Agenda item

Purpose:To examine the circumstances surrounding the provision of affordable housing units at Parkway

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 10) on the provision of affordable housing units at Parkway.

The topic had been discussed at the meeting held 21 October 2014 during which it was agreed that the circumstances surrounding the non-release of the affordable housing units at the Parkway development would be examined. The report detailed the process to date, the present situation, the process moving forward and the lessons that have been learnt for future developments.

David Holling stated that issues surrounding the development had been longstanding and in some cases had been aired by the press. However, the development had overcome the challenges associated with the recession and had come to fruition despite those obstacles.

David Holling emphasised that the issues associated with the delivery of affordable housing units were not the fault of the Council. Difficulties had been caused by Standard Life’s (SL) delayed appointment of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). At this stage Officers’ were considering the best course of action to bring about a resolution.

Councillor Quentin Webb highlighted comments within the report which suggested that development standards did not meet building assessment regulations for social housing. June Graves advised that there were ongoing discussions between SL and the RSL as part of the contract negotiations.

Councillor Webb acknowledged that 107 units had been completed to date. He asked Officers whether the legal contract included the powers to prevent SL selling more private units until the affordable housing issues had been resolved. David Holling advised that, in accordance with the Council’s Housing Strategy, if the properties met the set requirements, stated within clause 23, then providers could release them.

Councillor Jeff Brooks asked whether SL had been invited to the meeting. David Lowe advised that they had, but they declined the offer. Councillor Brooks then asked whether the Council had received income from the Parkway Car Park since its completion: David Holling advised that the topic could not be discussed in Part I of the meeting

Councillor Alan Macro stated that, in hind sight, it was clear to see that the Council had made payment to the provider too early. He asked whether advice had been sought from other local authorities regarding such processes prior to signing the contract. David Holling advised that the Council did not seek advice and was contractually obliged to make payment upon commencement of the building works due to the agreements reached in 2008. Councillor Roger Hunneman was concerned that conditions had not been included to protect Council money. David Holling advised that a variation of the condition had been considered at the Executive meeting one month prior to making the £900,000 payment to SL.

Councillor Brooks stated that more evidence was required to show appropriate levels of rigour in contract agreements. He recommended that Members experience and knowledge should be utilised during contract negotiations and that Members’ engagement was increased. This was seconded by Councillor Alan Macro.

Councillor Gordon Lundie challenged the suggestion that Members had not been involved during the contract negotiations with SL. He disputed whether there was a gap within the process which could be addressed by increasing Members’ participation. Councillor Brooks confirmed that he was keen to see more Member involvement during larger contracts negotiations, such as those with SL

Councillor Mike Johnston suggested that the level of delegated duty to Officers for assurance and approval processes was reviewed in order to incorporate any lessons identified through the Parkway contract negotiations.

Councillor Lundie acknowledged that opportunities to protect Council money had been missed due to the lack of clear payment triggers. He stated that emphasis had been placed on securing the provision of affordable housing rather than the delivery of units. In hind sight the negotiations should have considered both elements.

Councillor Brooks reiterated his view that Members engagement should increase during larger contract negotiations. He suggested that a review into Members’ participation was added to the Work Programme. Councillor Emma Webster seconded the proposal.

Councillor Webb advised that Members’ participation had been available through the Western Area Planning Meeting and Executive – although discussions regarding the £900,000 payment would have taken place under Part II.

Resolved that:

·                     The work programme would include an assessment of the delegation levels for procurement and the thresholds for Member involvement in contract development to consider whether they are set at appropriate levels.