surplus public land.
92 Build more homes for private rent by changing the NPPF encouraging councils to plan for Build to Rent products and make it easier for developers to offer affordable private rented homes. Ensure three or more year tenancies on schemes that benefit from these changes. Support modernisation of the housebuilding sector and faster methods of construction, including through the Accelerated Construction Programme and Home Builders Fund and work with industries and local areas keen to promote this type of manufacturing.
LGA view:
We have called for new measures to support the diversification of the private housebuilding industry. The strategy for supporting the diversification of the private market will take time to deliver, and is unlikely on its own to build all the housing our communities need. In the short-term it is critical to enable councils to build more affordable homes where the market has undelivered.
There is a good opportunity to stimulate additional supply through institutional investment in Build to Rent products, which councils are keen to enable as part of the wider housing mix. The wider role for councils in stimulating institutional investment into new housing should also be better acknowledged and supported. Three-year tenancies in Build to Rent property are welcome but will likely form a very small proportion of overall housing stock, we are also interested to understand more about a new affordable private rented property.
Future role of the Homes and Communities Agency
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Relaunch the Homes and Communities Agency as Homes England, which would support councils to build on public sector land working with local public sector partners, deliver housing of all tenures, and support infrastructure delivery linked to housing.
LGA view:
The LGA has argued for greater capacity support for local areas to deliver additional housing, and councils themselves can play a significant role in enabling house building locally. A reformed role for the Homes and Communities Agency working with local partners could play an important role in enabling this, and we will work with Homes England to support councils and their local partners to build more homes.
CHAPTER 4: HELPING PEOPLE NOW
Starter Homes
The White Paper has set out measures to:
Target starter homes at households that need them most with an income of less than £80,000, or £90,000 in London, and that eligible first-time buyers would also be required to have a mortgage. Implement a 15-year repayment taper so that when the property is sold some or all of the discount is repaid. Replace the proposed starter homes requirement with an affordable home ownership requirement of 10 per cent on a site-by-site basis, and it be for councils to work with developers to agree the mix of starter homes, rent to
93 buy, shared ownership or other products. Amend the NPPF to allow brownfield land to be released with a higher proportion of starter homes, extending the exception site policy to include other forms of brownfield land, and to support land remediation with the £1.2 billion starter home land fund.
LGA view:
The LGA has argued for local flexibility in delivering starter homes alongside the mix of other affordable housing products that meet the locally assessed need, including affordable homes for rent. Therefore, we are pleased that the Government has listened to these concerns and that the starter homes requirement of 20 per cent is not being pursued. Looking ahead we want to explore flexibilities for councils in housing markets that find that 10 per cent requirement home affordable ownership products on sites do not meet their new assessments of local housing need.
Helping people afford a home
The White Paper has set out:
Plans to introduce the Lifetime ISA, supporting younger adults to save flexibly for the long-term giving them a 25 per cent bonus on up to £4,000 of savings a year. Plans to consult on the future of the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme.
LGA view:
Research for the LGA’s Housing Commission highlighted the financial pressure on first time buyers.7 We want to contribute to the discussion on future policy of interventions that support households to save for home ownership, and welcome the focus on both older and younger people from the White Paper as neither group are well served in the current housing market.
Extended right to buy for housing association tenants
The White Paper has set out:
The Government’s existing commitment to extend the Right to Buy to housing associations through a regional pilot.
LGA view:
We are pleased that the costs for the extended pilot are being met by the Government. However, it is still not clear how the extension of the Right to Buy will be funded in the longer term. Councils are still facing uncertainty over the prospect of a forced sales of their assets to fund the extended right to buy.
The LGA wants to decouple the two policies and make it voluntary for councils to decide whether or not to sell their higher value homes. The policy should also be implemented in ways that allow councils to build more homes. Councils should be able to keep 100 per cent of receipts to invest in building new homes.
7http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7632544/LGA+Housing+Commission+Final+Report/a 84df8b5-4631-4320-8b33-567c549aadfa
94 Government funding for affordable housing
The White Paper has set out:
The Government’s existing commitment to fund a broader range of tenures through the Affordable Homes Programme, including the additional £1.4 billion announced in the Autumn Statement 2016.
LGA view:
The LGA continues to push for flexibility in the range of new homes delivered through the Affordable Homes Programme, including for social rent. We will continue to work with Government to ensure that funding for affordable housing is delivered effectively with councils as a key partners. Councils and housing associations will be able to deliver more homes if given flexibilities, for example, to combine grants with Right to Buy receipts, and to deliver more social rented properties more affordable lower-income households.
Protection for private tenants and leaseholders
The White Paper has set out:
Existing measures on the private rented sector, consolidating them into a ‘fairer deal’ for rents, including a proposed ban on letting agent fees. Problems for leaseholders and the Government’s intention to consult on reforms designed to tackle unfairness.
LGA view:
We share the Government’s concern about the lack of clarity for private tenants. These are helpful measures but they do not tackle the underlying challenges arising from a legal and regulatory system that is out-of-date and requires reform to match the pace of the reality of the current private rented housing market.
The volume and complexity of regulations governing the sector can be confusing for landlords, tenants and councils. We want to work with the Government to review and modernise the framework to support councils’ ability to meet the expectations of their residents.
The LGA has supported proposals to encourage longer tenancies, as insecure housing can prevent people from living a full life. Councils argued for families to have 10-year tenancies during the debate on reforming the length of tenancies through the Housing and Planning Act, and for local flexibility on the length of tenancies for council housing, particularly for tenants with children.
We support the principle of greater protection for leaseholders and will be working with the Government to explore the role for local government and how this would be resourced
Making best use of existing homes
The White Paper sets out:
Existing policies on second homes and empty homes and reiterates the Government’s support for councils to take action on empty homes using existing powers Plans to consider whether additional measures are needed on top of tools
95 that direct the receipts from the Stamp Duty Land Tax on second homes to a Community Housing Fund.
LGA view:
It is important to make use of existing homes, although this will not solve problems with supply. We are pleased that the Government recognises the contribution that local government has made to bringing down the number of empty homes.
Housing for older people
The White Paper sets out plans to:
Produce guidance for planning authorities on how their local planning documents should meet the housing needs of older and disabled people. Engage widely with stakeholders, including local government, on the different strategies through which partners can deliver better outcomes for older people. Publish a green paper on the future of Supported Housing this Spring following the consultation on a new funding model
LGA view:
There is an acute need to integrate housing with health and social care further and in ways that improve well-being and reduce demand on care services. This means building more attractive and suitable homes for older people, and adapting existing housing to better support ageing in ways that reduce pressures on health and social care services.
We will engage with the Government on its proposals for guidance to local authorities on the assessment of housing needs for older and disabled people. To deliver councils need tools in their viability negotiations with developers to ensure developers deliver more accessible homes.
We aim to take forward our ideas further with the Government and partners. Councils have responsibilities for planning, housing, social care and public health, as well as playing a strategic role in partnership with clinical commissioning groups and others in the planning and provision of healthcare services. They are well placed to proactively plan for meeting the housing, care and health needs of their ageing populations.
Preventing homelessness
The White Paper sets out:
Recent government proposals to address homelessness such as their support for the Homeless Reduction Bill, doubling of the Rough Sleeping Fund, and refocusing on prevention. The intention to establish a network of expert advisors to work closely with all local authorities to help bring them to the standard of the best
LGA view:
The Government must work with councils to address the causes of homelessness by building more genuinely affordable homes and redressing the impact of welfare reforms that may increase the risk of homelessness among certain groups, for instance by lifting the Local Housing Allowance cap.
96 Councils are having to pick up the pieces from the failure to address rising homelessness, being forced to place more people in expensive temporary accommodation that is estimated to have cost £3.5 billion over the last five years.
We have supported the intent of the Homeless Reduction Bill to widen support available to non-priority groups which is in far more workable than the initial draft. Legislative change alone is unlikely to succeed unless councils gain greater tools to build council homes, to redress the gap between household incomes and rents, and sufficient resources to deliver duties.
The LGA will push to host the network of expert advisors, as it will be best placed to build positive relationships with councils and pursue a sector led approach to improvement.
Return to Agenda
97 ITEM: 3.4
NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES
THE BOARD REPORT OF THE COMPANY SECRETARY 23 FEBRUARY 2017
COMPANY SECRETARY’S REPORT
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This report sets out the administrative and governance matters requiring consideration and approval by the Board since the last meeting.
1.2 The Equality and Diversity Steering Group have devised a Positive Action Work Plan, and the second cohort of Future Leaders programme commences in April 2017. Stonewall has ranked NCH in the top 100 index of employers, jumping 71 places in the last year to achieve 89th place nationally.
1.3 All Board Members are invited to this year’s Tenant and Leaseholder Awards which will be held on 29 March 2017 at the Council House. The event will start at 5.30pm.
1.4 The Nottingham City Homes Enterprise Limited (NCHEL) Board met on 30 January 2017. The composition of the NCHEL Board is made up of the five Executive Management Team (EMT) members. The Chief Executive is the Chair of the NCHEL Board. There are 34 market rent properties currently being managed by the NCHEL Board.
1.5 The three Nottingham City Homes (NCH) representatives and three potential Independent Members of the Registered Provider subsidiary (RP) met informally on 26 January to discuss the next steps for the RP Board.
1.6 The Enterprise Act 2016 amended the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, to allow the Secretary of State to set apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies. As council owned companies, all ALMOs are classified as a Public Sector Body. NCH currently has 51 apprentices.
1.7 This April, the two current Midlands representatives to the NFA Board (Newark and Sherwood Homes and Wolverhampton Homes) will be standing down after completing eight year terms. The NFA is therefore seeking two new Midlands NFA Board Directors. NCH is seeking to apply for one of the forthcoming vacancies to be a Midland regional representative.
1.8 The Company Seal has been used three times this period, twice for purchase of properties and once for a Confidentiality Agreement.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Board:
2.1 Notes the update from the Equality and Diversity Steering Group.
2.2 Notes the update to the Tenant and Leaseholder Awards.
98 2.3 Notes the update of the NCHEL.
2.4 Notes the update to the RP Board.
2.5 Notes the update to the Public Sector Duty Targets.
2.6 Notes the intention of NCH to apply for one of the NFA regional vacancies.
2.7 Notes the use of the Company Seal.
3 REPORT
3.1 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY STEERING GROUP UPDATE (EDSG)
3.1.1 NCH host four employee equality forums, all providing peer group support to staff with protected characteristics. The EDSG oversees their work. The following progress has been made over the past 6 months;
• The Ethnic Minority Employee Forum have rebranded to the Ethnically Diverse Forum and a new chair and Vice Chair appointed • The Disabled and Carers Forum have launched with a new Chair. The Forum has been instrumental in helping NCH attain the Disability Confidence Mark which has replaced the outdated two tick system • Women In Construction are considering opening the forum to cover all women across the business • Lesbian, gay, bi and trans (LGBT) forum hosted a LGBT film event on 5 February and have formed a partnership with other public sector organisations to host a LGBT conference on 24 February. The forum also won a “Highly Commended Award” as part of our recent Stonewall success.
The forums also give a voice to feed into company values, equality and aims and objectives and Company employment policies.
3.1.2 The EDSG created the Positive Action Work Plan which has been populated by gaps identified in the Stonewall and the Social Housing Equality Framework final reports, in addition to Equality and Diversity strategic objectives. Actions taken against deliverables are reported on a monthly basis to the EDSG. The Positive Action Work Plan is attached as Appendix 1.
3.1.3 The EDSG work has also been instrumental in Stonewall ranking NCH 89th in its top 100 index of national employers. The charity assesses companies against a series of measures for their efforts to tackle discrimination and create inclusive workplaces for LGBT employees. NCHs work on LGBT issues over recent years includes a very visible presence at the annual Nottinghamshire PRIDE event, establishing an internal Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender employee forum, and hosting events linked to LGBT History month.
3.1.4 On 27 January representatives from Repairs and Maintenance, along with the Organisational Development team, visited The Holocaust Centre in Newark. Attendees were invited to hear the testimony of a Holocaust Survivor, view the exhibitions, collections and visited the memorial gardens.
3.1.5 The Future Leaders of Nottingham programme was developed as a result of
99 research carried out in 2014 by NCH, Communities Inc. and Nottingham City Council (NCC), which identified a need to improve leadership level diversity within the city. In October 2014 the Future Leaders Programme was launched. 18 people were successful in gaining places on the Future Leaders Programme, two of which were NCH employees. The programme takes on its second cohort in November.
3.1.6 The Board is asked to note the update from the Equality and Diversity Steering Group.
3.2 TENANT AND LEASEHOLDER AWARDS UPDATE
3.2.1 This year’s Tenant and Leaseholder Awards will be held on 29 March 2017 at the Council House. The event will start at 5.30pm. Board Members are encouraged to attend and should you wish to attend, please contact Tom Moulsdale, who will arrange this with the Tenant and Leaseholder Team.
3.2.2 The Board is asked to note the update to the Tenant and Leaseholder Awards.
3.3 NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES ENTERPRISE LIMITED UPDATE
3.3.1 The NCHEL Board met on 30 January 2017 and as part of good governance, and NCHEL is reporting back to main NCH Board.
3.3.2 The Board of NCHEL comprises the five members of EMT.
3.3.3 The Board has appointed the Chief Executive as its Chair and set up its own register of interests. It has agreed to adopt the Group Standing Orders and Code of Conduct. The Director of Investment and Business Services is arranging further training on share capital and the workings of a commercial Board.
3.3.4 There are currently 34 Market Rent properties being managed by the Board and no letting problems are being encountered at present. The Repairs Contact Centre is proving a valued bonus to the tenants of these properties. It was noted that the agreement previously made with NCH Board and NCC is to have 100 properties for market rent by the end of March 2018. Further agreement would then need to be sought from NCH Board and NCC to extend this arrangement. It was felt that with regard to viewings and offers we could be being too restrictive in where we are looking for market rent properties.
3.3.5 Presently all market rent properties are owned by NCH Board, and NCHEL will be requesting they are transferred to the subsidiary in due course. The “shadow” Profit and Loss account prior to transfer is based on 100% borrowing for the acquisition of all market rent properties so far. As alternatives, the NCHEL Board is modelling whether the purchase of shares and/or the provision from NCH Ltd’s reserves would achieve a surplus sooner than otherwise planned.
3.3.6 It was further noted that the former Meadows Police Station site new build project for market rent is not included in the 100 properties stated above.
3.3.7 The Board is asked to note the report.
3.4 REGISTERED PROVIDER BOARD UPDATE 100
3.4.1 The three NCH representatives and three potential Independent Members of the Registered Provider subsidiary (RP) met informally on 26 January to discuss the next steps for the RP Board. The three Independent Members also had the opportunity to find out more about the creation of the subsidiary and the current position around the application which it agreed was the priority. A number of other issues were discussed including Board governance and appointment of a Chair.
3.4.2 It was agreed that the next steps would be for the Independent Members to meet with Anthony Collins Solicitors to get a full legal and independent perspective of the subsidiary. A full RP Board Meeting will be arranged shortly thereafter to elect a Chair and agree the final application for submission to the Homes and Communities Agency. In the meantime the Independent Members have been sent details of the application and all related documentation for information.
3.4.3 The Board is asked to note the update to the RP Board.
3.5 PUBLIC SECTOR DUTY TARGETS
3.5.1 The Enterprise Act 2016 amended the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to allow the Secretary of State to set apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies. As council owned companies, all ALMOs are classified as a Public Sector Body.
3.5.2 The Government published a consultation document on apprenticeship targets for Public Sector Bodies on 25 January 2016. The consultation set out that:
• The duty would apply to public bodies that have 250 or more employees in England; • The target would be for a minimum of 2.3% apprenticeship starts each year, based on the number of employees working for a body in England.
This would require NCH to take on approximately 23 apprentice starts each year. For information in recent years we have taken on a total of 51 apprentices.
3.5.3 The Board is asked to note the update to the Public Sector Duty Targets.
3.6 NOMINATIONS TO NATIONAL FEDERATION OF ALMOS (NFA) BOARD
3.6.1 This April, the two current Midlands representatives to the NFA Board (Newark and Sherwood Homes and Wolverhampton Homes) will be standing down after completing eight year terms. The NFA is therefore seeking two new Midlands NFA Board Directors.
The NFA Board is ultimately responsible for the overall control of the affairs of the NFA, including policy direction, monitoring performance of all its functions and allocation of resources to meet its financial and other obligations. NCH is seeking to apply for one of the forthcoming vacancies to be a Midland regional representative.
3.6.2 The Board is asked to note the intention of NCH to apply for one of the NFA 101 regional vacancies.
3.7 USE OF COMPANY SEAL
3.7.1 The Board is asked to note the following uses of the Company Seal – where the Seal has been affixed to a Transfer of Registered Title, these property purchases have been purchased under the Executive Management Team (EMT) delegated powers as previously agreed by Board, unless otherwise stated.
3.7.2 TR2 Transfer of Registered Title -The Seal was affixed on the 26 January 2017 for the purchase of 10 Patterson Road, Hyson Green, Nottingham, NG7 6AF for £78,500.
3.7.3 The Seal was affixed on the 26 January 2017 to the Confidentiality Agreement between Nottingham City Homes and Elizabeth Ekaeteh.
3.7.4 TR1 Transfer of Registered Title – The Seal was affixed on the 16 February 2017 for the purchase of 82 Elford Rise, Nottingham NG3 2BN for £90,000.
4 FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Financial Implications
4.1.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
4.2 Legal Implications
4.2.1 All of the initiatives within this report are carried out within legislation including the Companies Act 2006 and NCH’s Governance processes.
4.3 Risk Implications
4.3.1 There are no risks arising from this report.
5 IMPLICATIONS FOR NOTTINGHAM CITY HOMES OBJECTIVES
5.1 The contents of the report will have a significant impact for NCH achieving its corporate objectives, set out in the Corporate Plan and associated high level corporate commercial, financial and business plans.
6 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1 Has the equality impact of these proposals been assessed? Yes (EIA attached) No (this report does not contain proposals for significant changes to process at this stage).
7 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO
IN COMPILING THIS REPORT
7.1 Positive Action Work Plan – Appendix 1.
CONTACT OFFICER: George Pashley Company Secretary 102 Loxley House Station Street Nottingham NG2 3NJ Tel: 0115 746 9485 E-mail: [email protected]
DATE: 16 February 2017
103 Equality and Diversity Positive Action Plan 2016-2018 Appendix 1
Action Outcomes Lead Resources & Target Target Support start completio date n date Continue to work with partner • Employees in protected groups able to access E&D Manager NCC additional development organisations to support a Nottingham • Organisations able to benefit from a wider range of Learning and wide positive action scheme (Future perspectives on management teams Development Leaders) • Improved partnership working Team
Support employees to participate in • Employees wishing to participate in leadership E&D Manager Unions schemes such as the Stonewall Leadership specialist leadership programmes Programme and targeted courses available through Unions receive support from the organisation to apply and participate
Provide additional development • Assessment of any needs for the forums separate E&D Manager Learning and to wider development programmes opportunities through employee forums • Activities being carried out through employee Development based on training needs assessment forums Team • Introduction of Action Learning Sets Engage staff, linking to the L&D • Leadership masterclasses with keynote speakers development of the Managers Stonewall, Human Rights Commission linked to E&D Manager Academy. E&D Raise the profile of equality employee • Increase in number of employees joining the E&D Manager Employee employee forums whether at meetings or through forums virtual involvement Forum • More employees benefiting from the support provided by the networks • Target: 5 additional members for each forum; significant increase in regular involvement in forum activities Train and retain a diverse pool of • All recruitment panel members have appropriate Recruitment, HR team time equality training recruitment panel members to receive • Increased involvement of tenants and employee E&D Manager Learning and training that includes relevant Equality networks in recruitment processes Development
104 Action Outcomes Lead Resources & Target Target Support start completio date n date and Diversity issues Review of OD and recruitment • Opportunity to review HR policies bringing in line Head of OD E&D Manager procedure. with the Equality Act 2010, using inclusive HR Team languages. • Increased confidence in fairness of recruitment process • Address the under representation of protected characteristic within various parts of the organisation ie Women in construction, Women and BME staff in senior roles • Equality employee forums will have increased confidence in OD and recruitment procedure - providing meaningful, relevant statistics with further breakdown of equality strands for comment. • Increase employee diversity • Increase in information NCH holds on its employees Employee E&D Manager particularly disability, carer status and LGBT information - with specific emphasis on • Increase in percentage of disabled and LGBT forums Head of OD LGBT and declaration of disability and employees including at manager level Health and carer information • Increased awareness among managers and Wellbeing colleagues of diversity and what it covers Manager • More reasonable adjustments being provided • Reduced sickness absence • Improved productivity Carry out further work to improve the • Marketing and promotion activity targeting women Director of Head of • Support Women In Construction network representation of women and ethnic • More women progressing from Apprenticeships to Repairs and Marketing and minority staff in Repairs and operative and management roles in R&M (WIC Maintenance Communication Maintenance, including through initiave) Head of Apprenticeship and work experience • Workforce profile of property services more Learning and representative of the tenant profile programmes • Training R&M workforce to ensure a fully inclusive Development and diverse culture E&D Manager
105 Action Outcomes Lead Resources & Target Target Support start completio date n date • Good retention rates for female employees in WIC officer technical roles Use Aspire to Manage programme to • Internal employees from underrepresented groups Head of Employee are more skilled with a better opportunity of gaining identify and support diverse talent in promotion Learning & forums the workplace • Employees are identified through talent mapping Development and supported to achieve management positions Continue to celebrate Black and LGBT • Show through our actions that we are an E&D Manager Tenant organisation which celebrates diversity; is history seasons and support demonstrably fair; reflects the community we serve; Involvement celebration events for example and where all employees can achieve their potential team Nottingham Caribbean Carnival and Nottinghamshire Pride.
Work in partnership with Employability • Creation of work placements and school visits at Head of Employability our partner organisations Manager to continue to create work • Reduced unemployment and tenants gaining Learning and Manager placements additional skills and qualifications Development Review performance and progress on • Use tenant equality panel to close the satisfaction E&D Manager Tenant gap between younger, BME tenants and those from equality and diversity issues, linked to other diverse backgrounds Involvement the requirements of the Equality Act team 2010 and Social Housing Equality Framework.
Return to Agenda
106 Building a Better Nottingham NCC New Build Programme Progress Report Feedback to NCH Board ITEM: 3.5
THE BOARD 23 FEBRUARY 2017
tion Date tion Comments Value (£M) Value Contractor RIBA Stage Scheme No's Scheme Scheme Overall Overall Scheme Comple Budget RAG rating RAG Budget Position Statement Position Progress rating RAG
In Keepmoat Phase B Work on houses on-going. .scheme has suffered delays due to utility, asbestos and service diversion issues. Gateway blocks Lenton 5 80 9.59 Nov-17 Progress Regeneration in progress, steel frames erected. Alternate access to Derby Road for Palmer Court residents in place.
Scheme is in progress.13 week contractor delay due to service diversions. Quality issues on site have been resolved, contractor putting In Keepmoat in mitigation plans to deal with capacity issues. Bungalows completion is delayed due to a new water main being required in the Cranwell Crosswall 5 48 4.5 Jun-17 ## Progress Regeneration highway. Forecast completion of bungalows now end of March. Highways approvals now agreed. NCH improved contracts have reduced the NCC's risk in relation to delay costs. In Keepmoat The scheme is forecasting a 26 week contractor delay to the proposed completion date due to National Grid gas service diversion and Meadows Q Block 5 54 5.5 Jul-17 Progress Regeneration Severn Trent drainage issues. The scheme has been through an NCC Project Assurance Group exercise. Housing office is to be replaced with additional apartments. Scheme is ready to go into contract. The contractor (Geda) have submitted an inflationary price increase due to the start on site delay of Pre-start Stepney Court JSC 5 30 5.1 Dec-18 GEDA ## £60k. Scheme. NCC Major Programmes seeking Further DDM approval for additional costs to allow the scheme to start on site. NCC works EEM/principal contractor issue to be resolved.
Colwick Woods, In NCH in-house delivery scheme, Colwick Woods now complete. Amber hill started on site 28th November . Scheme suffered delay's Hopedale Crescent, 5 24 3 Nov-17 NCH DLO ## Progress due to utility company issues and Network Rail Licencing and supervision requirements . Amber Hill Robert In Morley School 5 39 3.8 Oct-17 Woodhead Woodhead construction started works on site 27-06-16. progress is on target. NCC have agreed they are the employer. Progress Group Robert Infill Sites Phase 3 (6 In 5 21 2.7 Nov-17 Woodhead Woodhead Construction have started works on site. Progress is on target Sites) Progress Group Infill Sites Phase 2 Robert In Woodhead Construction started on site at Hazel Hill on target 04-07-16. Conway Close and Oakford Close delayed due to time required (Conway Close, Hazel 5 54 5.4 Oct-17 Woodhead Progress for NCC Regeneration team to extinguish rights of way, additional contamination remedial works need completing . Hill Oakford Close) Group Pre-start Willmott Winchester Woodthorpe 3 39 4.5 Dec-18 Pursuing a direct negotiation route through the Scape framework to meet the demands of the 1-4-1 timetable. Approval granted. works Dixon Pre-start To be NCC regeneration team site layout revised by NCH, scheme numbers increased from 20 to up to a potential 25, with existing space Knights Close 1 25 3.4 works confirmed standards maintained and 3/2 bed ratio now in line with demographic requirements for the area. Pre-start To be Marlestones 1 14 1.8 Jan-18 Clause 5 negotiation and savings at risk due to NCC EEM issue. works confirmed To be To be Clifton Miners Welfare 0 19 2.6 Pipeline NCC currently purchasing land, site has potential for 14-19 bungalows. confirmed confirmed
Old Basford Community To be To be Centre/Horse and 1 6 0.77 Pipeline confirmed confirmed Jockey Pub
107 Southchurch Court To be To be 3 8 1.1 Pipeline (Garage Site) confirmed confirmed
To be To be Salisbury Street 4 6 0.77 Pipeline confirmed confirmed
To be To be Plot 20 Stonebridge 5 1 0.134 Pipeline confirmed confirmed
Locksley House Robin To be To be 6 6 0.77 Pipeline Discussions on-going to determine if this site should become a NCH market rent scheme Hood Chase confirmed confirmed
Tot 478 55.83 al Legend RIBA Stage 0 Identify business case and strategic requirements RIBA Stage 1 Produce RIBA stage 1 report to gain approval for. Project objectives, project budget, initial feasibility studies. RIBA Stage 2 Carry out pre-site investigation surveys, prepare concept design including overview on structural, architectural and utility services. Produce outline costs RIBA Stage 3 Produce RIBA stage 3 report to gain approval to tender scheme. RIBA Stage 4 Produce detailed site investigation information and technical design where appropriate
RIBA Stage 5 Produce RIBA stage 5 report and NCC/NCH approval reports to award scheme to successful contractor
RIBA Stage 6 Handover of project and conclusion of building contract.
108 Building a Better Nottingham NCC New Build Programme Progress Report Feedback to NCH Board
Comments Contractor RIBA Stage Scheme No's Completion Date Budget RAG rating Position Statement Scheme Value (£M) Progress RAG rating In Keepmoat Phase B Work on houses on-going. Sixteen bungalows and thirty three houses complete and tenanted .scheme has suffered delays due Lenton 5 62 7.8 Nov-17 Progress Regeneration to utility, asbestos and service diversion issues. Padstow Ridgeway has been added to the scheme. Tender awarded to Pelham Architects, work is stating on Master design and Padstow Main Pre-start To be 1 360 39.6 Sep-22 development process. Padstow Ridgeway works confirmed In Keepmoat RP status being sought to allow drawn down of NCH HCA funding. NCC legal issue on demolition is now resolved. Demolition works Church Square 3 17 2.2 Feb-18 Progress Regeneration commence 21 Feb 17. Planning approval To be Proposed market rent apartment development of up to twenty one 2 bed units. Scheme in discussion with planners. Still awaiting NCC Meadows Police Station 3 22 3.3 Oct-18 in confirmed legal to issue information for completion of land sale. progress Strategy is to deliver a low carbon housing scheme with community gardens. Land negotiation complete. Researching low carbon Pre-start Eastglade 1 44 5.5 Jul-19 NCH DLO solutions and potential of NCH in-house offsite manufacturing. Innovate UK research funding grant has been successful resulting in a works grant of £50k. NCC property services gaining secretary of estate approval is now April and is delaying the progress of the scheme.
To be To be Tunstall 0 12 1.6 Pipeline confirmed confirmed
To be To be Oakdene 0 8 1.03 Pipeline confirmed confirmed
Total 577 68.63 Legend RIBA Stage 0 Identify business case and strategic requirements RIBA Stage 1 Produce RIBA stage 1 report to gain approval for. Project objectives, project budget, initial feasibility studies. RIBA Stage 2 Carry out pre-site investigation surveys, prepare concept design including overview on structural, architectural and utility services. Produce outline costs RIBA Stage 3 Produce RIBA stage 3 report to gain approval to tender scheme.
RIBA Stage 4 Produce detailed site investigation information and technical design where appropriate
RIBA Stage 5 Produce RIBA stage 5 report and NCC/NCH approval reports to award scheme to successful contractor RIBA Stage 6 Handover of project and conclusion of building contract.
109 2017-01-20 Newbuild programme GR-RW
ID Task Task Name Start Finish 2014 2017 2020 2023 Mode Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 1 Lenton (142 homes) Mon 04/11/13 Fri 17/11/17 2 Palmer Court flats (54) Mon 04/11/13 Fri 06/11/15 3 Lenton Bungalows (16) Mon 16/03/15 Thu 30/06/16 4 Lenton Houses (62) Mon 24/08/15 Fri 02/06/17 5 Lenton Gateway Blocks - Retail units (2) and Flats Mon 01/08/16 Fri 17/11/17 (10) 6 Cranwell Road (48 homes) Mon 27/07/15 Fri 31/03/17 7 Cranwell Road (12 flats, 11 bungalows & 25 Mon 27/07/15 Fri 31/03/17 houses) 8 Meadows West (54 homes) Mon 27/07/15 Fri 09/06/17 9 Meadows West (45 house & 9 bungalows) Mon 27/07/15 Fri 09/06/17 10 DLO stream (25 houses) Mon 11/01/16 Fri 20/10/17 11 Colwick Woods (8 houses) Mon 11/01/16 Fri 28/10/16 12 Amber Hill (8 houses) Tue 18/10/16 Fri 14/07/17 13 Hopedale Close (9 houses) Mon 13/02/17 Fri 20/10/17 14 Morley School (33 houses, 6 bungalows) Mon 04/07/16 Fri 20/10/17 15 Morley School (33 houses, 6 bungalows) Mon 04/07/16 Fri 20/10/17 16 Infill garage sites (78 homes) + 3 communal units Mon 15/08/16 Fri 27/10/17
17 Infill Phase 2 (57 homes plus 3 communal units) Mon 22/08/16 Fri 27/10/17
18 Conway Close, St Anns (10 x 1 bed bungalows, Mon 17/10/16 Fri 21/07/17 plus communal unit ) 19 Oakford Close, Aspley (21 homes, plus Mon 31/10/16 Fri 27/10/17 communal unit) 20 Hazel Hills scheme, Bestwood (23 bungalows Mon 22/08/16 Fri 29/09/17 plus 1 communal unit @ Hazel Hill, 3 x 2 bed bungalows @ Hazel Hill crescent)
21 Infill Phase 3A (10 homes) Mon 15/08/16 Fri 12/05/17 22 Middlefell Way (3 houses) Mon 15/08/16 Fri 10/03/17 23 Colesbourne Road (4 houses) Mon 17/10/16 Fri 12/05/17 24 Meadowvale Crescent (1 bungalow & 2 houses) Mon 26/09/16 Fri 21/04/17
25 Infill Phase 3B (11 homes) Mon 31/10/16 Fri 20/10/17
26 2 Aslockton Drive (1 bungalow) Mon 31/10/16 Fri 31/03/17 27 Ragdale Road (6 bungalows) Mon 31/10/16 Fri 09/06/17 28 Marlstones (14 Houses) Mon 20/03/17 Fri 20/10/17 29 Gautries Close (3 houses) Mon 28/11/16 Fri 12/05/17 30 Strelley JSC (30 homes) above offices Mon 24/04/17 Fri 21/12/18 31 Strelley JSC (30 homes) above offices Mon 24/04/17 Fri 19/10/18 32 Winchester Woodthorpe Mon 12/06/17 Fri 21/12/18 33 Winchester Woodthorpe Mon 12/06/17 Fri 21/12/18 34 NCH New Build programme Mon 27/03/17 Fri 09/09/22 35 Church Square (17 homes) Mon 27/03/17 Fri 23/02/18 36 Meadows Police Station (22 flats) Mon 04/09/17 Fri 12/10/18 37 Eastglade Mon 06/11/17 Fri 19/07/19 38 Padstow Ridgeway (120 Units) Mon 26/03/18 Fri 18/09/20 39 Padstow Main Site (240 Units) Mon 03/09/18 Fri 09/09/22
Critical Split Finish-only Baseline Milestone Manual Summary Inactive Task Critical Split Task Progress Duration-only Milestone Project Summary Inactive Milestone Critical Progress Manual Task Baseline Summary Progress External Tasks Inactive Summary Task Start-only Baseline Split Summary External Milestone Deadline
Page 1 110 Return to Agenda