Agenda item

With guest speaker Ellen Vernon, Programme Director, One Public Estate

The Chairman invited Ellen Vernon, Programme Director of One Public Estate (OPE) to discuss how the OPE programme was supporting councils to unlock surplus public land and property to support housing delivery.

Ellen introduced her presentation and explained that OPE focused on efficient   use of surplus public land to rationalise and re-purpose the public estate and provided technical and practical support and advice to councils, to deliver property-focused programmes in collaboration with central government and other public sector partners. The OPE programme had been going since 2013 with funding from Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Cabinet Office - Office of Government Property (OGP) with all activities and programme work delivered by the Local Government Association (LGA) in partnership with OGP.

Currently, OPE have and were funding over 600 projects with 96% of councils in England involved in an OPE partnership, transforming their local communities and public services. To date the OPE programme had £384m in capital receipts back to central/local government partners, £77m in reduced running costs and surplus land released enabling 15,500 homes. 

Ellen explained that OPE offer provided the following:

·       Funding at early stage to help partners with feasibility studies, business cases and master plans.

·       Professional support

·       Access to central/local government

·       Neutral brokering

·       Sharing best practice

Ellen also commented that the following partner benefits included:

·       Release of surplus public land for homes, jobs and regeneration schemes

·       Efficiency savings (capital receipts and revenue savings)

·       Better integrated public services

In 2018 OPE delivered the Land Release Fund (LRF), a cross-government initiative between MHCLG which awarded £45m in capital funding to over 70 councils-led projects, releasing land for 6,000 affordable homes. Specifically aimed at supporting local authorities to move brown field sites through to housing delivery, often these sites may come with significant abnormal costs, constraints and infrastructure requirements. The LRF was able bridge the viability gap and provide funding for demolition, remediation, highways access and flood works.

Following the discussion, Members made the following comments:

·       Members raised that land was critical in delivering public infrastructure but the over inflated land value and hesitancy from government departments to collaborate over long-term caused perverse short-term decisions that impacted delivery of local public infrastructure and council and social housing. Ellen responded that OPE is aware of the pressures that vary across the country and focused on helping localities address challenges and opportunities through scrutinising viability assessments. Additionally, OPE was working on exploring how institutional investment may help complex projects.

·       Members commented that the district valuer had a role in determining the valuation of land based on current use, which may be a higher value then that for a housing scheme. The programme could consider this in the future with government as it would make it easier to deliver in local authority areas. Ellen responded that there was a shift away from a full reliance on land values in terms of calculating benefit cost ratios that sit behind some of the assessments, looking at moving to include social value benefits in assessment and  non-monetised benefits. 

·       Members mentioned that for skills and capacity (paragraph 10.4) it was important to look at the bigger picture about working with partnerships, as some areas did not have the skills available. It would be beneficial to work closely with further education to make provisions around the skills in demand. Ellen responded that there were a few bodies that were currently trying to link up skills shortages in local authorities to ensure a pipeline of skills.

Members made the following comments on the wider report:

·       Members commented on the disparity between the government and survey figures. Highlighting that it was important to address wider challenges around skills shortage and parts of the UK without a Housing Revenue Account. Numbers needed to capture council construction from all models not just one particular model.

·       Members raised that for funding for retrofitting

·       Members also raised that shorthold tenancies should be reconsidered.

·       Members highlighted that more analysis was needed on local authorities with HRA capacity underused as there was a risk of Ministers raising concerns over why housing demand was not being met.

·       Members pointed out the delay in Right to Buy receipts was significant as it was a major rate-limiting factor and would be useful to hear from others on how this was affecting them.

Actions:

·       Officers to consider comments made by Board Members on the key areas for lobbying outlined in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.6.

·       Officers to consider comments made by Board Members on the set of proposed actions (paragraph 23).

Decision:

The Environment, Economy, Housing and Transport Board noted the House Building Report and agreed on the proposed recommendations in the report.