Agenda item

To consider the attached report by Alex Colyer, Executive Director (Corporate Services) at South Cambridgeshire District Council

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it approves funding, in principle, of £200,000 in 2015/16 and £200,000 in 2016/17 to support the establishment of a City Deal Housing Development Vehicle, subject to further details being made available on the business case and the specification of personnel required to establish the Joint Development Vehicle.

The Joint Assembly gave consideration to a report scheduled for submission to the Executive Board on 27 March 2015 which set out a proposal to establish a Greater Cambridge City Deal Housing Development Vehicle.

Liz Bisset, Director of Customer and Community Services at Cambridge City Council, presented the report which outlined how the proposed Housing Development Vehicle would deliver the City Deal’s commitment to deliver an additional 1,000 dwellings on exception sites by 2031.  She stated that the establishment of a Housing Development Vehicle would enable the effective and efficient delivery of the various new build programmes associated with the City Deal, including:

·         the development of County Council land holdings;

·         Housing Revenue Account developments for South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City, including the recent proposal for the City Council to invest General Fund capital in housing;

·         Ermine Street Housing;

·         other City Deal Joint Ventures or Special Purpose Ventures.

This would ensure good project management and control over costs, as well as generate a potential revenue surplus for the City Deal partners.  It was noted that a Housing Development Vehicle would maximise the benefits of both Council’s Housing Revenue Account build programmes and other new build programmes financed through the General Fund, and would share resources and expertise.

The proposal included the cost of funding a team for the first two years, by which time the Housing Development Vehicle should operate on a self-funded basis.  Without this investment in the Housing Development Vehicle it would take much longer for each respective Council to deliver the City Deal’s housing development objectives.  It was noted that the proposal sought to bring together expertise, but that this would not take anything away from each Council in respect of their respective governance arrangements and development programmes.  Clarity was also given that the Development Vehicle was about delivery and would therefore not be an asset holding.

In answer to a question about the delivery of additional homes, it was noted that the Housing Development Vehicle would have to distinguish between housing that each Council was developing and development that each Council was enabling.  The different roles of the Housing Development Vehicle and the Councils would need to be made very clear, and it would also be necessary for the Development Vehicle to act fairly towards other developers offering affordable housing.

Concern was expressed that this proposal should have been considered by the three partner Councils before being submitted to the Executive Board.  It was also highlighted that this proposal was only one model of delivery and other models, together with options appraisals and alternatives, should have been included for consideration.  An example of Cambridge Horizons was cited and clarity was sought as to how the proposed approach differed from the Cambridge Horizons model.

Liz Bisset explained that this proposal was being reported throughout the City Deal arrangements because of the significance of housing provision on the economy and the need to meet the City Deal’s commitmentwith regard to additional affordable homes.  With regard to the Cambridge Horizons model, she reported that Cambridge Horizons was largely funded by the Government and in comparison was expensive.  The model did bring some considerable success with it and a lot of the growth now taking place in the Greater Cambridge area had been facilitated by that structure and the proposal set out in the report was, in a way, a version of that collaborative working.  It was emphasised that the proposal at this stage was to seek approval for the funding in order to set up the Housing Development Vehicle, with the formal structure and much more detailed model to be worked up and subsequently reported to and considered by each partner Council.

In answer to a question about the speeding up of delivery as part of the Housing Development Vehicle, it was noted that the Development Vehicle would work on pipeline proposals that were significant and could accelerate development in the city. 

Clarification was sought as to whether the proposal was essentially permission to recruit seven posts to establish a team that would be responsible for delivering the Housing Development Vehicle.  It was noted that this was correct, with the proposed posts set out in paragraph 35 of the report, although it was noted that some of these would be accommodated by way of transferring resources from the partner Councils.  Members supported the proposal, in principle, but requested a report back on the details of the business case and specifications of the seven posts set out in the report.  It was noted that this should be available by the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board, prior to reporting into the three partner Councils as part of their July cycle of meetings.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it approves funding, in principle, of £200,000 in 2015/16 and £200,000 in 2016/17 to support the establishment of a City Deal Housing Development Vehicle, subject to further details being made available on the business case and the specification of personnel required to establish the Joint Development Vehicle.