Content

RESOLVED:
 
1. 
Authorised the disposal of 2 Narford Road London E5 8RD shown for identification
purposes only edged red on the plan in Appendix 1.

 
2. 
Delegated authority to the Interim Group Director,
Finance to agree all commercial terms of the transaction.
 
3. 
Delegated authority to the Acting Director of Legal,
Democratic and Electoral Services to settle, agree and enter into
all documentation necessary for this transaction.
 
4. 
Authorised the leasehold acquisition of Ridley Villas;
33 & 37-47 Ridley Road, Hackney E8 2NP for a period of 10 years
less one day, 
shown for identification purposes only edged red on the plan
in Appendix 2.

 
5. 
Delegated authority to the Director of Strategic
Property Services, in consultation with the Interim Group Director,
Finance to agree the terms of the agreement for lease and
leases.

 
6. 
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director Customer
and Workplace, in consultation with the Interim Group Director,
Finance to agree the terms of the management agreement.

 
7. 
Authorised the payment of the stamp duty (SDLT) due for
the leases.

 
8. 
Authorised the Acting Director of Legal, Democratic
Electoral Services to prepare, agree, settle and sign the necessary
legal documentation to effect the proposals contained in this
report and to enter into any other ancillary legal documentation as
required.

 
9. 
Delegated to the Interim Group Director, Finance the
authority to accept funding from Round 3 of the Local Authority
Housing Fund, up to the indicative allocation of £15.7m and
sign the relevant and ancillary documentation for the acceptance of
the grant sums.

 
10.Approved the s106 scheme below as set out in section 11:
 

S106

2024/25
£’000

2025/26
£'000

2026/27
£'000

2027/28
£'000

Total
 

Revenue

68

68

68

8

211

Total S106
Revenue for Approval

68

68

68

8

211

 
11.Noted the s106 scheme below as set out in section 12:
 

S106

2024/25
£’000

2025/26
£'000

Total

Capital

80

254

334

Total S106
Capital for Noting

80

254

334

 
REASONS FOR DECISION
 
The decisions required are necessary in order
that the schemes within the Council’s approved Capital
programme can be delivered and necessary to approve the property
proposals as set out in this report.
 
In most cases, resources have already been
allocated to the capital schemes as part of the budget setting
exercise but spending approval is required in order for the scheme
to proceed. Where, however, resources have not previously been
allocated, resource approval is requested in this report.
 
To facilitate financial management and control
of the Council's finances.
 
Proposed Disposal of 2
Narford, London, E5 8RD: The
building has been empty for more than three years and currently
costs c. £17,000 per year on security and some minor utility
charges to keep the building empty. 
These costs are unavoidable, and much less than the cost of
refurbishment to permit a safe operational occupation. Whilst this
expenditure is not excessive any savings in the revenue budget are
welcome.
 
The 2022 report identified the costs of
restoring the existing building, replacing it with a new temporary
structure or a new permanent structure and these costs are such
that it is not considered that expending these sums are a good use
of resources within the VCS portfolio, which currently has a
backlog of maintenance that was the subject of a previous Cabinet
report (Cabinet on the 22nd May 2023).
 
The premises are situated within a
predominantly residential area and a review of the available
historic mapping seems to indicate that a house stood on the plot
into the 1970’s.
 
The Council’s Housing Asset Review team
has considered the site for self-delivered affordable housing but
concluded that whilst it is suitable for residential development it
would be too small and resource-intensive for the Council to pursue
this option, as the potential gain is not commensurate to the
resource use that would be necessary. This suitability for housing
means that there is likely to be keen interest in this site, from
small local developers or individuals who would appreciate the
opportunity to design and build their own home.
 
Planning policy does offer some protection to
community uses and despite the suitability of the site to convert
back to residential there is the possibility that a new owner may
decide to maintain the present use on the site in a new
facility.
 
Proposed leasehold acquisition of
Ridley Villas; 33 & 37-47 Ridley Road, Hackney E8
2NP:  There is a significant need to
increase the provision of temporary accommodation in the borough.
As set out within Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, the Council has a
statutory duty to provide interim temporary accommodation to
homeless households to whom it has a duty to provide permanent
housing. Currently, meeting this statutory duty requires using
expensive nightly let and/or spot purchased accommodation. The
acquisition of the lease provides a hostel refurbished to meet the
requirements of homeless residents, providing improved quality
accommodation at a lower cost than currently being paid.
 
Local Authority Housing Fund:
Round 3 Grant submission - Under the terms of the allocation
Hackney submitted a grant submission on  28th March and in
awarding grants the Government usually sets deadlines for
acceptance beyond which the grant offer is not guaranteed to be
maintained.  The acceptance of the
LAHF3  grant,
which is a Key Decision, may not fit our timetables for deadlines
for Cabinet and therefore  we are
requesting a delegation for the Group Director, Finance to accept
the grant, after consideration of all of the financial
implications, including impact on the Council’s capital
programme.
 
DETAILS OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND
REJECTED
 
Proposed Disposal of
2 Narford, London, E5 8RD:
No action: This course of action is not
tenable because leaving the building vacant would incur ongoing
security and other costs, involve reputational risks and further
potential enquiries or challenge from residents and other
interested parties.
 
To note: Demolition of the existing building
whilst developing other options would save on security costs in the
short to medium term (estimated demolition costs in the region of
£50,000).
 
Refurbishment: Refurbishment costs of bringing
the building back into acceptable repair would be in the region of
£232,000 inclusive of fees. In addition to the budget
required, staff time resources would be needed to deliver the
capital project. Whilst this level of investment would leave the
building in a lettable condition, it
would be a significant level of investment to extend use of a
modular building which is already in poor condition. Refurbishment
would not address accessibility due to the original design of the
building. This level of investment made to bring the building back
into active use for only a limited number of years would not
present value for money for the Council. As noted above there is no
demand from within the Council to operate services from the
building and whilst there would be demand for the space from
tenants operating in the VCS portfolio, rent at £4 per square
foot could not justify the cost of refurbishment and the additional
maintenance liability, which is estimated at £13,000 pa
compared with the total rent chargeable of less than £5,000
under a VCS tenancy. This is the principal economic fact that means
letting it as a VCS nursery is simply not financially
sustainable.
 
New modular building:  Another option is to install a new
‘temporary unit’ of a similar size and structure. It
would cost in the region of £650,000 (plus fees). This level
of expenditure on such a small site would not represent value for
money and would divert funding and staff resources from other
higher priority and more productive projects. As noted above there
is no demand from within the Council to operate services from the
building and whilst there would be demand for the space from
tenants operating in the VSC portfolio rent at £4 per square
foot could not justify the cost of refurbishment and the additional
maintenance liability.
 
The building isn’t suitable for a new
commercial letting and a new commercial building on the site is
estimated to cost £950,000 to build, excluding the resource
implications in terms of time and money of running the necessary
planning application.
 
The Council’s Housing Asset Review team
has concluded that the site has residential potential and the
Council could build this out as affordable housing, but given its
size, Council resources are best applied where they can have a
greater impact.
 
The site could be used as a self-build site.
The Council has a live self-build pilot scheme but would need to
fully understand the lessons learned from that before embarking on
the same process again and there is, in any event, a strong
possibility that this site will be bought by people intent on
building their own home. 
 
The alternative to a freehold disposal would
be one via a long lease; if the assumption that the site is likely
to be redeveloped as housing this would fly directly against the
way in which the national housing policy background is developing
as leasehold tenures, particularly for houses are increasingly seen
as anachronistic and not fit for modern purposes. Other than
further controls on development over and above those exercised by
planning there is nothing to be gained and use of these leasehold
controls is a further use of staff resources micromanaging a few
square metres of land that it is impossible to justify.
 
Proposed leasehold acquisition of
Ridley Villas; 33 & 37-47 Ridley Road, Hackney E8 2NP: The
Benefits and Homelessness Prevention Service is facing a shortage
in the supply of Council owned and / or leased accommodation for
use as emergency / temporary accommodation, especially within the
borough. This has resulted in the increased use of expensive
nightly paid annex accommodation, plus the increasing use of out of
borough accommodation.  The Council
could continue with the current short term agreement (which has
carried on for years), but still represent a supply risk, on what
is some of the poorest hostel accommodation in the borough. But
this would not improve the accommodation which in turn negates some
of the risk factors associated with shared amenity
accommodation.