Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report provided details of the indicative capacity of the site at 1-12 Garages, Gunhild Way. Originally highlighted on the Development Rolling Programme (updated HSC June 2017) it was estimated that this site has the potential to deliver 2 new family homes.

 

The report sought approval of a capital budget for the HRA based on the indicative capacity study which has been undertaken for the site and the outline appraisals referenced in the report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

       i.          Noted the indicative mix of the proposed scheme.

 

     ii.          Approved the indicative capital budget of £585,720 to cover all construction costs, professional fees and associated fees to deliver a scheme that meets an identified housing need in Cambridge City. This sum had been allocated in the most recent publication of the Budget Setting Report (January 2018).

   iii.          Approved that the site is offered to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) to progress for development to deliver a scheme which will meet the strategic aims of the Council in the delivery of new social housing.  The scheme will be developed in accordance with the CIP process which was approved at Strategy and Resources Committee on 9^th October 2017.

   iv.          Noted that the Executive Councillor had a delegated authority to approve the transfer of land to CIP for the redevelopment of the site at a later date. This would be subject to CIP demonstrating that its development proposal meets the Council’s strategic aims for the site and the development and delivery milestones are in accordance with the CIP Approvals Process agreed at S&R Committee on 9^th October 2017.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Interim Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Questioned how the properties being delivered matched the current needs of those on the Housing Register.

     ii.          Discussion of points to be raised in the response to CIP: it’s not for profit status, how it was monitored for value for money and how it was funded.

 

The Principal Accountant said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Clarified the position regarding disabled adapted properties. These would be delivered by the development programme but would not be available on every small scale development.

     ii.          Stated that lessons learnt from concerns raised about security of mailboxes on other sites would be incorporated into the design process.

   iii.          A design guide was in place for projects and an expert in “Secure by Design’ would review plans.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that in house staff had delivered new build properties to a high standard. However, the team lacked the capacity to deliver all small scale project.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.