sub-housing committee | latest major works report

Housing Management and Almshouses Sub-Committee

MONDAY 13 APRIL 2026

GLERA question re leaseholder costs

In advance of the meeting GLERA wrote to all members:

Dear Chair,Deputy Chair and Committee Members

GLERA notes with concern the figures in the report, Agenda Item 13, you will be debating tomorrow.  In Background, paragraph 1 we find the information below:

‘The leaseholder contribution for the whole programme is currently estimated at circa 30% or £70 million.’ 

Paragraph 2 highlights the cost of the work on Golden Lane Estate as £105m. 

This is the first time that leaseholders have seen an indication of their anticipated contribution. We are not clear exactly how many leaseholders there are on Golden Lane Estate but assuming slightly lower than 50% or approximately 250 households this would give an average of £126k per leaseholder, some less but some considerably more. 

After many years of neglect of our homes, unfulfilled promises by the Corporation and the further delays caused by the failure to register all but Great Arthur House as Higher Risk Buildings (HRB’s) this is an enormous figure for leaseholders to have to find. 

Can I request that, at the meeting, you ask for clarity about the figures for Golden Lane Estate leaseholder contributions so that we can ensure that leaseholders are urgently advised about the Corporations expectations. 

Kind regards

Sue Pearson
Chair GLERA 2024/26

Watch from 1:03:25

transcript

1:03:25 | Greg Wade, Head of Major Works, Housing
This paper provides a snapshot overview and a summary of the current position in terms of the Housing Major Works Program, confirms the funding arrangements which were published in December, and outlines the framework for governance and scrutiny in respect of the various boards that we have in place. It also highlights the launch of a raft of new projects this month at our internal DCCS portfolio board, which signify the launch of the new housing major works program for the coming five to six years. The paper also covers the item of restructure of the Major Works Team which is currently underway and we anticipate will be completed by summer.

We’ve also got a section looking at resident engagement and liaison in particular referencing a new the creation of a new Resident Liaison Officer role within the team, and also that will be preceding a traveling road show of the Major Works Team across the entire portfolio over the coming summer months to publicise and promote the Housing Major Works Program.

All residents have received a letter last month detailing what exactly will be happening on their estate and it also provides an outline of an intended delivery program, so residents have an idea of when they can expect those works to take place. Another item of the paper looks at the appointment of multi-disciplinary consultants – so as part of the restructure of the major works team it’s my view that we need that kind of professional technical support to support the project managers through the design procurement delivery process. So the remainder of this year will be spent procuring those services across the raft of new projects and existing ones.

Finally it picks up on the item of portfolio- wide programs. So we’ve got three specific portfolio-wide programs within the overarching umbrella. They relate to estate planned maintenance, fire safety and decent homes which includes kitchen and bathroom renewal within tenanted properties. The core focus of the Housing Major Works Program will be three estates, obviously we’ll be delivering works to the entire portfolio, but Golden Lane Estate, Yorkway and Avondale Square are the particular focus. I think we acknowledge and we recognise that those estates in particular need significant investment over the coming years. Happy to take any questions.

1:05:51 | Peta Caine, Assistant Director, Housing
I just wanted to add, and I think this has been stated before, that the sums in here regarding leaseholder contributions are for the whole program. Just to just to clarify that point.

1:06:13 | Sandra Jenner (Aldersgate, Labour)
I think it’s a good report and you know, you’ve given us confidence. My problem is that the estimate for the leaseholder contribution has gone up by in excess of 20 million from the last number we saw. I’ve raised I think at every meeting where we’ve seen these numbers that we really need to understand better why the number for leaseholders is what it is, and justification, whether there’s any mitigating factors to reduce that because the cost should be borne by the City because of areas of neglect – I’m not saying there are any, just asking the questions – and then how it’s going to fall on leaseholders because I can’t believe, I mean we can all work out the average if we know the number of leaseholders it’s going to affect, but you know, is it going to be disproportionate. Are some leaseholders going to get a gargantuan bill that they can’t possibly ever manage to pay. We need a paper – it’s not about the major works, it’s about this cost and where the money comes from and how it’s justified and making us feel comfortable, we can look our constituents in the eye and say this feels right to us and them seeing suddenly a figure of 70 million is just, I mean is we shouldn’t do it this way.

1:07:50 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour) – Chair
I do feel that we need more of a detailed conversation about how our position is on that. It may be a report next time that we need for this.

1:08:03 | Judith Finlay, Executive Director Community and Children’s Services
We’re happy to bring a report next time. We’ve been engaging with Chamberlain’s and our legal colleagues for some time on this. We’ve just received some legal advice that we’ve yet to digest and we’re considering whether we need to ask for a second legal view just to make sure that we’ve done that nuts and bolts. We’ll be engaging with our Chair and Deputy Chair and other members going forward and then we’ll bring something back to this committee as urgently as possible. We understand the urgency of it. We’ve engaged also with external partners to think about the impact of years of neglect in inverted commas versus what they should pay. Now actually their initial assessment was one counteracts the other actually, takes you to a neutral positions. We’re not quite sure on that. So we’re doing more work, just to obviously we’re doing a lot of work.

1:08:58 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour) – Chair
We shouldn’t go too far into the conversation about this at this meeting, but what we’re being promised is the report at the next meeting either here or CCS, one of them. We should have a report soon about this.

1:09:12 | Deputy Helen Fentiman (Aldersgate, Labour)
I’m not convinced that we should put anything about leaseholder contributions as a total number in these reports because it is different estate by estate. The issues are different estate by estate. So I think for the future, I would probably avoid giving a total number because it just raises too many hairs, people immediately trying to do the calculation, how many homes equals x amount of money, which might be close to reality, it might be way off reality and I think that just adds anxiety for people.

The other thing that I think, and again, Greg it’s helpful to see the report as you’ve written it out, but I think that again for future reports, I think this group needs to know about progress on specific projects. So for example it would be helpful to know how the Golden Lane Renewal Board is working and what feedback we might take from that and what learning there might be for other big projects, and you mentioned Yorkway and Avondale, and is the approach through the renewal board and Golden Lane one that we should replicate in other places. My view is it probably is but let’s think about that estate by estate.

To come back to Golden Lane – it would be helpful if you could give us a comment or two on where the Golden Lane project is and Crescent House House being the first, when is it going to planning, are we on track for that? Just give us a very short update because I know it wasn’t just the purpose of here but I think it would be helpful to have a few more words about the specifics.

1:11:00 | Deputy Ceri Wilkins (Cripplegate) – Deputy Chair
I completely agree with everything Helen said which pretty much covers what I was going to say. I was going to also ask, and I think we discussed it previously, about trying to give feedback from the Project Board and everything that’s happened, so that we can then relay it here. The figures for instance, I mean 30% of 211 million isn’t 70 million and it’s done a lot of scaremongering for residents and I appreciate the City wanting to be forward in obviously giving an idea of figures, but all it has done is created a vast amount of emails which I think we’ve all had a lot of very upset residents, so I think Helen’s possibly right in terms of going forward unless we know a specific, it’s definitely going to be that sum, it probably is better not to do that. But also Greg, by the way, this is a great report so thank you.

1:12:01 | Leyla Boulton (Bassishaw)
My question is to do with the need for these multidisciplinary consultants. Could you explain in a lay man’s language for residents why these people are actually needed to help you and your teams do your jobs thank you.

1:12:17 | Greg Wade, Head of Major Works, Housing
I think in relation to Local Authorities generally they’ve done away with their in-house architectural and design services from maybe 30 40 50 years ago. So what that has formed, part of a trend generally, is that in-house project management departments, such as mine, the one that I manage, procure those services to provide the specialist design and management skills that are needed to deliver these works. So the project managers that sit within my team are responsible for amongst other things handling the governance, monitoring the budget, watching the program, coordinating the various consultants that are needed. But in terms of the actual design skills, the surveying skills, architectural skills, etc those services need to be procured.

And also prior to my arrival, the Major Works Team ran projects themselves in-house, but I think without the necessary skill set to do that i.e. mainly from private practice. I would have concerns about managing that particular aspect in-house, so I think it’s much better to utilise consultants, and then the team to be appropriately experienced in managing those consultants to ensure that they’re performing. So it’s pretty standard across the board for the social housing sector, for local authorities and housing associations to operate in this way. But those type of skills, we don’t actually have them in-house, not within the Major Works Team. We’d need a much bigger team. The cost of management and delivery would be far greater from our perspective without the assistance of those kind of technical professionals.

1:13:51 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour) – Chair
I just want to reinforce two things that I think have already been said in terms of paragraph three where there’s a whole range of meetings that are managing this going forward. We, as a subcommittee ,need to know whether all of these are working in the way that they need to work and if there are any obstacles, any issues, that they come back to the subcommittee. And I would say in paragraph 4, we need to know that officers from other departments of the Corporation are treating this project with the seriousness and the priority that the Chair of Policy and Resources has given to it. And, if at any stage, that is not happening then I think Helen and I, in particular, need to make sure that we’re talking to the Chair of Policy about this because I think he’s very clear that this needs to be given top priority in operation.

1:14:45 | Mark Wheatley (Dowgate)
Just to echo comments from other colleagues about the quality of the report and points on both the balance of transparency and the need to sort of avoid alarming residents, and the granularity on particular estates. But this sort of picks up on your point, Chair, I wonder if we perhaps need a series of regular, perhaps private or otherwise, briefings as this moves forward. And certainly the Director talked about the second legal opinion – I think it’s important to ensure that our legal advice supports our strategic aims and we don’t find that it constrains us, so that we will push back for second opinions, and that our legal colleagues, with all respect to their legal quality and their abilities, serve us and we don’t find ourselves constrained by a legalistic formal and potentially litigious approach to this.

1:15:37 | Judith Finlay, Executive Director Community and Children’s Services
Just to confirm there’s no dispute with our legal colleagues. It’s just belt and braces given the importance of this program. So I want to reassure people and we will bring anything back. By exception, just in terms of managing small group meetings additional, we have, I think that’s where you have to, think about the capacity of the team to manage that. So I’ll ask you to allow us not to do that.

1:16:03 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour) – Chair
As long as you, Judith, bring anything back to us where you think there’s any delay or problem in the system that you’ve set up, I think this subcommittee needs to know about it so we can help you.

1:16:17 | Deputy Helen Fentimen (Aldersgate, Labour)
Just to come back to the planning point, I think you were hoping Crescent House would be at planning committee in May. Is that still the case? And if not, what’s the, you know, why not, basically?

1:16:36 | Peta Caine, Assistant Director, Housing
I think the original planning committee date that we were looking at has been taken over by another large scheme. So I’ve been in contact with planners who were thinking of cancelling a meeting due to take place on the 28th of May and they are now re-considering whether or not that should be cancelled because I have impressed upon them, I hope, the importance of Crescent House going to that planning committee, because otherwise the next planning committee is at the end of June

1:17:15 | Deputy Helen Fentimen (Aldersgate, Labour)
That is exactly why I ask because I mean, I was aware that there was a bit of a tussle to use that word, but this is really important because we cannot have another department give us at least a month’s delay.

1:17:35 | Charles Lord (Farringdon Without)
Chair, I’m just conscious that I’m member of the Planning Committee and can it be recorded that I am not taking part in any discussion about Crescent House

1:17:56 | Deputy Helen Fentimen (Aldersgate, Labour)
Do we need to intervene at all to make sure that there is no action coming from planning department which causes this project a delay of any sort at all?

1:18:07 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour) – Chair
I think it’s exactly the point that we’re trying to make.

1:18:09 | Judith Finlay, Executive Director Community and Children’s Services
Absolutely. You can be reassured that the point of escalation has already happened and that I’ve already alerted you ,which is why you know about it. Peta’s dealing with the Director of Planning and I’ll get involved if need be. So that escalation conversation’s already happening.

1:18:35 | Leyla Boulton (Bassishaw)
Two follow-up questions: how much delay is caused by the need to appoint these consultants and what is the budget for them for this year, and my other point is to do with the leaseholders. Will the paper include leaseholder loans which some residents would like us to revisit. Thank you.

1:18:54 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour) – Chair
Greg will answer the first part. The second part, when we actually have that paper on leaseholders, if we can actually address the issue of how we might enable lease holders to pay their contribution with that as well that would be good.

1:19:08 | Greg Wade, Head of Major Works, Housing
I wouldn’t really refer to it as delay to be honest but I have within the overall program allowed the remainder of this year to appoint consultants and in the letters that have gone out to residents across all of the portfolio they’ve been advised of that fact, that that’s what we’re going to be spending the rest of this year doing. Hence the estimated commencement dates for some of the larger projects isn’t until 2028 moving into 29. So it may seem like some way but in reality that’s what we’re looking at.

And I think my estimation from since joining the Corporation is that it takes at least 2 and a half years to get a project to site from standing start, that’s pretty standard. So I think to indicate anything other than that immediately sets us up for failure and it damages our credibility, and given that I’m just in the process of restructuring the team and relaunching us, is the last thing I want to do. So I think with that information that we’ve shared with residents, we’ve been realistic and we’ve put forward targets which we believe are achievable.

In terms of the budget, normally what you would allow is around 10% of your work’s costs for professional fees. For those blocks which are higher risk buildings, which require further additional specialist services, also for the extent of fire safety work that needs to be undertaken, you’ll probably allow another 5 to 10% on top of that. So some projects can end up being 20% in professional fees, but without having those professionals in place and being able to demonstrate that level of due diligence, the Corporation will be putting itself at risk.

– (auto-generated transcript provided by YouTube, with minor corrections and tidying up)