Greenwich Council leader defends proposed cuts to new council housing totals

Last week I covered plans for proposed cuts to new council houses within the “One Woolwich” project compared to agreed levels in 2022.

With the council’s leader coming out to defend the proposed reduction of new council homes – which will in turn become private sale – I thought it would be worth putting up a follow-up, as last week’s post didn’t cover some points at the time as I thought it’d drag on too long and distract from other arguments.

Those points are:

1. How to fund council homes set to be lost while ensuring private developer Lovell build the project as planned?
2. Why have council officers criticised the proposed tenure mix which contrasts with their own Greenwich Builds flagship project?

Crises locally

Greenwich council like so many other areas is seeing a crises with housing as are many residents.

A shortage of new truly affordable homes from both Housing Associations and the Council has seen numbers of households in temporary housing rise exponentially in recent years to around 2,000 at vast cost to the council and taxpayers – and to the detriment of people placed in poor quality, short term housing. The council waiting list is also around 25k. Hotels are being used are vast expense.

The very same Cabinet meeting set to discuss losing agreed council homes will even see another report showing more cost overruns due to housing pressure – even after budgets were increased this year.

And while the Housing Association element of the final “One Woolwich” phase under discussion will see an increase of social homes managed by PA Housing Association, the Greenwich Council element will see a cut.

When I wrote the first post last week I did suggest that said the authority would point to Housing Association increases as a sort of excuse for council cuts alongside and that appears to be the case. And yes, it’s great the Housing Association element of future building sees more social housing but given the sheer scale of the crises, surely both the Housing Association and council-managed elements should provide maximum social and council housing on site.

Estate plans

For those who don’t know, the final phase talked about is the last of a long, long running saga on demolishing and rebuilding three estates sees the final stage set to move forward.

It’s already seen a loss of truly affordable new homes. Back in the midst of time agreement was made for over 1,00o mainly council homes were to be demolished as part of the “One Woolwich” project with private developer Lovell selling homes on public land.

In place of circa 1,000 council homes would be 700 social/council homes and 800+ private homes from Lovell.

While this has been ongoing a shortage of council homes has seen the number of households in temporary housing rise exponentially from 1,030 in 2018/19 to 2,000 now at vast cost to the council and taxpayers – and to the detriment of people in poor quality, short term housing.

In 2022 Greenwich Council announced they would buy some homes previously earmarked for private sale at the estate project which would help lessen the council housing loss. That number is to be cut if the council’s Cabinet agree this week.

Funding

So how could those homes be funded ensuring they are let at truly affordable rents and Lovell build as planned? After all I doubt the developer care too much as long as they get the money.

Firstly, council’s have greater scope to borrow for new council housing after the Housing Revenue Account cap was lifted. In time that’ll be cheaper than losing council homes and ensuing payments at vast cost for temporary housing and hotels.

Councils can also now allocate more Right to Buy revenue under recently announced measure. This was announced in July. The Greenwich Council report before the Cabinet this week does NOT mention that.

Changes announced mean “The maximum permitted contribution from RTB receipts to replacement affordable housing has increased from 50% to 100%.”

So a potential funding source there to not lose those planned council homes. And one not mentioned in the report before Cabinet this week.

Then there’s grant funding. Could they secure further from the Mayor? Perhaps some cash set to be used buying existing homes putting private tenants at risk of eviction could be reallocated to help build new.

Tenure split

Greenwich Council officers also appear to excuse losing previously agree new council homes due to a future change in tenure mix i.e. more private homes is a good thing.

However Greenwich’s own flagship housing projects at Kidbrooke are sole council tenure.

And what about those people housed in entire hotels booked out at a cost of millions by the council as there’s a shortage of new council homes. They’re in a single tenure environment – and a far worse one than homes at the new estate would provide.

With such a housing shortage is it really wise to lose potential council homes – which will cost the public purse more in the long term – even if Housing Association social housing is increased?

The immense difficulties that a lack of social and council housing now presents surely means the authority busts a gut to ensure it maximises council homes in their part of the scheme. The report gives little indication they are nor have looked at all options – and it’ll hurt council finances AND those in need of secure and stable truly affordable housing.

Sadly it seems the cabinet and leader will rubber stamp changes for those agreed council homes to go for private sale. I doubt many will then be surprised when costs for homelessness increase yet further next year and more are housed in entirely inappropriate accommodation.

Running a site alone takes time and a fair bit of money. Adverts are far from enough to cover it and my living costs as a private renter.