EIR - Affordable Homes Programmes [May 2022]

Freedom of information request

Homes for Londoners: Affordable Homes Programmes

Background

1.    This request relates to a grant application or potential grant application made:

a.    under the Homes for Londoners: Affordable Homes Programmes:

b.    during the period from September 2019 to the present time:

c.    by the following related parties:

d.    in connection with the following prospective developments:

i.    Applicant: Connected Living London (Arnos Grove) Ltd

Development: Car park adjacent to Arnos Grove Station, Bowes Road, Southgate, London N11 1AN

ii.    Applicant: Connected Living London (Cockfosters) Ltd

Development: Car parks adjacent to Cockfosters Station, Cockfosters Road, EN4 0DZ

2.    Both applicants/potential applicants are wholly owned subsidiaries of Connected Living London (BTR) Ltd which is indirectly 49% owned by Transport for London. It is therefore important, given the potential conflict of interest between entities within the GLA Group, that the dispensation of public money is dealt with in an open manner.

3.    Both developments are residential “Build to Rent” schemes, where on completion the homes are let rather than sold. 

4.    This request relates to how the GLA has dealt with, or has indicated that it will deal with, the [potential] grant applications in the light of the following two provisions.

5.    The London Plan; para. 4.11.3 states (my emphasis in red):

Where a developer is proposing a Build to Rent development which meets the definition set out in Part B, the affordable housing offer can be entirely Discounted Market Rent (DMR), managed by the Build to Rent provider and delivered without grant, i.e. entirely through planning gain. As it is not a requirement to be a local authority or a Registered Provider to deliver or manage intermediate rented homes that are delivered without grant, these units can be owned and/or managed by Build to Rent landlords themselves. DMR units should be fully integrated into the development with no differences between DMR and market units.

This provision would appear to indicate that no grant is payable on Build to Rent proposals.

6.    The London Plan; para 4.6.8 states (my emphasis in red):

Currently all intermediate rented products such as London Living Rent and Discounted Market Rent should be affordable to households on incomes of up to £60,000. Intermediate ownership products such as London Shared Ownership and Discounted Market Sale (where they meet the definition of affordable housing), should be affordable to households on incomes of up to £90,000. Further information on the income caps and how they are applied can be found in the Annual Monitoring Report. The caps will be reviewed and updated where necessary in the Annual Monitoring Report. 

The latest Annual Monitoring Report is AMR16 which states at para. 3.89:

On this basis, average housing costs for Shared Ownership and Discounted Market Sale, including service charges, should be no more than £1,311 a month or £303 a week (calculated on the basis of 40 per cent of net income, with net income being assumed to be 70 per cent of gross income of £56,200), the same as in the previous AMR. Similarly, for intermediate rent products average housing costs, including service charges should be affordable by households with an annual income of £41,200, resulting in maximum housing costs of £11,536 a year, which is £961 a month or £222 a week. For London Living Rent, please refer to the rent setting guidance provided on the GLA website. 

According to the developers Viability Assessment submitted with their planning application, all the non-LLR affordable units will be let at rents which exceed the cap of £222 per week.

Information Requested

7.    Has a grant been applied for by the two applicants, for the two developments listed in 1d above?

8.    Has the grant been approved, or an indication been given that it will be approved?

9.    What is the amount of the grant in each case?

10.    If a grant has been granted, or an indication given that it will be granted, how is that justified in the light of the apparent non-compliance with the provisions of the London Plan outlined in 5 and 6 above?

11.    If a grant has not been granted, or an indication given that it will be granted, would it be accepted that it should be rejected for non-compliance with the provisions of the London Plan outlined in 5 and 6 above?