EMERGING PROGRAMME

Bob Osborne

Housing and Planning Directorate

EMERGING PROGRAMME

1. Context for market renewal in MSP

2. Current Programme

3. Emerging Programme

4. Next steps

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

• Collapse of industrial employment and the shift of employment out of the Cities

• Provision of new housing in outer conurbation and new towns

• Poor quality replacement housing and limited choice for home owners

LEGACY

• High levels of urban decay• Poor quality mixed use environment• Pork quality and limited choice of housing

for current and potential home owners• Poor quality social housing• Negative social trends concentrated in

some/many neighbourhoods

NEW MSP CONTEXT

• Employment and economic growth for the core of the conurbation

• Population growth after five decades of decline

• Other new and positive drivers such as economic migration, City Centre Living, gentrification.

CURRENT PROGRAMME

• Laying the foundations for substantial change in a number of neighbourhoods

• Significant progress in removing unsustainable stock and assembling sites for development

• Only part way through the process, the big wins have still to be secured

EXPENDITURE

To Date 2005/06 Total

Site/Developer £19.2m £26.1m £45.4m

Private Rented/RSL £1.7m £4.6m £6.3m

Facelifts £16.8m £8.9m £25.8m

Home Ownership £2.6m £5.1m £7.7m

Sust. Neighbh’ds £15.5m £9.2m £24.6m

Delivery Secretariat £8.0m £7.1m £15.2m

OUTPUTS

2003/04 2004/05 Forecast

Properties acquired 837 497 2,267

Properties demolished 676 571 1,726

Hectares land 5.5 4.0 24.8

New homes 891 2,114 1,011

Facelifts 1,370 4,323 13,417

Non housing env. works 6,127 11,842 9,543

FOCUSING THE PROGRAMME

1. Areas of Major Investment (Transformation)

2. Area of Stabilisation

3. Need to align with URC vision & priorities

4. Private Rented Sector

5. Delivery

AREAS OF MAJOR INVESTMENT (TRANSFORMATION) CHARACTERISTICS

England Manchester Salford Areas of Transformation

Average House Prices(2004) £178,558 £111,228 £110,253 £50,698

Void Rate (2005) 3.2% 7.5% 6.1% 12.5%

Proportion of LA properties classed as “Low Demand”* (2004)

- 25.8% - 66.6%

Worklessness Rate (2004) - 26.0% 20.3% 37.3%

Proportion of pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs at Grade C or above (2004)

53.4% 39.5% 38.3% 31.6%

No. burglaries per 1,000 households (2004)

16 40 35 27

No. incidences of vehicle crime per 1,000 households (2004)

35 73 53 78

* Data available for Manchester only

AMI (TRANSFORMATION) HMR INVESTMENT

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Seedley/Langworthy £5.3m £4.3m £2.7m £3.5m

North Irwell £2.3m £2.5m £4.6m £0.9m

Broughton £6.9m £9.3m £8.3m £10.7m

WHAT’S NOT INCLUDED

• URC priorities:– Pendleton– Chapel Street

• NDC non contractual commitments: – Gerald Rd home improvements etc

• Weaste• Need to consider prioritisation of above – what

would we do first when resources allow

EMERGING HMR PROGRAMME SPEND IN SALFORD

YEAR PATHFINDER ALLOCATION

LESS DELIVERY AND PRS COSTS

AVAILABLE FOR SALFORD

COMMENTS

2006 - 07 £55m £1.3m £17.7m All contractually committed

2007 - 08 £55m £1.3m £17.7m All contractually

committed

2008 - 09 £55m £1.3m £16.7m All contractually committed

2009 - 10 £55m £1.3m £15.7m All contractually committed

2010 - 11 £55m £1.3m £14.7m All contractually committed

CHALLENGES

• Need to reprofile 20% cut 05/06• Costs of relocation• Use and values of capital receipts• Securing successful new developments

• Affordable housing• Family housing • Sequencing of land release/protecting fragile markets

CHALLENGES

• Urban density• Local service provision• Managing the process of change• Securing private sector/other investment

• Deploying other resources to support the programme

NEXT STEPS

• Long term Delivery Plans for each AMIs (Transformation)

• Focus on total funding, housing and social infrastructure

• Focus on new development, release of land, land receipts, service provision, timing and sequencing

• Review process by Pathfinder Board Members and English Partnerships, NWDA and Housing Corporation

NEXT STEPS

• Further work on private rented sector, land receipts and relocation costs

• Policies on other matters such as efficiency and update on risk

• Scheme Update scrutinised by full Board• Consultation with URC

• Governance and delivery adapted to scrutinise and support implementation arrangements such as AMIs.