Agenda item

Report to follow

Leighton Rowe, Housing Policy and Development Manager, introduced the item and provided a summary of the scheme:

The decision to progress the scheme for 13 flats (7 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom) had been taken by the Full Council in February 2018 and focused on reducing the number of households in temporary accommodation.

Several other sites in the district had been considered (Lewes, Peacehaven). The Seaford site had been identified as one where the scheme could be built out expediently, in order to respond to the need for housing.

The Council’s Regeneration Team had looked at alternative uses for the building and when the original report was produced it had been determined that there was an oversupply of office and employment space.

A development opportunity to include the wider site (including the neighbouring fire station) had been considered. However, there were a number of issues that made this a complicated option.

The Newhaven Neighbourhood Plan had identified the site as suitable for six homes (as part of renovation scheme); however, it was considered that the site would have more potential following a full demolition and the building of 13 flats.

The contract had been looked at again as the costs had risen and the current overall estimate was £2.9 million. The scheme was for modular housing and a local supplier/builder, based in Newhaven, was being considered. Several specifications that met the Council’s sustainability and fire safety requirements had been built into the scheme and had been costed for.

The scheme build had a 60 year life-span and had originally been promoted as a temporary accommodation development to reduce the numbers in bed & breakfast. However, there was also the opportunity for the whole scheme to be delivered as the Council’s own housing stock.

·         Councillor Saunders had asked for the scheme to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee. His concerns were:

o   A reason had not been provided for not considering sites in other areas where demolition would not be needed.

o   There had always been a need for office and business start-up space in Newhaven. The Council Offices were suitable for conversion to this type of space.

o   The demolition of the council offices site would be costly, including removal of asbestos if it was present.

o   The land value, when added on to the overall costs made the scheme unviable and was not the best use of the Council’s funds.

During discussion the following points were highlighted.

·         Had Lewes District Council borne all the costs to date for the scheme?

·         The Council had paid the architects fees. Other work had been undertaken by officers and was part of Council’s own staffing costs.

·         What was the square meterage of the units?

·         The two bedroom units were 70 square meters and the one bedroom units were 50 square meters. The average cost was £223,000 per unit (£3436 per square meter, including communal spaces). The current estimate for the value of the built-out development was £2.7 million. An independent valuation would be undertaken as part of the process.

·         Members expressed a preference in the development being made available under general market rent.

·         What were the rental values of the units?

o   The one bedroom flats would have a rental value of up to approximately £145.00 and the two bedroom flats would have a rental value of up to £166.00. The rental value was 80 percent of the market level.

·         The proposals provided an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate its support of green technology. Should the development proceed, a review of the scheme could be undertaken to better inform future sites where similar schemes could be considered.

·         How much extra had the green technology added to the overall costs and what would happen to the office building if the proposals did not move forward?

o   The additional costs for the sustainability measures were £314,000. The costs of ground works would be provided to the Panel after the meeting. Some of the cost savings would be to the benefit of tenants rather than the Council.

o   In terms of the site’s future  if left as it was, there were two possible options: either it would remain empty until the town council and fire and rescue sites became available (which could be ; or there would be a relook at the costs of refurbishing the building for residential or office space.

·         What specifications would the modular builds have that traditional builds did not?

o   The Council was looking to improve the specification of its traditional builds, with a higher quality fabric. The modular build was chosen because the build time was quicker and there was less disruption. The sustainable infrastructure in the modular builds would include mechanical ventilation systems, and less heating would be required.

RESOLVED by a majority that:

1.    The scheme be supported;

2.    It be recommended that the units be made available for permanent accommodation, through the Council’s Housing Service; and to those with a local need.

3.    The adjoining sites be monitored and the Council explore opportunities for development if and when they become available; and

The costs of the development (and similar schemes) be reviewed as part of the Committee’s work programme.

o   The Council was looking to improve the specification of its traditional builds, with a higher quality fabric. The modular build was chosen because the build time was quicker and there was less disruption. The sustainable infrastructure in the modular builds would include mechanical ventilation systems, and less heating would be required.

RESOLVED by a majority that:

1.    The scheme be supported;

2.    It be recommended that the units be made available for permanent accommodation, through the Council’s Housing Service; and to those with a local need.

3.    The adjoining sites be monitored and the Council explore opportunities for development if and when they become available; and

4.    The costs of the development (and similar schemes) be reviewed as part of the Committee’s work programme.