• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Single Conversation Slides   15th June 2010

Single Conversation Slides 15th June 2010



From our event on June 15

From our event on June 15



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Single Conversation Slides   15th June 2010 Single Conversation Slides 15th June 2010 Presentation Transcript

    • Barnet’s Borough Investment Plan: How was it for us? Presented by: Pam Wharfe Head of Housing & Environmental Health London Borough of Barnet
    • LB Barnet: How was it for us? What we are going to cover… Barnet’s context How did we put the plan together? What has worked well/less well? A flavour of what is in our plan…
    • Barnet’s context
    • Barnet ‘s Housing Capacity Growth in Barnet will be the 4th largest in London
    • Barnet’s offer • A place people want to live • The scale of the opportunity • Deliverability • Capacity, innovation and performance “This is about building places, and homes in places where people want to live” B.Kerslake (2009)
    • How did we put the plan together?
    • How did we put the plan together? • Worked with the HCA from the start • That helped us understand each other’s perspectives • We commissioned Navigant to work with us to produce the document – They worked with all stakeholders to understand their issues
    • What worked well/less well?
    • What worked well/less well? Worked well… • Helped us focus on what • Early understanding with the key challenges are HCA • Fits well with the new • HCA’s ability to bring Housing Strategy and the important partners in e.g. Local Development TfL Framework • Our structure worked well (planning, housing & Less well… regeneration together) • Reiteration, reiteration • Final document good • Cost summary of what we are about • Understanding of the Housing Revenue Account
    • A flavour of what’s in our plan…
    • Spatial Investment Priorities Edgware Rd (A5) Colindale – 10,000 new homes Mill Hill East – 2,000 new homes Brent Cross - Cricklewood – 7,500 new homes
    • What it looks like… Stonegrove / Spur Road Challenges Infrastructure costs, sustainability (CHP and housing code levels) Current  PDA and planning agreed 2008 P1 on site (to complete 2010) – 117 homes Next P2 awarded £10m kick‐start – started on site March 2010, 98 units (62  affordable) P3 private – 2011 P4 2012 / P5 beyond Our  Kick‐start delivery ‘Requests’ P4+P5 NAHP c.£15m “sustainability” support Short term (2009-2011) Medium term (2011-2014) Long term (2014+)
    • Delivering for the Future – Thematic priorities • Decent Homes & Beyond (retro-fitting) • Reducing temporary accommodation levels (+ on estates) • HRA Reform and ongoing funding • Sheltered Plus /extra care/supported housing • LABV – Granville Road, Town Centres • A new Private Rented Sector model
    • Local investment planning Reflections on progress Future of London Jim Bennett, 15 June 2010
    • Single Conversation Replaces previous ‘multiple conversations’ Main business process for the HCA Focus on places – delivering local priorities Joint approach with local authorities and partners Comprehensive coverage of housing and regeneration
    • Progress c160 Single Conversation areas Conversations started in 157 24 LIPs agreed Some delayed by election Independent Interim Evaluation
    • Interim evaluation - purpose Provide feedback from local authorities and partners on the process Provide an overview of how the model is being applied in different regions and circumstances Identify barriers and challenges in implementation Provide early evidence of the benefits achieved to date, and further benefits that could be realised Inform further implementation of the business model Inform our Spending Review discussions with CLG / HMT
    • Good progress Strong support from local authorities and partners Consistent with wider direction of travel for public policy Already influencing investment decisions on current programmes Local Investment Plans (LIPs) effectively support local authorities’ strategies Initial focus on housing and regeneration; expected to develop into comprehensive approach to place shaping
    • Benefits Harnessing HCA & other resources for communities and places Place focus brings coherence of partners for efficiencies Long term public investment management can help leverage Overall strategic approach increases performance and impact
    • Challenges Inherited programmes, flexibilities, uncertainties Balance of national and local priorities Guidance and information – interpretation – flexibility – inconsistency Capacity and track record - progress is faster with strategic partnerships eg MAAs Milestones for starts exceeded, but no target date for completing all LIPs
    • Recommendations More consistency More certainty in funding and flexibility Encourage sub-regional partnerships / two tier approach Encourage LAs to bring in delivery partners earlier Refresh definition as holistic Clarify appraisals of LIPs Peer assessment
    • Responding to the reflections Define core elements for LIPs for more consistency while keeping local flexibility Internal peer assurance of early LIPs for appraisal and sharing good practice Aim to complete Local Investment Plans by March 2011.
    • Core elements Economic Growth Community Outputs and engagement outcomes Core Elements Prioritisation – using an Statutory duties Appraisal based approach Housing Supply
    • Spending review framework Is the activity essential to meet Govt priorities? Does the Govt need to fund this activity? Does the activity provide substantial economic value? Can the activity be targeted to those most in need? How can the activity be provided at lower cost? How can the activity be provided more effectively? Can the activity be provided by a non-state provider to the citizens, wholly or in partnership? Can non-state providers be paid to carry out the activity according to the results they achieve? Can local bodies as opposed to central government provide the activity?
    • Next Publish interim evaluation Implement core elements and peer assurance process Continue to deliver localist approach, but have an eye for Spending Review
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer? Presented by: Stephen McDonald AD Regeneration London Borough of Hackney
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer? Contents • Hackney context • So what is the Delegated Delivery Pilot (DDP) all about • Emerging ideas • Colville – the challenge • Next steps
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer? The Hackney context • Highest proportion of social housing of all London boroughs – 48% • Third most deprived borough in England • Large estate renewal programme (e.g. Woodberry Down) • Delivered nearly 1,000 affordable housing completions in 2009/10 – equivalent to 1% of the total stock • In 2009/10 – secured largest proportion of LA Newbuild funding in London
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer? So what is the Delegated Delivery Pilot (DDP) all about? • The development of borough-level contracts for delivery – allowing for greater control and freedoms over affordable housing delivery in return for signing up to more challenging delivery targets • DDP is an extension to the Single Conversation for three boroughs • Delegations tested against ability to improve delivery and promote sustainable communities. • London Mayor invited Hackney, Westminster and Croydon – cross section of central, inner and outer boroughs, along with key players from: CLG, GOL, G15, LDA, London Councils • Hackney selected for record of delivery and “proactive and innovative approach to housing issues”
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer Emerging ideas Each borough has produced an initial paper on their designated topic, and will lead on developing proposals with partners on the Steering Group. Boroughs to highlight how proposals will increase delivery, improve efficiency, and tailor delivery to local circumstances. • Intermediate housing offer (Westminster) – provision of bespoke intermediate housing products, commissioned at the local level • Selecting and commissioning delivery partners (Croydon) – working with HCA, CLG and G15 to develop proposals • Estate renewal (Hackney) – investment flexibility e.g. HCA providing subsidy to purchase leasehold interests at the outset, based on returns in later phases of a project.
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer? Colville – the challenge • A post war estate of 438 units • Of which 100 are owner-occupied • Space to double densities • Close to town and therefore high land values • But also means VP costs are high (est. £30m) • Estimated grant costs for the scheme are £48m (est)
    • Delegated Delivery – what’s on offer? Next Steps The timetable is designed to enable individual borough contracts to come into operation from April 2011. At this point the Pilot will be rolled out to other local authorities. • Now - September 2010 - draft borough contracts developed • 22 September 2010 – draft borough contracts reviewed by HCA London Board • September to March 2011 – finalise borough contracts and test flexibilities • April 2011 – potential to roll out Pilot to other local authorities
    • Future Seminars: • 27 July • 7 September • 19 October . Suggested topics (no. of requests) • New Delivery Models (6) • Intermediate Tenures (6) • Infrastructure Investment (4) • Family Housing (3) • BIP Best Practice (2) • Working with Stakeholders (2) • Some other Suggestions: Housing quality and viability, Unlocking private sites, Supported Housing, Total Place, Role of East London in housing delivery, Institutional Investment, Sustainability and CO2