Report to the Wards Orchard Park & Greenwood
Housing, Economic Development and Regeneration Overview 28 th September 2010 and Scrutiny Commission
Northern Area Housing Board 30 th September 2010
Northern Area Committee 4th October 2010
Cabinet 25 th October 2010
The Transformation of Orchard Park and North Hull: Demolition of Multi Storey Flats
Report of the Strategic Director Housing Investment & Renewal
1. Purpose of the Report and Summary
1.1 This report follows on from “The Transformation of Orchard Park and North Hull” as submitted to Cabinet on 23 rd February 2009 (minute 23 refers) when it was agreed that a no-lettings policy, except for short-term tenancies for emergency purposes, in respect of all multi-storey flats (MSFs) at Orchard Park be adopted with immediate effect pending a decision on the demolition of the blocks.
1.2 Reference is made to the current position in terms of the long term future of the multi-storey flats at Orchard Park Estate referring to the likely costs of bringing them up to decent homes standard set against the costs of demolishing them along with all associated costs of re-housing the existing residents.
1.3 The report reflects the current position with the PFI bid following public consultation events held earlier this year and consultation on a preferred option in July, which has implications for the future of the multi-storey flats.
2 Recommendations
2.1 That Cabinet approve the proposal to demolish the seven MSF blocks located at Ashthorpe, Gorthorpe, Highcourt, Homethorpe, Kinthorpe, Laxthorpe and Milldane by 2015.
2.2 That the Strategic Director Housing Investment and Renewal is authorised to acquire leasehold properties at their discretion in advance of demolition.
2.3 That the no lettings policy in respect of the multi-storey flats at Orchard Park Estate, as agreed at minute 23, continue to facilitate the clearing of the flats in preparation of demolition.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 1 of 40 2.4 That Cabinet supports the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire all property, interests and rights not otherwise vested in the Council in order to demolish the seven blocks of flats at Orchard Park Estate (OPE) being Highcourt, Milldane, Ashthorpe, Gorthorpe, Homethorpe, Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe as identified at 4.1; in doing so negotiations commence or continue with all those having interests in the properties affected by CPO’s namely 185, 325, 333 and 407 Milldane and 20, 35 and 82 Highcourt in order to secure acquisition by agreement. Plans are appended at Appendix 4.
2.5 That the timing and making of the CPO approved under 2.4 be delegated to the Strategic Director Housing Investment and Renewal in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (and Monitoring Officer), Head of Corporate Finance, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Housing Strategy and Ward Councillors for Orchard Park and Greenwood wards.
2.6 That the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (and Monitoring Officer) be authorised to withdraw properties or land from any CPO where agreement has been reached to acquire all interests.
2.7 That the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (and Monitoring Officer) be authorised to confirm any CPO where directed by the Secretary of State.
This is a key decision. The matter is in the Forward Plan – Ref. No. 0010/10
3 Introduction
3.1 Following submission of an Expression of Interest to CLG on 31 st October 2008 for the 6 th round PFI – The Transformation of Orchard Park; Shaping the Place Creating a Fruitful Future, the Council has been invited to progress the project to Outline Business Case (OBC) approval.
3.2 Another report on this agenda details the progress of the regeneration plan for the area, which forms the basis of the OBC for PFI funding.
3.3 Whilst the long term sustainability of the multi-storey flats (MSFs) is not linked to the Orchard Park Estate (OPE) Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or Extra Care PFI schemes, the clearance of all the MSFs is an integral part of the regeneration proposals in order to bring about the transformation of the area as a whole. However, the delivery of the preferred option does not necessarily require that Ashthorpe and Highcourt are demolished in order to provide land for new housing. Although in determining whether it is feasible to retain these blocks consideration needs to be given to the long term viability of the multi-storey flats and the potential effect on the marketing of new properties as part of the regeneration proposals.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 2 of 40
3.4 Outside of decisions around the PFI bid very few of the MSFs meet the decent homes standard and the cost to bring them up to this standard is very high. Therefore in order to establish the long term future of OPE multi-storey flats, due consideration needs to be given to their condition, demand for the flats, likely costs to bring them up to decent homes standard taking in to consideration SAP ratings, and other associated costs in relation to management, caretaking and concierge services, set against the costs of physically demolishing the multi-storey blocks, associated costs in relocating the residents and making good of vacant land.
3.5 The cost of retention compared to demolition is £30m at today’s prices. This can not be accommodated in the HRA budget without the equivalent of c. £1.5m of annual savings being achieved and, if the Reform of Council Housing Finance proposals are implemented we could require permission from CLG to undertake the prudential borrowing. However, in such an event the cost difference would fall to £20m with £1m of savings being required on an annual basis.
3.6 If the Council is to exclude these properties from its decency targets the decision to demolish them must be taken by 31 st December 2010 at the very latest.
3.7 During March – May, 2010 officers have visited residents of the blocks to discuss their housing needs and aspirations for re-housing if the blocks are to be demolished. If demolition of the flats is to go ahead support through the re-housing process will be offered by a dedicated team located in the area.
4 Current Situation of Orchard Park High Rise Properties.
Location.
4.1 Within Orchard Park there are seven blocks of MSFs which are identified on the map shown at figure 1.
4.2 There are four 18 to 22 storey and three 10 storey No Fines blocks at Orchard Park. These 7 remaining high rise blocks on Orchard Park were constructed between mid to late 1960s. The 18 to 22 storey blocks have had minimal capital improvements since they were constructed. The 10 Storey blocks (Gorthorpe, Laxthorpe and Kinthorpe) received double glazing in the early 1990’s however; heating improvements were only made to the two designated sheltered blocks in the late 1980’s early 1990s along with some communal facilities.
4.3 On 29 th November 2005, Cabinet commissioned a full feasibility study to look at the structural state of the blocks and to determine whether cladding was required to bring the blocks up to the DHS and to give the blocks a 30 year life.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 3 of 40
Figure 1 above
Current Occupation Levels
4.4 These MSFs comprise of 587 separate one and two bed flats of which seven are occupied by leaseholders, two reserved as family rooms for use by visiting relatives in the sheltered blocks & two held for storage and scooter storage purposes by the Council. The leaseholders include two properties used by Doorstep in Highcourt.
4.5 Following the decision to suspend lettings a number of flats have become vacant. The latest position on void levels per block is given in the table below.
MSF No. of flats Number void @ % Void 2nd Sept 2010 Milldane 118 67 56.8% Highcourt 107 26 24.3% Ashthorpe 110 43 39.1% Homethorpe 104 35 33.7% Gorthorpe 47 16 34.0% Kinthorpe *47 21 46.7% Laxthorpe *47 25 54.3% Total **580 233 39.7% * Please note that both Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe previously each had a room allocated as a Family Room and have each have a room allocated for storage. (all four properties have been classified as void).
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 4 of 40 ** This figure excludes the 7 leasehold flats.
Decent Homes Standard.
4.6 The feasibility study commissioned on 29 th November, 2005 was completed in May 2006. The report identified a number of key issues that impact on decency;
• Large numbers of dwellings in the 18-22 storey blocks had ill fitting windows that suffer from water penetration causing damage to the structure.
• Most kitchens and bathrooms were original unless replaced on void works.
• The majority of flats have under-floor heating to the hall and living room only and this was ineffective due to age and condition.
• Roofing materials are in poor condition and require replacement on a number of blocks.
4.7 Over 98% of the flats currently fail the decency standard. The table below reflects the overall level of decency in each block as at the end of March 2010.
MSF Floors No. of Number %age flats meeting decency
Milldane 21 118 0 0.0% Highcourt 19 107 0 0.0% Ashthorpe 19 110 2 1.8% Homethorpe 18 104 0 0.0% Gorthorpe 10 47 6 12.8% Kinthorpe 10 47 1 2.1% Laxthorpe 10 47 1 2.1% Total 580* 10 1.7%
*This figure includes the 2 family rooms and 2 flats for storage, but excludes the 7 leasehold flats.
SAP Ratings
4.8 One of the key issues identified in the feasibility was the poor energy efficiency rating of the flats as measured by the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating. This is due to the solid wall construction with no insulation and poor heating systems. The average SAP ratings per block are given in the table below.
MSF Current average SAP Ratings Milldane 35 Highcourt 36
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 5 of 40 MSF Current average SAP Ratings Ashthorpe 38 Homethorpe 36 Gorthorpe 53 Kinthorpe 53 Laxthorpe 53
4.9 All blocks are currently well below the city wide average of 69.5 and the Council’s LAA stretch target of 70. Whilst not in itself conclusive, a SAP rating of 35 and below is generally held to indicate a category 1 health hazard. Three of the four large blocks exceed this figure by a very small margin, one is at this figure. The SAP ratings for some individual flats are thus likely to represent a category 1 health hazard under the Decent Homes Standard Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which measures the likelihood of harm to vulnerable occupants and contributes to fuel poverty.
Demand
4.10 Historically the Orchard Park MSFs have exhibited relatively high numbers of empty properties and turnover, when compared to other blocks in the city:
• Over the two years prior to the no lettings policy being introduced an average of 13 flats became empty each month, the highest turnover rate for MSFs in the city.
• On average each flat advertised via HomeSearch received just 22 bids compared to the city average of 38 for this type of unit. The average number of bids for two bed flats was only one third of that for similar properties in Riverside, and for one bed flats less than half of Riverside’s. Across the city, MSFs are the least popular housing type after one-bed bungalows.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 6 of 40
• The table below shows the percentage of empty properties prior to the no lettings policy.
MSF No. of Number empty @ % Void lettable flats 10 th March 2009 Milldane 118 18 15.3% Highcourt 107 10 9.4% Ashthorpe 110 20 18.2% Homethorpe 104 9 8.7% Gorthorpe 47 7 14.9% Kinthorpe 45 13 28.9% Laxthorpe 46 17 37.0% Total 577 94 16.3%
4.11 This compares with current empty property rates in other MSFs (excluding Orchard Park) within the city of 6.4%.
Assessment of Residents’ Needs.
4.12 In order to carry out a detailed assessment of the residents’ housing needs and discuss the financial and relocation packages available to residents of the multi storey flats, ‘One to One’ interviews commenced on 22 nd March, 2010 on a phased basis for all general needs blocks of flats and 8 th April, 2010 for the sheltered housing blocks at Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe. Whilst every effort has been made to undertake ‘One to One’ interviews with all residents it was not possible to arrange interviews with 89 of the residents. Further attempts to make contact will be made at the appropriate time.
4.13 Measures have commenced to contact all leaseholders to inform them of the need to acquire their property in the event that the Council agrees to demolish Milldane and Highcourt blocks of flats, where the leasehold properties are located. At the same time the individual housing needs are identified along with details of the assistance that is made available to relocate them to alternative accommodation.
4.14 The results of the ‘One to One’ interviews for each block and details of the questionnaire used in this exercise are appended to this report (appendix 3); however an overview of the general needs blocks and Kinthorpe/Laxthorpe Sheltered Schemes are shown below.
Overview of all General Needs blocks
• 72% visits have now been undertaken (230 out of 319). • 70% of those visited are in support of demolition, 19% against demolition and 21% unsure. • 99.5% would like re-housing with HCC however, 14% would consider private housing, 32% would consider an RSL. • 65% want Northern/Wyke area as first preference, with 17% requesting Riverside, 9% requesting West and 9% want to move to other areas across the city. • 63% want to remain in North area and 37% want to move away.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 7 of 40 • 26% want house, 17% bungalow, 15% high rise flat and 45% low rise flat. • 41% requested one bed accommodation, 57% requested two bed and 2% requested three bed accommodation – 7% of occupants have children living in flats. • 50% of residents consider themselves to have a long standing illness, with 17% requiring adaptations within their new home and 12% receiving support from external agencies. • 9% would/maybe interested in sheltered accommodation and 12% are interested/maybe interested in extra care scheme.
Overview of Kinthorpe/Laxthorpe Sheltered Schemes
• Letters went out w/c 6 th April 2010 to all residents in block • 100% visits have now been undertaken • 38% are in support of demolition, 60% against demolition and 2% unsure • 100% require re-housing with HCC and 54% consider RSL • Sheltered schemes –66% of sheltered residents (31 residents) requested re-housing into another sheltered scheme with 74% wanting North/Wyke area, 16% East area, 3% wanting Bransholme and 7% wanting Central. • General needs – 78% want North/Wyke area, 8% want Bilton Grange • 68% want to remain in North area, 17% want to move away and 15% not answered • 38 want bungalow, 13% high rise flat and 49% low rise flat • 94% requested one bed accommodation and 6% requested two bed and accommodation • 86% of residents consider themselves to have a long standing illness, with 78% requiring adaptations within their new home and 24% receiving support from external agencies • 63% interested in extra care scheme and 4% maybe interested in extra care scheme.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 8 of 40
4.15 This analysis is based on the residents’ first preference and re-housing policy is designed to ensure that residents can be relocated within the local area where this is their choice. However, it is evident from the interviews that a high percentage of residents would also consider relocating to other parts of the city as part of their relocation.
4.16 The demolition of the multi-storey flats at Orchard Park would leave a total of 5,156 general needs 1-bed/bedsit properties across the city, of which 108 are currently empty (as at 13 th September, 2010).
5 Orchard Park PFI Overview and Extra Care PFI Scheme.
PFI Overview
5.1 Another report on this agenda sets out the proposed regeneration plan for Orchard Park, which will form the basis of the Outline Business Case for PFI funding. The plan proposes the demolition of all seven multi-storey blocks. The plan proposes using five of the sites for new housing, with the Ashthorpe land being used for green space and land at Highcourt would be determined in the future Area Action Plan. The outcome of the funding bid is expected in January 2011.
Extra Care Scheme
5.2 The Department of Health have approved two Expressions of Interest for Private Finance Initiative credits to provide Extra Care Housing in Hull. The Council is combining these as one project which will provide around 220 extra care homes suitable for adults needing support to live independently. They will cater for a range of needs including older people, adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and for people with dementia. There will be a range of communal facilities and they will act as service delivery hubs for both residents and people in the wider community. They will be Centres of Excellence for people with dementia. There will be three developments in different parts of the city located at the Thorpes (Orchard Park), Hawthorn Avenue (Newington St Andrew’s) and the former Holden Centre site (Leads Road). The Outline Business Case was approved by Cabinet in July, 2010 and will be submitted to the Department of Health in August, 2010. Procurement will start in early 2011 and it is anticipated that it will take approximately two years to select the contractor. The first homes are expected to be completed by the summer of 2014. Details regarding the Extra Care scheme can be found in the report to Cabinet “Extra Care Housing – Outline Business Case for Private Finance Initiative Credits” (July, 2010).
5.3 In relation to the Thorpes scheme the site identified was land formerly occupied by the Homethorpe Multi Story Flats. The site context and neighbouring form would influence the scale of development on this site, details of which will be considered by the Planning Authority.
5.4 This scheme could contribute to the decanting strategy for the existing residents in the Sheltered Multi Storey Flats (Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe), subject to residents’ choosing to await the completion of the new extra care scheme (estimated summer 2014) and meeting the criteria for extra care housing (ie assessed as being in need of care and support to live independently). Members should note that the new extra care provision will not therefore be an option for those remaining residents who do
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 9 of 40 not have support needs. Also, there will be people who meet the extra care criteria currently resident in other accommodation in Orchard Park and in other parts of North Hull whose needs should not be ignored. Further discussion of individual residents’ housing needs within these blocks will take place following Cabinet approval of the allocations policy which sets out the extra care allocations criteria, and will help build a picture of how many Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe residents the extra care development are likely to be eligible for.
5.5 Following demolition, the vacant land at Laxthorpe and Kinthorpe falls within the area for the Orchard Park Housing PFI.
5.6 The PFI Project Board agreed that the rehousing of the residents should allow those residents who meet the extra care criteria to move from the sheltered blocks into the extra care scheme and for other residents to be rehoused over a period of time to meet their needs and to maximise the options available to them. The Board did acknowledge the issues this would present as the blocks became empty and recognised that the blocks would need careful management with appropriate support to residents. The demolition programme of the vertical sheltered blocks would allow for rehousing directly into the new extra care facility for the residents who are eligible. The Board also agreed that the feasibility of using one block to consolidate all remaining tenancies at the appropriate time may need to be considered at a later date, subject to further consultation with tenants.
5.7 In terms of demolishing the blocks after the extra care scheme is completed, the selected PFI contractor will be required to take account of and respond appropriately as the blocks are located very close to the boundary of the extra care site. The PFI contractor will be required to maintain health and safety standards, site security and access, having regard to residents living nearby to minimise inconvenience and disturbance to residents living in close proximity.
5.8 It should be noted that the demolition of Homethorpe would be required prior to the commencement of building works for the extra care scheme in view of its scale, the need to demolish using explosives and also proximity to the site.
5.9 Officers will visit the residents in Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe again once the eligibility criteria for the Extra Care scheme are agreed in order to assess their eligibility for rehousing into the scheme.
6 Cost to Bring up to Decent Homes Standard
6.1 The May 2006 Orchard Park High Rise Feasibility Study costed essential and desirable works to each block. Essential works included items required to bring the blocks up to decency and give the block a 30 year life. Desirable works included costs for aluminium overcladding which would significantly increase the thermal efficiency of the blocks but was not essential to deliver decency.
6.2 Estimated essential works costs for all seven blocks at the time were just under £22m. Desirable work was costed at an additional £14m taking the total cost up to £36m.
6.3 Because the works were not essential to bring the properties up to DHS, the desirable over cladding costs were not allowed for in the previous Fiscal Reviews.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 10 of 40 6.4 The capital costs for refurbishment have been reviewed and updated having regard to the most recent costs quoted for Cambridge Street and reflect a general reduction in prices since the calculation was first undertaken. The costs included in the table below are to bring the blocks up to the same standard as Cambridge Street. This is based on £32,200 per flat which is consistent with the Cambridge Street Flats project. The works includes refuse chutes, water mains, bus bars and curtain walls to balconies.
6.5 Due to developments in available cladding systems since the initial feasibility was undertaken, the costs in column 1 below include for a lighter thermal render system which is significantly cheaper than aluminium overcladding costed as a desirable item in the initial feasibility. Estimated essential works costs for all seven blocks at the time were just under £22m. Desirable work was costed at an additional £14m taking the total cost up to £36m. Progressing refurbishment work without the insulating render would significantly reduce improvements to the overall energy efficiency and SAP rating of the blocks.
Contingency fees & (inc Work Homes Decent of costs estimated Total Contingency) & fees (inc works improvement other of costs estimated Total Contingency) & fees (inc aerials digital of installation of costs estimated Total Contingency) & fees (inc all works of costs estimated Total flat per works all of Cost Average MSF 1 2 )
Milldane £3,928,400 £1,234,480 £34,500 £5,197,380 £42.6k Highcourt £3,542,000 £1,091,000 £31,100 £4,664,100 £42.4k Ashthorpe £3,542,000 £1,040,900 £31,100 £4,614,000 £41.9k Homethorpe £3,348,800 £1,040,900 £29,400 £4,419,100 £42.5k Gorthorpe £1,513,400 £0 £13,300 £1,526,700 £32.5k Kinthorpe £1,513,400 £0 £13,300 £1,526,700 £32.5k Laxthorpe £1,513,400 £0 £13,300 £1,526,700 £32.5k Total £18,901,400 £4,407,280 £166,000 £23,474,680 £40.0k
Digital TV aerials
6.6 The above figures allow for the installation of digital TV aerials if the flats were returned to letting and not demolished. Digital switchover occurs in Hull in 2011 and whilst it is the responsibility of residents to ensure their TV is suitably equipped to receive digital signals following this date, the strength of signal may be affected should a digital aerial be not installed.
Repairs & Maintenance
6.7 The average of the previous four years of repairs and maintenance spend has been used as an average guide to ongoing expenditure if the flats were brought back into use. The historical, average, spend amounts to just under £1,100 per flat per annum. Average annual repairs and maintenance spend on properties across the city is presently less than £850. It is evident that undertaking works to bring
1 Based on £32,200 per flat which is consistent with the Cambridge Street Flats project. 2 Includes refuse chutes, water mains, bus bars and curtain walls to balconies
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 11 of 40 properties up to decent homes standard has little effect on average repairs and maintenance spend.
6.8 The average annual costs per flat by block are:
MSF Average annual cost of repairs Milldane £1,222.61 Highcourt £1,154.02 Ashthorpe £1,305.38 Homethorpe £1,493.71 Gorthorpe £703.78 Kinthorpe £416.08 Laxthorpe £457.93
6.9 Current year’s spend includes £163k of fire resistant painting works which has been discounted from the analysis.
Income
6.10 Rental levels are set through ‘rent restructuring’ and again it is assumed that this policy will not change over the life of the calculation with rent convergence achieved in 2014 and a real terms (i.e. above RPI) growth in rents & service charges of ½% per annum in perpetuity. Void levels are assumed to be consistent with the levels of voids appertaining in the blocks prior to the establishment of the no lettings policy.
6.11 The average rent per week for 2010/2011 is:
MSF Average rent per week Milldane £51.83 Highcourt £51.79 Ashthorpe £51.84 Homethorpe £51.83 Gorthorpe £48.74 Kinthorpe £49.66 Laxthorpe £49.68 Average £51.23
6.12 This is approximately £10 per week below the city wide average.
6.13 Presently the Council provides a caretaking and concierge service in relation to the MSFs. The costs and associated income have been included within the calculations for re-letting the blocks above. It should be noted that the current costs of the concierge service, which covers Milldane & Homethorpe, amount to £27.82 per flat per week. We presently charge £4.85 per week for this service, which means it is currently a heavily subsidised service. The assumed management cost per unit is £643 which includes all area management and a proportion of overhead recharges
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 12 of 40 across the city. It also excludes all MSF specific costs such as caretaking/concierge.
6.14 Current costings in relation to concierge services are presently under review, and whilst it is difficult to assess the impact of this, based on current progress an estimate of an extra £60k cost per annum would seem prudent. This additional amount equates to £5.31 per flat per week. Caretaking covers the other five blocks which amounts to £4.04 per flat per week. Cleaning of communal areas covers Highcourt, Ashthorpe and Gorthorpe which amounts to £2.59 per flat per week. We do not charge for this service and therefore this is currently subsidised.
6.15 Were demolition not to take place then it would be appropriate to consider a strategy for bringing costs more into line with income levels. Because of the position with regard to these blocks the possibility of increases in service charges was explicitly not considered as part of the HRA budget report for 2010/2011 3.
6.16 Given the constraints of ‘rent’ restructuring it would be a significant period of time before we were ever able to practically recover this income – for example for Milldane & Homethorpe this would represent an increase of 57% on combined rent and service charge (which would be £91.12 per week) making those flats one of, if not the, most expensive HRA properties in the city.
7 Cost to Demolish
7.1 The cost of demolition includes the assumed cost of acquisition of leaseholders’ properties. Demolition costs have been based on the current understanding of costs for what is a specialist area of work and are shown below;
MSF Demolition *Additional Police Total costs security costs 4 costs Milldane £641,300 £170,000 £6,000 £817,300 Highcourt £552,850 £170,000 £6,000 £728,850 Ashthorpe £524,700 £170,000 £6,000 £700,700 Homethorpe £524,700 £170,000 £6,000 £700,700 Gorthorpe £258,500 £170,000 £6,000 £434,500 Kinthorpe £258,500 £170,000 £6,000 £434,500 Laxthorpe £258,500 £170,000 £6,000 £434,500 £3,019,050 £1,190,000 £42,000 £4,251,050
* The costs of security have been estimated at £170k per block which would provide a high level of security comprising both physical barriers and patrolling security guards which is considered necessary in view of past experience. The level of security will be monitored on a block by block basis. This covers the period between the blocks being completely empty and handover to the demolition contractor which is required to strip out the blocks in preparation of demolition.
3 para 5.6.1, Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting 2010/2011 and Beyond, Council 25 th Feb 2010 4 Policing costs for the day of demolition only.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 13 of 40 7.2 Since the original options appraisal in 2006 it is estimated that demolition costs have fallen by approximately 23%.
7.3 Assuming demolition was to take place then the indicative timetable assumed in this analysis would be a follows:
MSF Homethorpe Rehousing from this block is expected to commence in November 2010 with demolition completed by June 2012 Milldane Rehousing from this block is expected to commence in May 2011 with demolition completed by December 2012 Gorthorpe Rehousing from this block is expected to commence in October 2011 with demolition completed by December 2012 Ashthorpe Rehousing from this block is expected to commence in January 2012 with demolition completed by August 2013 Kinthorpe Rehousing from these two blocks is expected to Laxthorpe commence in September 2011 with demolition taking place in April 2015 Highcourt Rehousing from this block is expected to commence in January 2013 with demolition completed in August 2014
Home loss and disturbance
7.4 Where a tenant loses their home due to demolition there is an entitlement to statutory home loss and disturbance. The maximum amount payable for home loss is currently £4,700 and the average disturbance payment is approximately £1,000.
7.5 Therefore the approximate payment to each tenant would currently be £5,700.
7.6 It is presently assumed in this analysis that no further tenants leave, and thus all tenants in situ are eligible for this payment. This is likely to be an overestimate.
Leaseholders
7.7 Each flat will be subject to independent valuation with market value being paid to the owner. Leaseholders are all also assumed to qualify for home loss payments of the greater of 10% of the value of their property or £4,700 and disturbance allowances at the same level as above.
Occupancy until demolition
7.8 The assumption is that all existing tenants remain in the blocks until the date clearance commences and that tenants disperse relatively evenly over that clearance period.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 14 of 40
Mobile phone masts
7.9 There are presently a number of mobile phone masts on the MSF blocks. All companies have been served notice as below.
Block Company Notice expires
Gorthorpe Vodaphone April 2011 Hutchison 3G Feb 2011
Milldane T-mobile April 2011
Highcourt Orange Feb 2011
7.10 There are therefore no issues foreseen with the mobile phone masts on the blocks. The costs of removal are the responsibility of the operators.
CCTV
7.11 CCTV cameras associated with Highcourt, including the two cameras located on the roof, which provide extensive coverage of a wide area are effected by this proposal. To maintain the existing CCTV coverage, if required, would cost approximately £234k. However, it would be prudent to reassess the CCTV coverage in relation to OPE in view of the proposed regeneration of the area which will incorporate design features that promote self policed areas. The costs have not been included within the demolition costs as it has been assumed they will be met from capital budgets available to Community Safety, and not therefore assumed to fall on the HRA.
Tunstall Telecom equipment
7.12 There is some existing equipment in the two vertical sheltered blocks. Whilst the equipment in Laxthorpe is very old and would be no further use to us, the equipment in Kinthorpe is new and we could benefit by reusing it elsewhere. A cost for salvage of £1,200 has therefore been included.
Deferral of Right to Buy Provision.
7.13 In order to facilitate the demolition and replacement programme, it is desirable to prevent further sales of Council dwellings in the MSFs on OPE to tenants under the Right to Buy provision. This would prevent tenants from taking up owner/occupation in an area designated for demolition and therefore the cost and difficulty of acquisition and demolition is reduced, thereby facilitating the implementation of the programme. Consequently, another report on this agenda recommends that properties within the MSFs affected by demolition at OPE be served with an Initial Demolition Notice.
8 Financial Comparison of the Two Options
8.1 This section sets out the comparative financial position of the two options of retention or demolition of each of the blocks under the existing financial regime and
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 15 of 40 the proposed changes to the HRA finance system outlined in the Prospectus on the Reform of Council Housing Finance 5 “Council Housing: A Real Future”.
8.2 More information on this is given in section 9.
8.3 It should be noted that each of these analyses demonstrates that all these blocks are a net cost to the HRA under all scenarios – retention costs the HRA / demolition costs the HRA – and thus in all cases these blocks would, in effect, be subsidised by other tenants in the city over the next 30 years.
8.4 The table below takes the position if the proposals are not adopted and thus the extant Housing Subsidy system remains in place:
retention retention (NPV cost Net per flat Cost net Average demolition of (NPV) cost Net per flat Cost net Average difference Net per flat Cost net Average MSF 6 ) of of )
Milldane £9,748k £79.9k £1,459k £12.0k £8,289k £67.9k Highcourt £5,946k £54.1k £1,008k £9.2k £4,938k £44.9k Ashthorpe £6,742k £61.3k £940k £8.5k £5,803k £52.8k Homethorpe £8,437k £81.1k £946k £9.1k £7,491k £72.0k Gorthorpe £1,962k £41.7k £574k £12.2k £1,388k £29.5k Kinthorpe £1,866k £39.7k £416k £8.8k £1,451k £30.9k Laxthorpe £2,098k £44.6k £407k £8.7k £1,691k £36.0k Total £36,800k £62.7k £5,751k £9.8k £31,050k £52.9k
8.5 It should be recognised that these assumptions include an inflationary increase in the management, maintenance & MRA allowances within the Housing Subsidy regime – at this stage we have no indications of the likely or possible change to be reflected in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.
8.6 In the case of demolition, these costs include management costs until the point of demolition.
8.7 This position is appreciably worse than the position if the reform agenda is implemented as it includes the element of negative subsidy we pay per property.
8.8 The table below sets out the net present value of the two options for each block under the assumption that the Reform of Council Housing Finance proposals are adopted: A real discount rate (i.e. after inflation) of 3.5% has been used, consistent with the PFI project as a whole and HM Treasury extant guidance.
retention retention of (DCF) cost Net per flat Cost net Average demolition of (DCF) cost Net per flat Cost net Average difference Net per flat Cost net Average MSF
5 The Reform of Council Housing Finance consultation document was issued by CLG on 25th March 2010 along with associated supporting documentation (all available to download at http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/decenthomes/councilhousingfinance ) 6 Net Present Value
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 16 of 40 retention retention of (DCF) cost Net per flat Cost net Average demolition of (DCF) cost Net per flat Cost net Average difference Net per flat Cost net Average MSF
Milldane £6,919k £56.7k £1,459k £12.0k £5,460k £44.8k Highcourt £3,380k £30.7k £1,008k £9.2k £2,373k £21.6k Ashthorpe £4,105k £37.3k £940k £8.5k £3,165k £28.8k Homethorpe £5,944k £57.2k £946k £9.1k £4,997k £48.1k Gorthorpe £835k £17.8k £574k £12.2k £261k £5.5k Kinthorpe £787k £16.8k £416k £8.8k £372k £7.9k Laxthorpe £995k £21.2k £407k £8.7k £588k £12.5k Total £22,966k £39.1k £5,751k £9.8k £17,215k £29.3k
8.9 These figures must also be taken in context with the proposals outlined in section 9 below, especially the possible constraints on our ability to access prudential borrowing referred to in para 9.3.2.
8.10 They do not include additional debt which would be paid off (9.3.1) of potentially £4.6m if we were to demolish. Therefore the true position is closer to a c. £22m benefit from demolition. This is a little speculative at this stage as we do not know if the Reform agenda will be implemented or, if it is, whether the figures will change. This therefore represents the best case scenario.
Conclusion
8.11 As can be seen from the table the conclusions from a financial perspective are clear and the MSFs are not financially viable. The cost of retention compared to demolition is over £31m at today’s prices with the current HRA Subsidy system in place. This can not be accommodated in the HRA budget without the equivalent of over £1.5 m of annual savings being achieved . With a reformed HRA finance system this at best falls to a £22m cost once debt repayment (£4.6m para.8.10 refers) is factored in which would require annualised savings of around £1.1m, and assumes that the system will allow us the flexibility to borrow. There are no blocks where the cost of retention is preferable to the cost of demolition. Retaining Highcourt and Ashthorpe would have a net negative impact on the HRA of £11m for the two blocks alone.
8.12 The HRA budget assumes that all seven MSF blocks are demolished. Should this not be the case savings of an equivalent nature to the net differences above would need to be found from elsewhere within the HRA. Given the need to protect repairs expenditure in order to ensure properties generally have a long term sustainable future, these savings would need to be found principally from staffing costs. This assumes that we would have the flexibility to borrow to complete the works required (see also section 9).
8.13 As referred to at para. 3.3 delivery of the preferred option to regenerate Orchard Park Estate does not require the land occupied by Ashthorpe and Highcourt, if retained they would need to be brought up to decent homes standard the costs of which are identified in tables 6.5 and 8.4. Whilst such retention would assist with the re-housing of tenants from those blocks to be demolished and for potentially relocating the leaseholders, it is considered that retaining Ashthorpe would have a
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 17 of 40 potential detrimental effect on the marketing of the new properties that form part of the new regeneration proposals.
8.14 The table at 8.4 shows the impact of each of the blocks separately. As can be seen from that table each of the blocks individually is a significant cost to the HRA if retained.
8.15 The table below summarises this and the annual savings in running costs that would need to be made to accommodate each block being retained:
MSF Net cost Approx annual As a %age of (NPV) of HRA savings total HRA retention management costs Milldane £8,289k £690.7k 4.02% Highcourt £4,938k £411.5k 2.40% Ashthorpe £5,803k £483.6k 2.82% Homethorpe £7,491k £624.2k 3.64% Gorthorpe £1,388k £115.6k 0.67% Kinthorpe £1,451k £120.9k 0.70% Laxthorpe £1,691k £140.9k 0.82% Total £31,050k £2,587.5k 15.08%
8.16 These are also shown in comparison to the total management costs of the HRA across the city in 2010/2011.
9 Future Council Housing Funding
9.1 On 25 th March 2010 the then Housing Minister John Healey commenced the start of consultation on the Reform of Council Housing Finance 7 entitled “Council Housing: A Real Future”. Consultation on this Propspectus closed in 6th July 2010 and we responded to that consultation broadly supporting the objectives but raising concerns around some of the specific details.
9.2 The present (2010/2011) cost of Housing Subsidy for these properties is £219k per annum and this would normally be expected to rise over the coming years even before the Comprehensive Spending Review. The proposals reflect a reduction in our debt as they currently stand – this conclusion is heavily caveated in that these are proposals, and the assumptions are subject to confirmation in the next spending review.
9.3 In relation to the Orchard Park MSFs early indications are that:
9.3.1 Our opening debt would be around £4.6m lower if the MSFs were identified for demolition and so not counted, based on a pro-rata of property numbers (i.e. we would in effect receive £7,800 per ‘average’ property in cash from central government as a consequence of taking
7 The Reform of Council Housing Finance consultation document was issued by CLG on 25th March 2010 along with associated supporting documentation (all available to download at http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/decenthomes/councilhousingfinance )
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 18 of 40 the decision to demolish – the MSFs would not be average so we would need to undertake further work to establish the precise impact of that change).
9.3.2 Overall debt levels would be constrained at the self financing debt levels – we would be subject to “individual arrangements” as our debt would exceed this level, due to historical prudential borrowing to achieve decent homes standards. At present it is unclear how these “individual arrangements” would work but the strong implication is that our borrowing would be capped.
9.3.3 Discussions with CLG have suggested that the level of capping would be at the level of borrowing in place at the time and that we would not be permitted to borrow more without first having repaid existing debt. Were this to be the case, and all evidence suggests that they are unlikely to change this aspect of the proposals, then maintaining our other properties at a constant level would prove extremely challenging. It would not be possible to undertake works to these properties in these circumstances.
9.4 It is therefore concluded, at this early stage, that we would probably need to minimize the extent of our borrowing and that we would need to agree any prudential borrowing within an envelope negotiated with central government. It would therefore be inadvisable to borrow substantial sums prudentially (as we would be required to do if we were to undertake any work on these blocks) without at the very least significantly reducing capital spend elsewhere.
9.5 The majority of our capital spend is either decent homes works elsewhere in the city or aids and adaptations, therefore we would have to look at programmes which did not contribute to decency directly, or could be delayed, to make these savings.
9.6 All the analyses provided above have been prepared before the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review which will take place in the Autumn.
9.7 Members will be aware from the last Fiscal Review and the HRA budget report for 2010/2011 that the HRA as a whole is not in an especially healthy position over the long term, with significant savings already required assuming the MSFs are demolished.
9.8 Members will also be aware that there has been a level of savings required to be made in the General Fund as a consequence of the Emergency Budget and that there is an expectation that required savings will be significant.
9.9 It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this imperative to achieve savings will also be brought to bear on the HRA initially through the forthcoming Housing Subsidy settlement and then, if implemented, through the Reform of Council Housing Finance as described above.
9.10 Within that context it is important to recognize the knock on implications to the rest of the housing stock if any of the MSFs were to be retained and brought up to Decent Homes Standard.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 19 of 40 10 Options
10.1 This report contains three options – demolition of all seven multi-storey flats, retention of Ashthorpe and Highcourt only or retention of all seven multi-storey flats.
10.2 If we were to retain the MSFs then we have no realistic alternative than to bring them upto Decent Homes Standard. This would require savings to be identified in the running costs of the HRA to find the resources to fund the necessary borrowing. Implementation of the proposals contained in the consultation on the Reform of Council Housing Finance 8 entitled “Council Housing: A Real Future” would tend to suggest that the Government intends to restrict the ability to borrow and therefore it is possible that if we took the decision to retain we would not have access to the ability to borrow in any event. This option is not recommended .
10.3 Even the retention of Ashthorpe and Highcourt would have substantial cost implications to the Council and as referred to at para 8.11 the retention of Ashthorpe and to some extent Highcourt could potentially have a detrimental effect on the marketing of new properties which will be integral to the PFI regeneration proposals for Orchard Park as a whole. This option is not recommended.
10.4 The recommended option is to demolish all seven multi-storey blocks at Orchard Park in view of the costs of retention compared to demolition as referred to in Section 8. This option is recommended.
11 Implications of Implementing the Recommended Option
Allocations Policy
11.1 A report on Allocations and Nominations Policy Proposals for Regeneration and New Build Housing Schemes is also considered on this agenda. The report proposes that, as in the case of existing Gateway schemes, quotas be established for re-housing residents from the multi-storey blocks in terms of the number, location and property types identified by residents and based on eligibility and need. The report recognises that where residents wish to remain in the northern area and are only eligible for a flat, due to the limited number of flats in the area, it is likely it will be necessary in some instances to allocate two bed roomed houses to relocating residents. The proposed demolition timetable as shown at para. 7.4 takes account of the likely pace at which re-housing needs can be met.
Support for Residents
11.2 A small regeneration team has been established in the area to support residents who will need to relocate from the flats and later those who are relocating as part of the Orchard Park PFI scheme, if this is to go ahead. Each household will be provided with a Housing Liaison Officer to provide advice and support through the rehousing process. The team will work to ensure that contact is made with these households who did not respond to the initial offer of a one to one interview.
8 The Reform of Council Housing Finance consultation document was issued by CLG on 25th March 2010 along with associated supporting documentation (all available to download at http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/decenthomes/councilhousingfinance )
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 20 of 40 11.3 The potential impact of removing 580 flats from letting in the city is acknowledged and it is further recognised that in the current economic climate and with likely future policy developments, there may be increased demand for social housing in the coming months.
11.4 In terms of the current no lettings policy for the blocks, at the point this was agreed there were 94 (16.3%) flats already vacant in the blocks and the flats attracted the least number of bids when advertised. The programme for demolition of the blocks, should this be the agreed option allows for the gradual decant of remaining existing tenants over a four year period. The no lettings policy has not resulted in a significant increase in numbers of households registered for council housing and of the 13,987 households registered as of June, 2010, 10,776 are on the registered list, 3,211 are requesting a transfer (ie they are currently housed in council stock). In terms of bidding, as of July, 2010, 54% of those registered were actively making bids. The time taken to rehouse homeless households from approach has reduced from 172 days in 2008/09 to 108 days in 2009/10 with in year performance for 2010/11 at 82 days. It is recognised that both in terms of options for relocating current tenants and for future housing options generally in the city, we need to maximise the use of our own stock but also work more effectively cross tenure. Discussions have commenced with the housing association sector in terms of establishing additional formal nomination arrangements and we continue to work with private landlords to ensure that good quality private rented stock can be a viable option, to enable the capacity in this tenure to be utilised.
Leaseholders
11.5 In advance of demolition it would be necessary to acquire the seven privately held flats in the area that had previously been sold under Right to Buy. In order to facilitate the demolition programme we wish to minimise the risk of the need to exercise Compulsory Purchase Orders, which is a time consuming and expensive process. It is proposed that the Strategic Director Housing Investment and Renewal is empowered to acquire these properties at an appropriate time to ensure that demolition can be expedited.
11.6 The leaseholders consist of:
3 resident leaseholders 2 private landlords 2 Housing Association properties (Doorstep)
11.7 The report referred to in para 11.1 above sets out the proposed re-housing options for leaseholders, which include the options that resident leaseholders will have the option of acquiring the lease of an alternative high rise flat replicating their existing lease or that they become council tenants, in addition to the option of simply selling their property back to the Council.
Staffing Implications
11.8 Were demolition to take place this would affect those employed as concierge, caretakers and potentially certain positions within housing management. Employees who become displaced as a result of the demolition will have access to the Council's Retraining and Redeployment procedures. Consultation with the trade unions will be ongoing via Heads of Service Consultative Working Groups.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 21 of 40
Financial Implications
11.9 The overall costs of the recommended option are as set out below:
Summary 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / Total 2011 £k 2012 £k 2013 £k 2014 £k 2015 £k Rental income (£936k) (£746k) (£424k) (£252k) £0k (£2,358k) Repairs & maintenance £447k £348k £184k £101k £0k £1,080k Security costs £0k £170k £340k £340k £340k £1,190k Area management £442k £308k £156k £74k £0k £980k Revenue (£47k) £80k £256k £263k £340k £892k
Rehousing compensation and Leaseholder acquisition cost £0k £665k £382k £752k £114k £1,913k Demolition costs £0k £265k £1,178k £796k £823k £3,062k Capital £0k £930k £1,560k £1,548k £937k £4,975k
11.10 These costs are shown at current prices and will be included in the HRA budget for future years.
12 Council Priorities
12.1 The preferred option will deliver the Housing Strategy objectives of building a balanced housing market and a stronger community.
13 Consultation
13.1 The Council has a duty under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 and Section 137 of the Housing Act 1996 to carry out formal consultation with tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by such a decision.
13.2 To that end a number of one to one consultation sessions have been held with affected tenants and are summarised in this report.
14 Comments of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services
14.1 The Council has the power under sections 9 and 21 of the Housing Act 1985 to demolish housing stock. By carrying out the consultation exercise it would appear that the requirements of section 105 Housing Act 1985 which oblige the Council to consult with those of its tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a decision to demolish any of its properties, have been complied with.
14.2 The Council is required to ensure that appropriate alternative accommodation is available to those people who are displaced as a result of the proposed demolitions and the Council has a Regeneration Allocation policy for the purpose of satisfying this obligation.
14.3 Should it be unable to acquire all of the leasehold interests in the MSF blocks by agreement, the Council may exercise powers of compulsory purchase, provided it has the statutory grounds to do so under either S. 226 (1) Town and Country
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 22 of 40 Planning Act 1990 or S. 17 Housing Act 1985. The most appropriate power must be used in each case and this will depend upon the redevelopment proposals for the sites. This must also be supported by regional and local planning policy and take account of the human rights of the occupiers.
15 Comments of the Head of Finance/ acting s151 officer
15.1 The Head of Finance has been actively involved in the writing of this report.
15.2 The demolition of the Multi-story blocks is essential in order to deliver the Orchard Park PFI project and, as can be clearly seen in section 8 the financial benefits of demolition far outweigh the costs of retention and this is true for all blocks individually and in total. Whilst Ashthorpe is not part of the PFI build area – and thus in theory the PFI programme could be delivered with it in situ - its continued presence would severely impact upon the attractiveness of the private sector offer in Orchard Park and undermine the whole programme as a consequence.
15.3 The budget (& the preceding Fiscal Review) is predicated upon the assumption that these blocks are demolished – indeed it was a key assumption in delivering a balanced budget for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. Should the decision be made to retain any of the MSFs then this would require significant additional savings to be made in the HRA to ensure the HRA was able to balance over the medium term.
15.4 As can be seen from the table below (also at 8.15) the costs of retention are highly significant.
MSF Net cost Approx As a %age (NPV) of annual of total HRA retention HRA management savings costs Milldane £8,289k £690.7k 4.02% Highcourt £4,938k £411.5k 2.40% Ashthorpe £5,803k £483.6k 2.82% Homethorpe £7,491k £624.2k 3.64% Gorthorpe £1,388k £115.6k 0.67% Kinthorpe £1,451k £120.9k 0.70% Laxthorpe £1,691k £140.9k 0.82% Total £31,050k £2,587.5k 15.08%
15.5 The early consultation on the Reform of Council Housing Finance suggests that our total level of borrowings will be capped - we would be subject to “individual arrangements” with central government as our debt would exceed the level in the consultation proposals due to historical prudential borrowing to achieve decent homes standards. In these circumstances spending on these blocks would be likely to directly restrict our ability to fund other parts of the capital programme.
15.6 Moreover, it is somewhat unlikely that housing will not be subject to the same level of efficiency/savings requirements as is required of the General Fund which will add to the pressures on the HRA, which already required significant savings to be made over the medium term before any such reductions. In that context any expenditure on the MSFs, assuming we were permitted to borrow, would have
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 23 of 40 implications for our ability to maintain and retain the remainder of the housing stock.
15.6 The financial benefits have been calculated both on the assumption that there is no change to the current systems and on the basis that the consultation proposals are implemented in full. Whilst these produce a significantly different scale of results, in both cases it is clear that the only viable option from a financial perspective is demolition of all blocks.
15.7 The Head of Finance therefore can only support demolition of all seven MSF blocks.
16 Comments of the Head of Workforce Strategy
16.1 Were demolition to take place this would affect those employed as concierge, caretakers and potentially certain positions within housing management. Employees who become displaced as a result of the demolition will have access to the Council's Retraining and Redeployment procedures. Consultation with the trade unions will be ongoing via Heads of Service Consultative Working Groups.
17 Comments of the Portfolio Holder for Housing Strategy
17.1 TBA
18 Comments of the Housing, Neighbourhood Renewal and Urban Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Commission
18.1 TBA
19 Comments of the Northern Area Committee
19.1 TBA
20 Comments of the Northern Area Housing Board
20.1 TBA
21 Conclusions
21.1 Demolition of the MSF is essential to the success of the Council’s PFI Bid to transform Orchard Park. Replacement of these MSFs with new housing and green space is critical to the achievement of the strategic priorities for North Hull.
21.2 If we are to exclude these properties from our decency targets the decision to demolish them must have been taken by 31 st December 2010 at the very latest.
21.3 The potential impact of the loss of stock in terms of overall supply in the city is acknowledged, however mechanisms are in place to enable the gradual relocation of the remaining tenants over a four year period. In terms of overall supply and demand in the city, we will continue to work to develop cross tenure arrangements to maximise the capacity in all housing stock in the city to ensure that housing needs in the city can be met. This needs to be the approach that is vigorously pursued as the option to retain the blocks is not financially viable.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 24 of 40 22 Recommendations
22.1 Cabinet approve the proposal to demolish the seven MSF blocks located at Ashthorpe, Gorthorpe, Highcourt, Homethorpe, Kinthorpe, Laxthorpe and Milldane by 2015.
22.2 That the Strategic Director Housing Investment and Renewal is authorised to acquire leasehold properties at their discretion in advance of demolition.
22.3 That the no lettings policy in respect of the multi-storey flats at Orchard Park Estate, as agreed at minute 23, continue in order to facilitate the clearing of the flats in preparation of demolition.
22.4 That Cabinet supports the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire all property, holdings and rights to demolish the seven blocks of flats at Orchard Park Estate (OPE) being Highcourt, Milldane, Ashthorpe, Gorthorpe, Homethorpe, Kinthorpe and Laxthorpe as identified at 4.1; in doing so negotiations commence or continue with all those having interests in the properties affected by CPO’s namely 185, 325, 333 and 407 Milldane and 20, 35 and 82 Highcourt in order to secure acquisition by agreement.
22.5 That the timing and making of all CPO’s approved under 2.4 be delegated to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (and Monitoring Officer), Head of Corporate Finance and the Strategic Director Housing Investment and Renewal in consultation with Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Housing Strategy and Ward Councillors for Orchard Park and Greenwood wards.
22.6 That the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (and Monitoring Officer) be authorised to withdraw properties or land from any CPO where agreement has been reached to acquire all interests.
22.7 That the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (and Monitoring Officer) be authorised to confirm any CPO where directed by the Secretary of State.
Contact Officers: Graeme Smith Ian Bullock Telephone No. 3081 2603
Officer Interests: None
Background Documents
Report title Submitted to Date
The Transformation of Orchard Park and North Hull Cabinet 23 rd Feb 2009
The Transformation of Orchard Park and North Hull Northern Area 26 th Mar 2009 – Update Housing Board
The allocation of Council owned sites for Extra Care Northern Area 7th Dec 2009 and Dementia Care Housing Services Committee
Extra Care Housing – Expression of Interest for Cabinet 21 st Dec 2009
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 25 of 40 Private Finance Initiative Credits
Appendices
1. Risk Matrix 2. Glossary of terms & abbreviations 3. Resident housing requirements (block by block) 4. CPO Plans (to follow)
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 26 of 40
APPENDIX 1
The Transformation of Orchard Park and North Hull: Demolition of MSFs Risk Matrix
Current Risk Residual Risk Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Impact Impact Impact
Risk Treatment/Control Action
Option 1 – MS F blocks are retained or decision is deferred. If the Multi Story Flats in Orchard 4 4 Savings will have to be considered 4 4 Park are not demolished it will elsewhere in the HRA. require savings to be found in the HRA to compensate for the additional spend above budget
That the proposals for the Reform 4 4 This is outside our immediate 4 4 of Council Housing Finance control. significantly constrain our ability to borrow prudentially The only mitigation factors we could employ would be to reduce the need - we would be in a position for prudential borrowing in other according to the areas of the HRA not connected with consultation where we decency (e.g. roofing & heating would be required to have programmes) "individual arrangements" with CLG because of our historical level of prudential borrowing
That the decision to demolish the 4 2 Cabinet makes decision prior to Dec 1 1 MSFs is not taken prior to 31st Dec 2010 2010 leading to the flats being counted against Decency / SAP / LAA2 targets. This will add approx 2.2% to the non-decency figures.
Option 2 – That Ashthorpe and Highcourt are retained.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 27 of 40 Current Risk Residual Risk Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Impact Impact Impact
Risk Treatment/Control Action
Same as issues as identified at Option 1.
Option 3 - Demol ish all Blocks
That it is not possible to decant 3 2 We will continue our discussions 3 1 remaining tenants into properties of with locally affected tenants and their choice and location. residents on their options and will work with RSLs and private landlords to develop options to assist with re-housing. That concern is expressed by 4 4 The demolition programme makes 2 2 residents and prospective extra provision to demolish the closest care PFI contractors that not all the large block, being Homethorpe, prior blocks of flats in the near vicinity to commencement of the new build. have been demolished prior to As the smaller blocks at Kinthorpe commencement of the new build. and Laxthorpe would be demolished following completion of the new build, it would be necessary to ensure suitable Health and Safety standards, site security and access are provided by the appointed contractor.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 28 of 40
APPENDIX 2
The Transformation of Orchard Park and North Hull: Demolition of MSFs Glossary of terms & abbreviations
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
CLG The Department of Communities & Local Government
DHS Decent Homes Standard. The Government’s standard for Council Housing. In order to be decent a home should be warm, weatherproof and have reasonably modern facilities . The latest guidance can be found at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/decenthome
H&CA / The Homes and Communities Agency - the national housing and HCA regeneration delivery agency for England whose role is to create thriving communities and affordable homes.
HRA Section 74 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires a local housing authority to maintain a Housing Revenue Account in accordance with proper practices. This is a ringfenced part of the general fund that operates, in effect, as a landlord account.
LAA Local Area Agreement
MSF Multi Story Flats
OBC Outline Business Case
PFI The Private Finance Initiative
RSL Registered Social Landlord - independent housing organisations registered with the Homes & Communities Agency under the Housing Act 1996. They may be Industrial and Provident Societies, registered charities or companies.
SAP SAP is the Government's Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. A SAP rating of 70 is our target, a rating of 35 or below is a proxy for a category 1 health hazard.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 29 of 40
Appendix 3 Block by Block Housing Requirements
Homethorpe • Initial Letters, reminder letters, telephone calls and cards delivered requesting contacting for remaining residents to be seen • 68.5% visits have now been undertaken (50 out of 73) • 64% of those visited are in support of demolition, 24% against demolition and 12% unsure • 98% require rehousing with HCC however, 16% would consider private housing, 34% would consider RSL • 64% want Northern/Wyke area as first preference, with 18% requesting Riverside and 18% want to move to other areas across the city • 62% want to remain in North area and 38% want to move away • 30% want house, 12% bungalow, 14% high rise flat and 44% low rise flat • 16% would/maybe interested in sheltered accommodation and 14% are interested/maybe interested in extra care scheme • Key themes of why residents agree with demolition proposals – Poor maintenance/state of repair (damp/mould), drugs, anti-social behaviour • Key themes of why residents are against demolition proposals – flats not the problem it’s the people, everything (amenities) are close by, feel safe
Milldane • Initial Letters, reminder letters, telephone calls and cards delivered requesting contacting for remaining residents to be seen • 79.7% visits have now been undertaken (47 out of 59) • 79% of those visited are in support of demolition, 14% against demolition and 7% unsure • 100% require rehousing with HCC, 13% would consider private housing, 34% would consider RSL • 64% want Northern/Wyke area as first preference, with 25% requesting Riverside and 11% requesting other areas across the city • 60% want to remain in North area and 40% want to move away • 21% want house, 6% bungalow, 17% high rise flat and 56% low rise flat • 15% maybe interested in sheltered accommodation and 19% are interested/maybe interested in extra care scheme • Key themes of why residents agree with demolition proposals – Poor maintenance/state of repair (damp/mould), drugs, anti-social behaviour • Key themes of why residents are against demolition proposals – longstanding residents
Gorthorpe • Initial Letters, reminder letters, telephone calls and cards delivered requesting contacting for remaining residents to be seen • 87% visits have now been undertaken (27 out of 31) • 67% of those visited are in support of demolition, 7% against demolition and 26% unsure • 100% require rehousing with HCC, 11% would consider private housing, 26% would consider RSL • 67% want Northern/Wyke area as first preference, with 18.5% requesting West, 14.5% requesting other areas of the City
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 30 of 40 • 67% want to remain in North area and 33% want to move away • 13% want house, 26% bungalow, 11% high rise flat and 50% low rise flat • 22% interested in sheltered accommodation and 30% are interested/maybe interested in extra care scheme • Key themes of why residents agree with demolition proposals – Poor maintenance/state of repair (damp/mould), expensive to heat, anti-social behaviour • Key themes of why residents are against demolition proposals – no comments received
Ashthorpe • Initial Letters, reminder letters and telephone requesting contacting for remaining residents to be seen • 71% visits have now been undertaken (50 out of 70) • 68% of those visited are in support of demolition, 22% against demolition and 10% unsure • 100% require rehousing with HCC, 22% consider private housing, 28% consider RSL • 60% want Northern/Wyke area as first preference, with 16% requesting Riverside, 24% requesting other areas of the City • 58% want to remain in North area and 42% want to move away • 20% want house, 20% bungalow, 22% high rise flat and 38% low rise flat • 4% interested in sheltered accommodation and 2% are interested/maybe interested in extra care scheme • Key themes of why residents agree with demolition proposals – Poor maintenance/state of repair (damp/mould), drugs, anti-social behaviour, expensive to heat • Key themes of why residents are against demolition proposals – like the view, feel safe
Highcourt • Initial Letters, reminder letters and telephone requesting contacting for remaining residents to be seen • 65% visits have now been undertaken (56 out of 86) • 70% who were visited are in support of demolition, 21% against demolition and 9% unsure • 100% require rehousing with HCC, 9% consider private housing, 36% consider RSL • 70% want Northern/Wyke area as first preference, with 14% requesting Riverside, 16% requesting other areas of the City • 70% want to remain in North area and 30% want to move away • 34% want house, 23% bungalow, 11% high rise flat and 32% low rise flat • 4% interested in sheltered accommodation and 7% interested/maybe interested in extra care scheme • Key themes of why residents agree with demolition proposals – Poor maintenance/state of repair (damp/mould), drugs, anti-social behaviour • Key themes of why residents are against demolition proposals – feel safe
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 31 of 40
Orchard Park Regeneration Team One to one – Multi-storey flats (Questionnaire)
NOTE: All information received will be in the strictest confidence, and used only for the purposes of ascertaining your future needs and allowing us to ascertain needs of the area subject to regeneration proposals.
Interviewer/HLO: Date: Time: Name: Address:
Postcode: Tel: Mobile: Email:
Are you in support of the proposals to demolish the multi-storey blocks on Orchard Park?
Yes No
Comments . ..
Are you interested in becoming involved in developing the plans for Orchard Park? If so, your name will be passed onto the Council who may contact you to discuss this further.
Yes No
Occupancy Details:
1) How many people live in the flat in total?
2) Name of all permanent Occupants D.O.B
Names of children for access D.O.B
3) Is anyone in your household pregnant? Yes No
If yes, what is the expected due date? / ../20
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 32 of 40 4) If there are children in the flat which school /college do they attend?
5) Current number of bedrooms?
6) Is your current property adapted? Yes No
If yes, what adaptations do you have?
Approx date fitted and by who?
Do you feel you may require further adaptations in your new home, if so what?
Future Housing Intentions/Requirements
7) Do you require rehousing by the Council? Yes No
Comments .
8) Would you consider rehousing with a private landlord?
Yes No Maybe
9) Would you consider rehousing with a Housing Association?
Yes No Maybe
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 33 of 40
10) Where would you like to be rehoused (top three areas – number in order of preference)
NORTHERN AREA & WYKE (includes North Hull, Bricknell Ave/Dent Rd, The Quadrant, The Courts, The Specifically Shaws, Danes & Thorpes)
NORTH CARR (BRANSHOLME) AREA (includes Stroud Crescent, Garths, Dorchester Road, Specifically Bransholme Roebank, Bransholme North, Kingswood, Kestral Ave) WEST AREA (includes Bethune Ave, Boothferry, Pickering Rd, Derringham Bank, Arcon Drive, Calvert Specifically Rd, Coronation Rd, Wymersley Rd, Walton St, Spring Bank West)
RIVERSIDE (includes Beverley Rd, Walker St, Chanterlands Ave, New George St, Porter St, Spring Bank, Bridlington/Brunswick/Waterloo, Hessle Rd, Specifically Newland Ave, Sculcoates)
BILTON GRANGE (EAST) (inclues Bilton Grange, Ings Rd, Spring Cottage & Longhill) Specifically
EAST AREA (includes Preston Rd, Dales/Southcoates, Newtown Court, Old Bilton Specifically Grange, Holderness Rd, Barnsley St, Hathersage Rd, Wentworth/Ripon Way, Victor St & Greatfield)
11) If you would like to remain in Orchard Park or move away, what are the reasons i.e. family, friends, support, work etc?
Comments Remain Yes No
Move away Yes No Comments
12) Type of property required? House Bungalow High rise flat
Bed-sit Low rise flat
13) How many bedrooms do you require? (Must be eligible)
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 34 of 40
14) Sheltered (residents over 55) – is the resident interested in moving into sheltered accommodation?
Yes No Maybe N/A
If yes/maybe, what schemes would they be interested in ..
.
.
Does anyone in your household have any longstanding illness, disability or 15) infirmity? If yes which best describes: Problem with mobility Hearing impairment Visual impairment Depression Other mental health problems
16) What longstanding illness, disability or infirmity do they suffer from?
Name Description
17) Yes No Do you or any member of your family living with you receive support from an external agency? With personal/medical problems? With emotional/mental health problems? With addiction issues? With behavioural issues? Home help service?
Contact Details:
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 35 of 40
Information on Extra Care Scheme (caters for a range of needs including older people, those with dementia and other mental health problems, people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities)
The new extra care scheme will be an option for some people who need to be rehoused, however, it may not be the best or only option for everyone who needs rehousing. Those who need a low level of care may prefer one of the new lifetime homes being provided.
14) There are no guarantees that residents affected by proposed demolition of the flats can move into the extra care scheme once it is completed. However, if the opportunity arose (subject to meeting the qualifying criteria set out for the scheme) would the resident be interested in moving onto the scheme?
Yes No Maybe Lifetime home
Signature Date
Name
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 36 of 40 Orchard Park Regeneration Team One to one – Sheltered MSF (Questionnaire)
NOTE: All information received will be in the strictest confidence, and used only for the purposes of ascertaining your future needs and allowing us to ascertain needs of the area subject to regeneration proposals.
Interviewer: Date: Time: Name: Address:
Postcode: Tel: Mobile: Email:
Are you in support of the proposals to demolish the multi-storey blocks on Orchard Park?
Yes No
Comments .. ..
Are you interested in becoming involved in developing the plans for Orchard Park? If so, your name will be passed onto the Council who may contact you to discuss this further.
Yes No
Occupancy Details:
1) How many people live in your flat in total?
2) Name of all permanent Occupants D.O.B
3) Current number of bedrooms?
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 37 of 40
4) Is your current property adapted? Yes No
If yes, what adaptations do you have?
Approx date fitted and by who?
Do you feel you may require further adaptations in your new home, if so what?
5) Details of next of Kin – Name ..
Address Tel No. ..
Future Housing Intentions/Requirements
6) Do you require rehousing by the Council? Yes No
Comments .
7) Would you consider rehousing with a Housing Association?
Yes No Maybe
8) If you would like to remain in sheltered accommodation, which of the following schemes would you be interested in:-
West Area Central North Spring Bank West Beecroft Court Ashton Close Cherry Hinton Court Glasgow Street Commonwealth Homes Ernest Kirkwood Close Thornton Court Whitelees Court Thornwick Close Nicholson Street Walton Street East Area Bransholme Area Bessinby Grove Spring Cottage Hucknall Garth Burdale Close Muswell Court Enfield Court Charles Brady Court Lanyon Close
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 38 of 40 9) If you would consider general needs bungalows / flats where would you like to be rehoused (top three areas - number in order of preference).
NORTHERN AREA & WYKE (includes North Hull, Bricknell Ave/Dent Rd, The Quadrant, The Courts, The Specifically Shaws, Danes or Thorpes)
EAST AREA (includes Preston Rd, Dales/Southcoates, Newtown Court, Old Bilton Specifically Grange, Holderness Rd, Barnsley St, Hathersage Rd, Wentworth/Ripon Way, Victor St & Greatfield)
BILTON GRANGE (EAST) (inclues Bilton Grange, Ings Rd, Spring Cottage & Specifically Longhill)
NORTH CARR (BRANSHOLME) AREA (includes Stroud Crescent, Garths, Dorchester Road, Specifically Bransholme Roebank, Bransholme North, Kingswood, Kestral Ave)
WEST AREA (includes Bethune Ave, Boothferry, Pickering Rd, Derringham Bank, Arcon Drive, Calvert Specifically Rd, Coronation Rd, Wymersley Rd, Walton St, Spring Bank West)
RIVERSIDE (includes Beverley Rd, Walker St, Specifically Chanterlands Ave, New George St, Porter St, Spring Bank, Bridlington/Brunswick/Waterloo, Hessle Rd, Newland Ave, Sculcoates)
10) If you would like to remain in Orchard Park or move away, what are the reasons i.e. family, friends, support, work etc?
Comments Remain Yes No
Move away Yes No Comments
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 39 of 40
11) Type of property required? Bungalow Low rise flat High rise flat
Bed-sit
12) How many bedrooms do you require? (Must be eligible)
13) Does anyone in your household have any longstanding illness, disability or infirmity? If yes which best describes: Problem with mobility Hearing impairment Visual impairment Depression Other mental health problems
14) What longstanding illness, disability or infirmity do they suffer from?
Name Description
15) Do you or any member of your family living with you receive Yes No support from an external agency? With personal/medical problems? With emotional/mental health problems? With addiction issues? With behavioural issues? Home help service?
Contact Details:
Information on Extra Care Scheme (caters for a range of needs including older people, those with dementia and other mental health problems, people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities) A new extra care scheme is to be constructed at the Thorpes, but it is not expected to be complete until 2014 and it will be 2013 at the earliest before a waiting list is opened. The new extra care scheme could be an option for some people who need to be rehoused, however, it may not be the best or only option for everyone who needs rehousing. Those who need a low level of care may prefer one of the new lifetime homes being provided. 16) There are no guarantees that residents affected by proposed demolition of the flats can move into the extra care scheme once it is completed. However, if the opportunity arose (subject to meeting the qualifying criteria set out for the scheme) would the resident be interested in moving onto the scheme?
Yes No Maybe Lifetime home
Signature Date
Name
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BF683002-BB3C-4ED1-ADFA-6494FEEBA145\att16914.docPage 40 of 40