enabling works barrow hill, chesterfield 1.pdf · tiles on pitched roofs, and installing/replacing...

Prepared for

Chesterfield Borough Council

Enabling Works Barrow Hill, Chesterfield

Options Report August 2011

Bennettm

Typewritten Text

Bennettm

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX 1

Chesterfield Borough Council Enabling Works, Barrow Hill


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 About this report ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Initial options .................................................................................... 3

2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Residents’ working group ................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Council stock condition survey ......................................................................................... 6

2.4 Description of initial proposals.......................................................................................... 6

2.5 Testing of initial proposals with residents....................................................................... 15

3 Detailed testing of the proposals.................................................. 18

3.1 Refining the proposals.................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Appraising the proposals................................................................................................ 20

4 Summary and next steps............................................................... 27

4.1 Summary of findings....................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Moving towards a recommended proposal..................................................................... 28

4.3 Next steps ...................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix – Financial appraisal tables .................................................... 31


Options Report – Barrow Hill, Chesterfield August 2011 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background URS/Scott Wilson has been appointed by Chesterfield Borough Council (CBC) to carry out a study on the enabling works required to deliver improvements to its housing stock in Barrow Hill, Chesterfield. The recommendations of this study will be used to inform CBC in future discussions with local residents, potential funders and delivery partners.

The URS/Scott Wilson team includes planners, urban designers, housing specialists, financial viability and delivery advisers, property consultants (Glover Consulting), cost consultants (Gleeds), transport planners, and engineers specialising in geotechnics and utilities.

This project is part of CBC’s priority to improve the quality of its existing housing stock. The site under consideration is the village of Barrow Hill, particularly those assets owned by CBC.

The objectives of this study include:

To develop a range of options considering:

Delivery of decency in existing public and private stock;

Remodelling estates and properties;

Selective demolition and rebuilding for parts of the village; and

Large scale regeneration of the village through demolition and rebuild.

To engage with residents on the regeneration of the village;

To identify opportunities for the private sector to deliver market housing in order to cross-subsidise and lessen the impact on public sector resources;

To develop options based on a thorough understanding and review of the evidence base and using best practice planning and urban design principles;

To test the financial viability and deliverability of identified options first and foremost, but also to evaluate the qualitative benefits/disadvantages of options; and

At the end of the commission (which is the purpose of this Options Report), to present a series of evaluated options with our recommendations for a preferred option.

1.2 About this report This project is the second and final report and builds upon our March 2011 baseline report. It uses our assessment of baseline information for Barrow Hill to inform a longlist of possible development options, which are then tested for financial viability, before a short list of preferred options is tested for financial viability again, and considered alongside deliverability and qualitative benefits/disadvantages.

The rest of this document is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 introduces the long list of initial options and summarises the outcomes of the financial testing of the long list;

Chapter 3 sets out the testing of the preferred, shortlisted options sifted from the long list of initial options presented in the previous chapter; and

Chapter 4 provides recommendations on the next steps for CBC.



The appraisals of the proposals are set out in more detail at the appendix.



2 Initial options

2.1 Overview At the end of our baseline review, which included the views of a wide group of residents from the drop-in session, the key findings suggested that the options should seek to meet a number of objectives:

Objective 1: Options should seek to ensure that properties which currently fail to meet Decent Homes requirements are brought up to the necessary standard, taking into account the need to minimise recurrent costs relating to property repairs and maintenance.

Objective 2: Options should seek to make the best use of land/assets within CBC control, including exploring the potential to increase the density of development within the London Boroughs estate or to consider new development on the recreation ground/allotment site.

Objective 3: Options should consider existing (and future) tenants’ needs including the provision of adequate amenity space and community facilities.

Objective 4: Options should seek to promote a sustainable housing mix with a range of tenures and housing types for all sectors of the population.

Objective 5: Options should seek to create new economic and social opportunities for residents, including new/enhanced community facilities.

Objective 6: Options should seek to improve the overall quality of the living environment for its current (and future) residents.

Objective 7: Options should seek to ensure that Barrow Hill can capture benefits from the planned regeneration at Staveley Works.

Objective 8: Options should be both deliverable and fundable.

Since the completion of the baseline review, further consultation with a self-selected residents’ working group has been undertaken and CBC’s property consultants have completed the borough-wide stock condition survey for the Council’s assets. The findings from both of these are set out below before we introduce the initial range of options.

2.2 Residents’ working group At the drop-in session, participants were invited to fill in a questionnaire which, amongst a range of other questions, asked whether they would be interested in taking part in a smaller, more focused residents’ working group. Those who responded positively were then contacted to take part the residents’ working group.

The first meeting was held on 12th April at Duewell Court with twelve participants. Council officers and consultants presented the results of the questionnaire before the group undertook a walk around the village to highlight their areas for improvement. The key areas are shown overleaf in Figure 2-1 and broadly fall under Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 above, with many falling under the category of environmental improvements (Objective 6).



Figure 2-1 Areas for improvement from the first residents’ working group meeting



Some of the key areas highlighted by the participants are shown on Figure 2-1 and show:

1. ‘Leftover’ areas of tarmac and grass – there are a number of areas where there are undefined and under-used open spaces between buildings, such as those off Romford or Woodford Way which could be better used or turned back into gardens for homes.

2. Footpaths between homes – there are many footpaths/alleyways between properties which connect the main routes to each other in a northeast-southwest direction which could be reduced in number.

3. As above for 1.

4. Garden sizes – the front and rear gardens of vary in size across the village with some family- sized houses having significantly smaller gardens than smaller properties.

5. Car park – the generally under-used car park at the centre of the village presents a poor image of Barrow Hill and provides opportunities for anti-social behaviour, particularly around the recycling bins.

6. Garage site – some residents felt that the garage site at the western end of Midland Terrace was under-used despite having a waiting list.

7. Parking issues on Traffic Terrace – there are parking issues along this road with residents of Allport Terrace and Midland Terrace unable to use their garages due to Traffic Terrace residents blocking the rear of the properties with their cars as they are unable to use their own rear garages (lack of adequate access). As a result, there is some informal parking at the eastern end of Traffic Terrace on the tarmac.

8. As above for 7.

9. Station Road – residents report speeding traffic along Station Road which they consider to be dangerous, particularly without a pedestrian crossing close to Barrow Hill Primary School on the corner.

Other issues highlighted by the group include:

The site of the former Barrow pub site has been vacant and derelict for some time and is considered an eyesore at the centre of the village;

The need to create a more attractive ‘gateway’ for the village by the Roundhouse which is a major tourist attraction;

The need to tidy up the brick yard land which faces Campbell Drive;

The Works Road underpass is considered dangerous (in terms of visibility);

Other more general issues regarding the block houses – for example, broken fencing, parking issues, cracked paving on footpaths, structural issues, pointing and painting;

Opportunities to better utilise the Methodist Chapel and St Andrew’s Church, perhaps for wider community use such as through youth groups;

Potential for new allotments (with the existing allotments closed); and

Potential for a new wildlife area, perhaps at the former Devonshire Cottages site south of the railway.

Many of these other issues however, such as those relating to assets not owned or controlled by CBC are outside of the remit of this project but suggestions for moving these issues forward are included in our final recommendations at the end of this report.



2.3 Council stock condition survey CBC has recently completed a stock condition survey of all Council-owned properties in the borough. The headline findings from the survey, undertaken by CBC’s consultants, have shown that there are no significant structural issues of concern for the properties in Barrow Hill. Our understanding is that Decent Homes issues relating to Council-owned properties in the village focus mostly on modernising kitchens (the greatest cost at £1.3million), replacing plain tiles on pitched roofs, and installing/replacing central heating systems. This comes under the category of “future major works” and amounts to an estimated £5.3million over the next 30 years, of a total of £5.8million of work including catch-up repairs, improvements and contingent major works.

2.4 Description of initial proposals Taking into account the initial objectives above and the issues highlighted by the residents’ working group, an initial list of proposals was produced for Barrow Hill. It is important to note that these are not ‘options’ as such as they can take place in combination with other proposals in order to help cross-subsidise them.

Three broad categories for the initial proposals were developed as follows:

A – Environmental improvements;

B – Infill developments; and

C – Demolition and new build.

The qualitative advantages and disadvantages of each were discussed with at the residents’ working group at a second meeting on 8th June 2011.

This section presents the proposals and residents’ feedback which was used to ‘sift’ the proposals for the next stage of quantitative testing.

2.4.1 Environmental improvements

Much of the feedback from the residents at the drop-in session and at the first residents’ working group session focused on environmental improvements to Barrow Hill. This is supported by our urban design analysis of the site and the findings of the stock condition survey which does not suggest any major structural issues with the Council owned stock. Bearing this in mind, a proposal focusing on environmental improvements was developed, as illustrated overleaf in Figure 2-2, emphasising the creation of a new network of streets, footpaths and gardens.



The main elements of this proposal focus on:

Reclaiming areas of undefined and ‘leftover’ land in between properties that can be seen today, turning these into gardens/private amenity spaces for residents, particularly for those family homes which currently have small gardens compared to other smaller properties. This is illustrated below for a small area;

Redefining the boundaries between public and private spaces with new brick walls rather than the poor quality, often poorly maintained fencing that is currently seen around a number of properties;

Clearly defining parking courts and spaces for residents;

Introducing a clearer hierarchy of the movement network with improved footpaths running parallel to Campbell Drive and a new shared surface street through the centre of the village, connecting Station Road west of the former Barrow pub site to Southgate Way in a northeasterly direction, culminating in a new square with parking spaces. A second leg of this shared surface street would connect the southeastern end of Southgate Way to the square, but with no-through access via the square;

Creating a new play area at the heart of the village at Chigwell Way;

Planting trees around the edges of the new play area and square, as well as along the new shared surface street and Woodford Way;



A new car port with 40 parking spaces to replace the existing under-utilised garages at the western end of Midland Terrace;

Clearly allocated/defined parking spaces at the eastern end of Allport and Traffic Terrace where there is currently informal parking due to limited space along Traffic Terrace (providing 17 spaces in total); and

Speed restrictions (20mph zone) along Station Road between the school and Brooks Road, and a new pedestrian crossing.

2.4.2 Infill development

The second set of proposals focus on seeking to make the best use of land or assets within CBC’s control which could help to cross-subsidise other proposals, particularly ones which like the environmental improvements, are unlikely to generate revenue for the Council.

There are a number of opportunities to make better use of the CBC owned land within the village, the first and most obvious site is the space around Duewell Court on Station Road. Two possible proposals for the reconfiguration of this space are set out overleaf in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.

Figure 2-3 (Option B1) retains Duewell Court in its current location and configuration and provides 17 new houses east and west of the building where there is currently open space. This proposal retains some private amenity space for Duewell Court residents but also ensures that the new homes have front and back gardens and off-street parking. A new access route is provided off the existing access from Station Road for houses east of Duewell Court and a buffer zone is maintained between the communal heating plant and the new homes. A new, tree-lined homezone or shared surface street is also proposed west of Duewell Court which could link to the new public square as proposed for Southgate Way in the environmental improvements proposal shown in Figure 2-2. A new hard surfaced public space is also proposed in front of Duewell Court and the Memorial Club.



Figure 2-4 (Option B2) shows a potential configuration of the site if Duewell Court is demolished and replaced closer to Station Road. As it is a Council requirement to provide sheltered accommodation in the village, it was considered most appropriate to locate any reprovision on this site within the centre of the village and closest to the medical centre, rather than to say locate it within any redevelopment proposed for the playing fields on Station Road. In this configuration, relocating the sheltered accommodation provides more scope for housing – 23 new houses – and laid out with a new street network which integrates well with the existing grain of the village, effectively continuing or completing Chelmsford Way and Chigwell Way. All homes have front and back gardens and off-street parking spaces or garages. Again, the street network could link up to the new square proposed in Figure 2-2. A new green open space is proposed outside Duewell Court and the Memorial Club.



In addition to the land around Duewell Court, there is the opportunity to redevelop the playing fields east of the London Boroughs estate, on Station Road. This site is within CBC ownership although currently leased to Derbyshire County Council. The lease to the County Council restricts its use to playing fields and is renewed on a yearly basis however CBC’s registered title has no restrictive covenants in place.

Figures 2-5 and 2.6 overleaf shows one possible configuration of residential development on this site which could provide between 62 to 89 new homes. Development could be located on the site of the closed allotments at the northeastern end of the playing fields and along the southeastern and northwestern edges, thus retaining a sizeable area of the playing fields for community use which would then be better overlooked by residential properties.



2.4.3 Demolition and new build

59% of the respondents to the questionnaire (handed out at the first residents’ drop-in session) thought that some current properties could be replaced with new ones. Whilst this is not a significant sample and whilst the stock condition survey did not suggest that any properties were structurally unsound, it was considered useful to look at a more radical option of redevelopment within the village to assess both local appetite for such change and the cost implications.

Figure 2-7 illustrates how the 1970s infill development could be redeveloped to restore the street pattern and housing form seen in the original layout of Barrow Hill, as envisaged by Richard Barrow. This type of property rather than the original block houses have been selected for demolition as the block houses are considered to preserve the original character of the estate, and because the introduction of this type of property has created some of the main issues surrounding the design and layout of the estate as it stands today.

We have shown one possibility for the row between the block houses on Campbell Drive and Southgate Way, which could be replicated across the London Boroughs estate. This particular configuration replaces 30 existing units with 43 new units, including 17 houses and 26 new apartments.

The redevelopment would provide new homes with front gardens and off-street parking facing the block houses which back onto Southgate Way. Back gardens would face onto those of the block houses along Campbell Drive.

A new street would be created between the new houses and the southern row of block houses, providing vehicular access for residents to their homes from Campbell Drive in the west and north. The street would not be a through-road however, given changes in topography across the site. Properties at the western end of the street would be accessed via Campbell Drive to the west and the westernmost access point from Campbell Drive in the north; properties at the eastern end of the new street would be accessed from a single entry route at the eastern end of Campbell Drive. New pedestrian routes would be created along the new street and also via a limited number of northeast-southwest routes between the properties. Trees would also be planted along the southern side of the new street. It is anticipated that this could help to reduce some of the pressure on parking in this part of the London Boroughs estate.


Options Report - Barrow Hill, Chesterfield August 2011 15

2.5 Testing of initial proposals with residents The proposals above were presented at a second residents’ working group session held at Duewell Court on 8th June 2011 and the advantages and disadvantages of each were discussed. Nine residents attended this session with all but one having attended the previous session. Of the nine residents, one councillor attended in their capacity as a resident; two additional councillors also attended.

Although the sample size of residents is statistically insignificant, it is recognised as a useful indicator of some of the views that local people will have. It is envisaged that following the conclusion of this study, CBC will undertake further consultation with a wider section of the village’s residents after having considered this study’s recommendations.

2.5.1 Environmental improvements

Table 2-1 sets out the working group’s views on this proposal which focus on the issues around parking and the gardens and boundary treatments of the gardens. It was acknowledged that a more radical solution for parking around Traffic Terrace was not possible due to the private ownership of properties in that area.

Table 2-1 Pros and cons of the environmental improvements proposal

Pros Cons If parking spaces are allocated to

residents, this would be used by residents and could help alleviate existing parking problems

Gives people new gardens Provides a new play space at the heart

of Barrow Hill

No point of having a car port (at Midland Terrace) – have a car park instead

Some residents have had garages at the

Midland Terrace site for a long time –there may be opposition to a car park

Implementing this proposal could reduce

chances of something bigger happening later (e.g. the more radical demolition and new build option)

New gardens/fencing could look messy if owner-occupiers do not want to do anything with their gardens/fencing

Could lose one or two parking spaces by

Woodford Way with the introduction of a new shared surface/play street

2.5.2 Infill development

Table 2-2 below sets out the group’s views on infill development around the Duewell Court site at the heart of the village, on the version which retains Duewell Court in its current position and on the alternative where Duewell Court is demolished and rebuilt further. Whilst the benefits of more housing and cross-subsidy for the environmental proposals were recognised, it was also noted that the loss of parking could provide an issue by some participants.



Table 2-2 Pros and cons of the infill development proposal around Duewell Court (Options B1 and B2)

Pros Cons

More local housing Financial benefit Removes eyesore of parking by the

Memorial Club/medical centre

Could cause parking problems for users of the medical centre, club and for residents who use this car park at present

In terms of development on the playing fields, residents were concerned about the potential impact on health, recreation and existing residents’ views but were also positive about the benefits that development could bring.

Table 2-3 Pros and cons of the infill development proposal on the playing fields

Pros Cons Pleasing to the eye compared to what is

there now Income No housing to knock down Safer play space because it is

overlooked (by new homes) Could more housing generate more

demand for better bus services?

Impact and loss of the recreational space Possible opposition of residents on

Station Road to housing development on the western edge – or could they be bungalows instead (to reduce impact on views)?

Next to an old landfill site – potential

health implications? Planning difficulties – is there a covenant

on the land? (see Section 2.4.2 – there are no restrictions on CBC’s title to this land)

2.5.3 Demolition and new build

This proposal was well received by the participants, more so than other proposals, with residents recognising the many potential housing and environmental benefits, whilst also acknowledging that the cost of this proposal could be prohibitive. It did however indicate the appetite for more radical changes within Barrow Hill.



Table 2-4 Pros and cons of the demolition and new build proposal

Pros Cons Accessibility to houses Better housing types Traditional street Front and back gardens Better housing mix – 1st time buyers,

owners, Council tenants Better street design – fewer alleys Preserves character of village Better parking Possibility of more logical street

numbering/naming for properties than at present

Front of existing houses have the new road right up to their front doors

Potential loss of community when people

are moved out during the building/construction process

Finance? Not necessarily attractive to developers?



3 Detailed testing of the proposals

3.1 Refining the proposals Taking into consideration the comments made by the working group, a number of amendments were made to the initial proposals presented in the previous chapter.

3.1.1 Duewell Court

Given the concerns regarding the potential loss of parking for the medical centre, Memorial Club (particularly when there are functions on) and some existing residents, a more scaled-back configuration of new infill development was proposed, with just 10 new dwellings instead of 17-23 new houses (depending on whether Duewell Court is retained or demolished). This is shown below in Figure 3-1 with six houses west of Duewell Court and four east of Duewell Court facing the existing access road. This would have the advantage of retaining the open space at the heart of the village, although this is currently under-utilised and ill-defined as a public or private space.

The earlier proposals for infill development around Duewell Court included a new shared surface street to connect with the main shared surface street proposed as part of the environmental improvements for new streets and spaces. However, in the refinement of the proposals, the main shared surface street has been removed to assess the impact on viability (see Table 3-1).



3.1.2 Station Road playing fields

Given the concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on existing homes on Station Road which currently back onto the playing fields, the proposal has been refined to remove the proposed housing on the western edge of the playing fields. This would have the advantage of ensuring that there is sufficient room for say, two football pitches for local residents on the playing fields, to counter arguments against the loss of recreational space.

It should be noted that the allotments would need to be relocated elsewhere within or around the village’s boundaries but that an exact location is not within the remit of this particular study.

3.1.3 Demolition of all 1970s infill development and replacement with new homes in the London Boroughs estate

Given the positive feedback on the example demolition which was presented to the residents’ working group, it was felt that it would be useful to test how much this large scale transformation would cost if rolled out across all the 1970s infill development across the London Boroughs estate. It should be noted that there was only one potentially affected resident in the working group; more detailed engagement with all potentially affected residents would need to be undertaken if CBC decided to seriously consider this option.



3.2 Appraising the proposals

3.2.1 Financial appraisals

Table 3-1 on the following pages presents a summary of our financial analysis of the above proposals.

We have assumed, from our understanding from CBC officers, that given the scale of Council stock in Barrow Hill, that a lower level of affordable housing may be considered acceptable for any new developments with the London Boroughs estate in particular. This is reflected in our sensitivity testing for new development under proposals B and C.

The analysis considers the capital costs to provide public realm improvements and affordable housing only and offsets this against receipts that might be generated from the sale of land to a developer, for example, in the case of the playing fields where it assumed that the build costs are borne by the developer. This simple calculation approach assesses the indicative viability of the proposals and does not constitute a full development appraisal. The purpose of this indicative appraisal is to indicate where options are likely to be more or less viable.

The base case, or starting point, is the cost of achieving Decent Homes standards for all CBC properties in Barrow Hill. Our understanding from the Council’s stock condition surveyors is that this would be up to £5.8million over the next 30 years.



Table 3-1 Summary of financial analysis of proposals

Option Build cost Other costs1

TOTAL COSTS

Revenue Surplus /

Deficit Notes and assumptions

A – Environmental improvements

A1 (i) – New routes and play area (excluding shared surface street and square by Southgate Way)

£1,122,500 0 £1,122,500 0 -£1,122,500

Includes the new parking areas at Midland, Allport & Traffic Terraces Excludes traffic calming on Station Road as it assumed that there is funding available for this from the remaining Avonside Close s106 monies (traffic calming is estimated at around £80,000)

A1 (ii) – New streets and open spaces (including shared surface street and square by Southgate Way)

£1,790,000 0 £1,790,000 0 -£1,790,000

A2 – New gardens and walls £1,260,000 0 £1,260,000 0 -£1,260,000 Assumes new brick walls for gardens rather than wooden fencing or railing

A1(i) & A2 combined (excluding shared surface street & square by Southgate Way)

£2,912,500 0 £2,912,500 0 -£2,382,500

A1(ii) & A2 combined (including shared surface street & square by Southgate Way)

£3,050,000 0 £3,050,000 0 -£3,050,000

B – Infill development

Duewell Court

B1 (i) - 17 new dwellings and remodelling around Duewell Court (nil affordable housing)

£2,100,000 £420,000 £2,520,000 £1,800,000 -£720,000

Retention of Duewell Court as is 2 x 3bed private houses; 13 x 2bed private houses; 2 x 4bed private houses

B1 (ii) - 17 new dwellings and remodelling around Duewell Court (20% affordable housing)

£2,100,000 £420,000 £2,520,000 £1,675,000 -£845,000

Retention of Duewell Court as is 12 x 2bed private houses; 2 x 4bed private houses 2 x 3bed affordable houses; 1 x 2bed affordable houses

1 decant tenants, private acquisitions, overheads & developers’ profit



Table 3-1 Summary of financial analysis of proposals (continued)


TOTAL COSTS

Revenue Surplus /


B2 - Demolition and reprovision of Duewell Court with 23 new additional dwellings (20% affordable housing)

£4,860,000 £1,014,000 £5,874,000 £4,085,000 -£1,789,000

Reprovision of 27 sheltered units at Duewell Court 22 x 2bed private flats; 11 x 2bed private houses; 7 x 3bed private houses 6 x 2bed affordable flats; 3 x 2bed affordable houses; 2 x 3bed affordable houses

B3 (i) – 10 new dwellings and remodelling around Duewell Court (nil affordable housing)

£909,967 £181,994 £1,091,961 £1,020,000 -£71,961 Retention of Duewell Court as is 1 x 3bed private units; 9 x 2bed private units

B3 (ii) – 10 new dwellings and remodelling around Duewell Court (20% affordable housing)

£909,967 £181,994 £1,091,961 £946,000 -£145,961

Retention of Duewell Court as is 7 x 2bed private units; 1 x 3bed private units; 2 x 2bed affordable units

Station Road playing fields

B4 (i) – 83 new dwellings (nil affordable housing)

£0 £0 £0 £0 £1,245,000 Site size of 2.44ha (6 acres) Land value only

B4 (ii) – 83 new dwellings (20% affordable housing)

£0 £0 £0 £0 £990,000 Site size of 2.44ha (6 acres) Land value only





Option Build cost

Other costs3

TOTAL COSTS

Revenue Surplus /


C – Demolition of 1970s dwellings and new build

Redevelopment of 1970s dwellings on Southgate Way only

C1 (i) – Demolition of 30 dwellings and construction of 43 new dwellings (nil affordable housing)

£4,040,000 £990,000 £5,030,000 £3,880,000 -£1,150,000

Nil provision of affordable housing is not considered realistic given the high proportion of Council tenants on this row but is included for purposes of comparison only Assumes a mixture of 3- and 4-bed houses

C1 (ii) – Demolition of 30 dwellings and construction of 43 new dwellings (20% affordable housing)

£4,040,000 £990,000 £5,030,000 £3,618,000 -£1,412,000

20% provision of affordable housing is not considered realistic given the high proportion of Council tenants on this row but is included for purposes of comparison only Assumes a mixture of 3- and 4-bed houses

C1 (iii) – Demolition of 30 dwellings and construction of 43 new dwellings (56% reprovision of affordable housing)

£4,040,000 £990,000 £5,030,000 £2,482,000 -£2,548,000

Assumes that 80% of all existing Council tenants will be rehoused here with 20% naturally moving away or choosing other areas to live, so 24 units are affordable (or 56% of new dwellings) Assumes a mixture of 3- and 4-bed houses






TOTAL COSTS

Revenue Surplus /


Redevelopment of all 1970s dwellings on the London Boroughs estate

C2 (i) – Demolition of all 1970s dwellings and replacement with new dwellings (nil affordable housing)

£12,564,400 £2,512,880 £15,077,280 £12,066,800 -£3,010,480

Nil provision of affordable housing is not considered realistic given the high proportion of Council tenants on this row but is included for purposes of comparison only Assumes a mixture of 3- and 4-bed houses Excludes the cluster of properties in the southwestern corner of the estate due to the high level of private ownerships here Uses C1 as a proxy

C2 (ii) - Demolition of all 1970s dwellings and replacement with new dwellings (20% affordable housing)

£12,564,400 £2,512,880 £15,077,280 £11,251,980 -£3,825,300

20% provision of affordable housing is not considered realistic given the high proportion of Council tenants on this row but is included for purposes of comparison only Assumes a mixture of 3- and 4-bed houses Excludes the cluster of properties in the southwestern corner of the estate due to the high level of private ownerships here Uses C1 as a proxy

C2 (iii) - Demolition of all 1970s dwellings and replacement with new dwellings (56% reprovision of affordable housing)

£12,564,400 £2,512,880 £15,077,280 £7,719,020 -£7,358,260

Assumes that 80% of all existing Council tenants will be rehoused here with 20% naturally moving away or choosing other areas to live Assumes a mixture of 3- and 4-bed houses Excludes the cluster of properties in the southwestern corner of the estate due to the high level of private ownerships here Uses C1 as a proxy




All of the proposals, aside from the residential development on the playing fields, show significant funding gaps, ranging from -£71,961 up to -£7,358,260. The smallest gap is shown for small-scale remodelling and infill development around Duewell Court, whilst the largest gap is shown for the comprehensive redevelopment of the 1970s infill development on the London Boroughs estate (aside from the southwestern corner – e.g. Balham Court).

On the face of it, it appears that the proposals for infill development around Duewell Court – except for B2 which looks at demolishing Duewell Court and reproviding a similar amount of sheltered accommodation on this site - would be the least expensive options (and therefore most viable), although the overall, wider benefits of this proposal are less clear than say those of the proposed environmental improvements or any wide-scale transformation of the 1970s infill development.

However, this is, as mentioned previously, not a clear cut case of selecting one proposal or ‘option’ above any of the others. If we consider the proposals in combination with one or more of the other proposals, it is possible that a ‘break even’ scenario (or surplus) could be achieved. For example, the development of entirely private housing on the playing fields could raise sufficient revenue to fund the proposed environmental improvements to the London Boroughs estate, although only for the new routes and play space (not the shared surface street and new public square by Southgate Way), and also the parking improvements up at Allport, Midland and Traffic Terraces.

The next section looks at a wider evaluation of the proposals against a range of criteria before any recommendations are suggested in the following chapter.

3.2.2 Wider evaluation of proposals

In conjunction with the financial appraisals and consideration of the feedback from the second residents’ working group, Table 3-2 overleaf sets out a high-level evaluation of the broad groups of proposals against a range of criteria. These are largely drawn from the objectives introduced at Section 2.1 of this report and from the Local Investment Plan. In the table:

Green = fully meets the criterion

Yellow = partially meets the criterion

Red = fails to meet the criterion



Table 3-2 Wider appraisal of proposals

It is clear from this that no one single category or groups of proposals meets all the criteria, and that only B4 Development on the Playing Fields is considered deliverable and fundable based on our financial appraisals.

A: Environmental improvements

B1-3: Infill development at Duewell

Court

B4: Development on the playing

fields

C: Demolition of 1970s infill development

Meets Decent Homes standard N/a Makes best use of Borough Council land and assets Considers existing & future tenants’ needs, including vulnerable groups including amenity space and community facilities

Promotes a sustainable housing mix with a range of tenure and housing types

Creates new economic and social opportunities for residents

Improves overall quality of living environment for current and future residents

Ensures that residents can capture benefits from planned regeneration at Staveley Works

Addresses principal design/layout issues

Preserves character of the London Boroughs estate N/a

Achieves widespread resident support

?? ?? ?? ??

Has broad support of the Resident Working Group Deliverable and fundable in isolation of other proposals

Deliverable and fundable as part of package with other proposals



4 Summary and next steps

4.1 Summary of findings The report has reviewed a range of proposals for addressing the issues faced by the residents of Barrow Hill. These range from environmental improvements to large-scale demolition and transformation of the London Boroughs estate. The Council now needs to make decisions that will be informed by the findings and recommendations set out below.

The most comprehensive way of addressing Barrow Hill’s issues is by demolishing and rebuilding the 1970s infill development within the London Boroughs estate. However, delivering this proposal is the most financially unviable of all the proposals, despite its positive returns in terms of wholesale transformation of the area, and would need to be tested through an intensive programme of detailed consultation with residents.

Complete demolition and new build of all the 1970s properties across the estate is estimated to have a funding gap of between £3million and £7.7million. The lower figure is derived from 100% private housing and the higher figure is derived from affordable reprovision for 80% of existing tenants. To ensure that as many of the residents as possible benefit from any regeneration proposal, and to ensure there is a stronger sense of coherence and unity in the layout of the village, it would only be worth pursuing the large-scale transformation rather than partial transformation of just one part of the estate.

Given the size of the likely funding gap, it is highly unlikely that this could be met through available sources of funding, but it may be possible to harness some Decent Homes funding.

This proposal would require detailed consultation over a period of several months with residents to gauge their views and thoughts on such a transformation of the estate although viable funding sources would need to be assessed prior to undertaking further consultation.

New residential development on the Station Road playing fields could generate a surplus of between £990,000 to £1.25 million depending on level of affordable housing provision, plus additional funding via New Homes Bonus. This could be used to help fund environmental improvements across the village.

This combination of proposals and potential cross-subsidy appears to be the most financially viable way forward for achieving two of the main objectives of improving the quality of the living environment for existing residents, as well as increasing the tenure mix of the village as a whole increasing the amount of new private housing.

Delivering part or all of the proposed environmental improvements would improve the village significantly, particularly the London Boroughs, but funding this alone would be difficult.

We consider that within the environmental improvements proposed, the new gardens and walls would achieve more of a step change in terms of transforming the quality of life for existing residents, than the new routes and play area. The new gardens and walls would have a funding gap of £1.26million; the new routes and play area, £1.12million. Together, the funding gap would be £2.9million if we exclude the shared surface street and new public square on Southgate Way.



Without cross-funding from new development elsewhere in the village, it would be hard for CBC to meet any single element or both elements as Decent Homes funding is not eligible for this type of environmental improvement.

Duewell Court should be retained as it is in its current location with the potential for some infill development around it.

Our appraisal of proposal B2 suggested that the cost of demolishing Duewell Court and building new sheltered accommodation would be greater than the potential revenue, even with 23 additional houses built. However, by retaining Duewell Court and building 10 new houses on the site with nil affordable housing provision, a smaller and more manageable funding gap of £71,961 - or £145,961 with 20% affordable housing - is anticipated. This could help to fund other proposals such as the wider environmental improvements.

Doing nothing is also a costly option.

If none of the proposals set out in this report are progressed or delivered, the Council’s stock condition survey indicates that up to £5.8million would still need to be spent on Council-owned stock in Barrow Hill over the next 30 years, for catch up repairs, future major works, improvements and contingent major repairs related the requirement to achieve the Decent Homes standard.

4.2 Moving towards a recommended proposal Bearing in mind the above, we would recommend that the proposed environmental improvements (particularly the new gardens and walls elements) are pursued in combination with new homes on the playing fields. This would:

Deliver 83 new houses on the eastern edge of playing fields and closed allotments

This would still leave a large area for recreation, including sufficient space for two football pitches, and would mean that the play area can remain in its current location. It would also help make the play area safer with more houses near by to provide natural surveillance. New development would be on the eastern side of the site only so that existing houses which back on to the playing fields would remain unaffected. It would also cross-subsidise improvements to the existing Barrow Hill housing and environment, as outlined below.

Deliver new front and back gardens and walls for the London Boroughs

New front and back gardens could be provided for many properties in the London Boroughs. This would see the sometimes problematic ‘leftover’ spaces between properties turned into gardens for existing tenants and new brick walls replacing neglected wooden fencing for these gardens, helping to improve the quality of the environment in the estate. Discussions would need to be held with owner occupiers to see if they are willing to take part in the improvements and contribute. This would also help to ensure that properties with smaller gardens can have larger ones, particularly family homes. The works to the Council stock could be done for a figure approximate to the receipt that the Council could receive for the housing on the edge of the playing fields, assuming that all of the new units are for private sale (if 20% of the new housing is affordable, there will be a funding shortfall of around £270,000).



Depending on funding becoming available, it would also be desirable to implement the following two proposals:

New parking areas for Allport, Midland and Traffic Terraces

The new parking areas for Allport, Midland and Traffic Terrace could cost an additional £35,000.

Traffic calming

In addition, we would recommend that the Council seek to unlock the remaining s.106 monies from the Avonside Close development to implement traffic calming measures for Station Road between the school and closed allotments (estimated to cost around £80,000).

Improvement to footpaths and access routes, new parking courts and a new play area for the London Boroughs

This package could cost up to £1.12million.

We would also recommend that the Council considers:

Leaving Duewell Court as it is and that no infill development takes place around the building, unless any adjacent land becomes available for development – e.g. car park, communal heating plant, Memorial Club or adjacent residential property. Only then should infill development or reconfiguration of this site be considered as it is then more likely to be a more attractive market proposition.

The Council considers balancing what it might receive in Decent Homes funding for works required on its stock in the London Boroughs (estimated to cost £5.8million), against the funding gap of £7.36million expected for the large scale transformation of the 1970s properties in the London Boroughs estate.

4.3 Next steps It is now for the Council and its partners to progress the project through a series of steps. These include:

Maintaining engagement with residents

We have engaged once with a wider group of residents at the drop-in session and met twice with the more focused, self-selected residents’ working group. The latter have in particular informed our recommendations as presented in this report. However, further more widespread and detailed engagement with residents is critical, as this report only represents the initial stage of Barrow Hill’s regeneration.

Taking the necessary political decisions

There are a number of key decisions to be made such as:

What is the Council’s preferred way forward?

Is there an appetite for the large-scale transformation and demolition proposed in this report of the 1970s infill development?

Is it acceptable to sell sites like the playing field or land around Duewell Court for housing to help pay for regeneration? Developing on part of the playing field/former allotments would not be in alignment with the existing local planning



policy. If development here takes place, it would be expected that the lost facilities are reprovided locally.

Would the Council consider investing in additional, adjacent land if it becomes available e.g. the Memorial Club or the adjacent residential property on Station Road, which could be used for a more comprehensive infill development scheme?

Can the Council commit to meaningful long-term engagement with the community? What are the next steps involving engagement with the residents’ working group and the wider community?

What resources can the Council commit to the regeneration of Barrow Hill?

Is there potential for a Neighbourhood Plan to be drawn up, under the auspices of the Localism Bill?

Engaging with delivery partners

We have held discussions with potential development partners such as private and publicly owned housebuilders, developers/contractors specialising in housing regeneration and Registered Social Landlords, who are all active in the regional market.

The key issues to successfully engaging with a development partner is for the opportunity to be of a sufficient scale, with small piecemeal sites of around 6-8 units less likely to attract any interest. Where a package of sites within Barrow Hill can be assembled that can encompass private sale and some element of intermediate and affordable housing, this will spread the risk over the different sectors and will be of more interest to a partner.

We would expect that Proposal C2 (iii) which looks at demolition and new build for all the 1970s infill development could be of some interest to a partner if long-term public sector funding could be made available, although the funding gap is still very considerable.

Infill development at Duewell Court (Proposals B3(i) and B3(ii)) may not prove to particularly attractive to the private sector in isolation, unlike development on the playing fields, as the unit numbers are low. Development on the playing fields is likely to generate more interest from developers given the anticipated unit numbers.

Confirming potential funding sources

During the past two decades, schemes such as those being explored for Barrow Hill have been largely dependent on Government funding. Public funding of regeneration is much harder to come by now than it has been over this period, making regeneration harder to achieve.

There are, however, some Council sources of funding, including Neighbourhood Action Plan funds, and there is a strong case for Barrow Hill to be a priority for these.

The Council will also need to make the positive decision to retain any funds that are generated by the sale and/or development of local land assets, including New Homes Bonus, so that they can indeed be used for the regeneration of Barrow Hill. It would be a shame, for example, for development to occur on the Station Road playing fields without existing residents benefitting directly from it. In addition, funds will be needed to reprovide any lost facilities, or invest in similar ones elsewhere.



Appendix – Financial appraisal tables

Option A Environmental improvements

£CostsA1: Streets and spaces 1,790,000

A2: Gardens and walls 1,260,000

Grand total 3,050,000

Costs taken from Gleeds

Option B1 (0% Aff. Hsg.) £

Option B1 (20% Aff.Hsg) £

Costs CostsNew build - 17 new units 2,100,000 New build - 17 new units 2,100,000

OH& Profit @ 20% of new build cost 420,000


Sub total Sub total

Total Cost 2,520,000 Total Cost 2,520,000

Value Value2 x 3bed@£120k 240,000 Private13 x 2 bed@£100K 1,300,000 12 x 2 bed@£100K 1,200,0002 x 4 bed@£130k 260,000 2 x 4 bed@£130k 260,000Total Value 1,800,000 Affordable

2 x 3bed@£76k 152,000

Deficit -720,000 1 x 2 bed@£63k 63,000

Total Value 1,675,000

Deficit -845,000




Costs CostsDemolition of Duewell Ct. & site clearance. New build 28x 2bed flats,14x2 bed and 9x3 bed houses 4,860,000

Demolition of Duewell Ct. & site clearance. New build 28x 2bed flats,14x2 bed and 9x3 bed houses 4,860,000



Decant tenants- 28@£1500 each 42000



Value Value28 x2bed flats@£70k 1,960,000 Private14 x 2 bed@£100K 1,400,000 22 x2bed flats@£70k 1,540,0009 x 3 bed@£120k 1,080,000 11 x 2 bed@£100K 1,100,000Total Value 4,440,000 7 x 3 bed@£120k 840,000

Affordable

Deficit -1,434,000 6 x2bed flats@£44k 264,0003 x 2 bed@£63K 189,0002 x 3 bed@£76k 152,000Total Value 4,085,000

Deficit -1,789,000




Costs CostsNew build - 10 new units 909,967 New build - 10 new units 909,967



Sub total Sub total


Value Value1 x 3bed@£120k 120,000 Private9 x 2 bed@£100K 900,000 7 x 2 bed@£100K 700,000

1 x 3 bed@£120k 120,000Total Value 1,020,000

Affordable

Deficit -71,961 2 x 2 bed@£63k 126,000

Total Value 946,000

Deficit -145,961


Option C1 (0% Aff. Hsg.) £

Option C1 (20% Aff.Hsg) £

Option C1 (56% Aff.Hsg) £

Costs Costs Costs

Acquistion of 2 private houses - assumed 2 bed @£70k each (inc.10% home loss) 140000






Demolition of 30 units & site clearance. New build 26x 2bed flats,15x3 bed and 2x4 bed houses 4,040,000






Total Cost 5,030,000 Total Cost 5,030,000 Total Cost 5,030,000

Value Value Value

26 x 2bed flats@£70k 1,820,000 Private Private15 x 3 bed@£120K 1,800,000 21 x 2bed flats@£70k 1,470,000 10 x 2bed flats@£70k 70,000

2 x 4 bed@£130k 260,000 2 x 4 bed@£130K 260,000 2 x 4 bed@£130K 260,000

Total Value 3,880,000 12 x 3 bed@£120k 1,440,000 7 x 3 bed@£120k 840,000

Affordable Affordable

Deficit -1,150,000 5 x 2bed flats@£44k 220,000 16 x 2bed flats@£44k 704,000

3 x 3 bed@£76K 228,000 8 x 3 bed@£76K 608,000Total Value 3,618,000 Total Value 2,482,000

Deficit -1,412,000 Deficit -2,548,000

URS Scott Wilson6-8 Greencoat PlaceLondonSW1P 1PLUnited KingdomT +44 (0)20 7798 5000F +44 (0)20 7798 5001

www.scottwilson.com

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and con� dential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

© Scott Wilson Ltd 2009

enabling works barrow hill, chesterfield 1.pdf · tiles on pitched roofs, and installing/replacing...

Documents