Agenda item

This report builds on the paper presented to this committee in April 2024 which covered the council’s housing development programme and its role in place-shaping across the borough. Using that item as a background paper, this report will recap the history to and core principles of the programme and note significant updates within the last year.

Labab Lubab, Head of Partnerships, Investment and Assurance provided a presentation on place shaping through affordable housing development and community infrastructure. The Committee noted that effective place-shaping was a foundational pillar of the Council’s approach to inclusive economic growth. Upstream London, the second phase of the council’s Industrial Strategy, articulates this vision; it focuses on the conditions for innovation-led growth and shared prosperity.

Labab Lubab explained that Prosperous places are built on diverse communities and comprehensive social infrastructure. And it was for this reason that the provision of a range of affordable housing options and modern community facilities was crucial to successful place-shaping and the continued growth of the local economy in line with the principles of Upstream London.

It was noted that affordable housing and community infrastructure was currently in its construction phase. It was hoped that when a further update was provided in a year’s time, this would include details on a number of completed schemes.

The presentation covered the following points:

• The Building Homes and Community Strategy was the genesis of the Development Programme.
• The Development Programme aimed to deliver:

1.     1,800 new homes within the next 5 years.

2.     Modern fit for purpose infra-structure

3.     A commitment to co-design and co-production.

• The 7 elements of good place shaping:

1.     Affordable homes.

2.     Engaged Communities

3.     Social Infra structure - Community.

4.     Social Infrastructure – Education

5.     Economic Inclusion.

6.     Public Realm, open space and connectivity

7.     Sustainable Liveable Places

• The Development Programme had delivered the following so far: 78 homes, 315 homes on site under construction and 344 homes approved by the Planning Committee.
• Improved public realm, open space and connectivity arising from the Development Programme.

At the conclusion of the presentation, the Chair welcomed Councillor Frances Umeh, Cabinet Member for Housing and Homelessness to the meeting.

Councillor Ashok Patel noted the housing development to date as part of the overall Development Programme and asked if these were all affordable homes. In response, Labab Lubab confirmed they were all affordable.

Councillor Ashok Patel commented if the construction was for affordable homes, he anticipated there would less interaction with the constructor than with market homes. Referring to paragraph 5 of the report: “To this end, the programme has been recently supplemented by a number of opportunities to purchase, rather than build, new affordable homes”, Councillor Ashok Patel asked for further details to be provided.

In response, Labab Lubab confirmed the expectations for interaction were quite similar. With social housing there might be a percentage of people who did not necessarily have the same expectations as private owners acquiring a property, but the expectation to live with dignity, have respect and be treaty fairly were universal. Labab Lubab explained that there were a number of intermediate housing owners, so these people were also high earners, as a household could be earning up to £90,0000 and accessing these products, so their expectations were broadly aligned with market owners.

In relation to the acquisition of affordable homes, Labab Lubab explained that if this was looked at from a mixed economic outlook, then there were opportunities to acquire affordable homes delivered under Section 106 planning agreements where a developer is required to provide the affordable housing. There were also opportunities to acquire affordable homes from some Housing Associations which had chosen to divest from some of their housing stock.

Councillor Ashok Patel noted that housing would be provided to the Passivhaus classic standard and asked how much this increased the cost of an average build. In response, Labab Lubab commented that in terms of construction this could be 10% and for design it could be 20%. Costs would vary according to when the standard was implemented. It was noted that the earlier the standard was implemented, the more money was saved in the longer term, compared to midcycle design alterations and retrofitting.

Councillor Frances Umeh, Cabinet Member for Housing and Homelessness commented that the Passivhaus classic standard meant properties were delivered to the highest possible energy efficiency standard. So, while there might be the upfront costs and investment, the longer-term savings for individuals living in these  properties would mount up as there would be lower energy costs and maintenance overall, so this would counterbalance the investment costs.

Councillor Jackie Borland commented that housing provision was under huge pressure across the country, so anything that could be done to alleviate this was positive. She noted that all of the projects had at least 50% affordable and asked what affordable meant. In response, Labab Lubab explained that affordable related to intermediate and genuinely affordable housing. Genuinely affordable meant social rent, as well as London affordable rent which was the lowest rent that could be charged at the moment. So, in real terms, this equated to c. £200 per week potentially for a 2-bedroom property. In terms of intermediate housing these were governed by guidelines and meant that a household wanting to rent a home, it would qualify if its total income was less than £67,000 and if it was to acquire a property through shared ownership for example, the household income could not exceed £90,000. However, £90,000 was deemed quite high and so the Council could stipulate to Developers, that a proportion of properties had to be made available to households earning £60k, £70k and £80K. The Committee noted that a high proportion of the people on the Home Buy register (c. 9,000) could access a home.

Councillor Adam Peter Lang drew a number of statistics from the report: 52% of families were still working from home post-Covid, and also most people searching for homes were looking for family homes. Given the place shaping that was occurring, he asked if there were any opportunities for office space to be converted into housing in Hammersmith and Fulham or in London in general.

In response, Labab Lubab commented that Planning colleagues were receptive to changes of use and were actively looking at opportunities across the Borough. Councillor Frances Umeh added that serious consideration also needed to be given to the infrastructure and the buildings that were in place to make them viable conversions, as there had been examples across London where this approach had failed.

The Chair, Councillor Rory Vaughan, commented that officers had stated residents were involved from conception to completion. He knew there had been a considerable amount of consultation with residents (and changes made as a result of this), as there were two affordable housing developments in his ward. He commented that he was interested to learn what family homes and units would be produced (such as at the Old Laundry Site Development) as this was raised on a regular basis at ward surgeries. The Chair asked that as developments came on stream, whether officers were looking at the lessons learnt, such as the passive house standards and whether savings on maintenance had materialised.

In response, Labab Lubab confirmed that Development and Housing officers were looking at housing needs and a Family Housing Strategy was being used to try and deliver as much affordable family housing as possible across all tenures. He explained the Council did not want a transient population and hoped people would put down roots and thrive in the borough. In terms of the lessons learnt, Labab Lubab commented that it was possibly a little early. There were some lessons from the Springville development, but this was a small scheme. The real learning would arise from the second phase of Ed City which comprised of 108 homes plus other facilities, and also from the Lannoy site which was the Council’s first passivehaus largescale development. Officers would be able to provide a comprehensive update on these schemes in a year’s time.

Commenting on the conversion of office space, the Chair noted the way in which offices were constructed differed significantly from how houses were built. And changing lifts and core facilities within a building meant that it was difficult to covert offices to housing. Councillor Frances Umeh added that a core part of the Upstream London Industrial Strategy was focusing on ways to create hubs and flexible office working spaces. So, officers were thinking about existing units and those modifications that might take place to adapt buildings given the post-Covid changes to the working world.

Drawing the item to a close, the Chair commented the Committee would like to see the lessons learnt (including passive house), the impact on communities and whether the upfront investment costs and benefits (such as lower energy bills and less maintenance) that were anticipated had borne fruit. The Committee looked forward to a further update in due course.

RESOLVED

1. That the committee note the report and the contents of the accompanying presentation.