• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • John Turnbull elected president of the SLT

    May 12, 2022

  • Pension pool identifies biodiversity as a priority

    May 11, 2022

  • TfL latest to face credit-rating downgrade by Moody’s

    May 10, 2022

  • Government proposes ‘fairer, more accurate’ business rates system

    May 10, 2022

  • Queen’s Speech confirms planning reforms

    May 10, 2022

  • 18,000 affordable houses lost through ‘permitted development’

    May 9, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Local asset backed vehicles: controversial but “one of the few options” to tackle the housing crisis

0
  • by Guest
  • in Blogs · Development
  • — 19 Feb, 2018

Photo: Photo-Mix/Pixabay, CC0

Political pressure may have ended Haringey’s local asset backed vehicle but, Anthony Breach argues, if councils want to address the housing crisis the structure remains a potent weapon.

The collapse of the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) has been the subject of breathless political reporting and countless twitter threads, but the implications for local government funding have received much less attention.

The fact remains that local asset backed vehicles (LABVs) — of which the HDV is the most famous example — are one of the few options currently open to local authorities that have the sufficient scale to tackle their housing crises.

Councils are limited in terms of powers or resources with which to free up land and finance for new housing — an issue which has largely been absent from the public debate around the HDV. How can councils address their local housing crisis when they have no cash and their ability to borrow against their housing revenue account is capped — even if they own large assets in the form of valuable city centre land?

For example, although Southwark Council owns 43% of the land in its borough and has 11,500 families on its housing waiting list, it has seen central government funding fall by £116m.

In this context, partnering with the private sector through LABVs is one of the few ways local authorities can secure the investment they need to increase their supply of residential or commercial space, while still retaining a say over the direction and development of their land. A recent Centre for Cities report shows how councils can use LABVs to drive inclusive economic growth in their areas.

This is exemplified by Slough Urban Renewal, which has built hundreds of new affordable homes with 2,000 more planned, a library, and a new ground for the local football team. These inclusive goals are combined with how Slough’s LABV is using council land for investment into hotels, restaurants, and other commercial projects, creating additional revenue income for the council.

But while there are around 20 LABVs which have worked well up and down the country, they do carry some risk — and crucial to the mechanism of LABVs has always been the sharing of that risk between the public and private sector.

Indeed, the HDV is not the first LABV to fail. The Croydon Urban Regeneration Vehicle was dismantled by Croydon Council after the 2014 local elections changed the colour of the leadership from Conservative to Labour. Although the HDV is the first LABV that collapsed due to internal political disagreements within a political party, this political risk has always been present.

Mitigation

To minimise these risks, local authorities considering a LABV need to not only secure cross-party support to minimise the chances of a failure like that in Croydon, but also secure a broad coalition to back the scheme within the local community, based on clear consultation and communication.

While some critics of the HDV object in principle to the model of public and private sector partnerships (especially in the post-Carillion environment), many of the concerns of local people arose from uncertainty as to the details of the scheme, such as whether the net amount of social homes would increase or whether council tenants would have right of return.

Addressing these issues head on with legal guarantees might appear to reduce returns for the public and private sector, but in the long run these reduce the political risk to both the specific scheme and broader efforts by local leaders to build and improve housing on council land.

The increase in housing supply is not the only reason why local authorities should consider LABVs. One of the core advantages of LABVs over traditional social housing is that homes let out at social rates by LABVs are exempt from Right to Buy.

This not only protects local authorities from having to sell at a discount new assets on which they have just spent a lot of money, it also has the potential to win support from local residents who want to defend social housing.

Another option for local authorities if they decide not to pursue the LABV route is to set up a wholly owned company (or WOC). It’s implied in the name, but this option gives the council complete control over the development process, and examples include many of the housing companies that local authorities have set up since 2011.

The limitation of WOCs is that, unlike LABVs, they require council financing and expertise in order to deliver high quality developments — both of which are expensive. For councils that lack either, WOCs will struggle to deliver the scale of development needed in order to substantially improve local economic growth or the wellbeing and inclusion of local residents. As an example, while Barking And Dagenham’s WOC has built 600 homes with another 180 under construction, the HDV aimed to build 6,400.

If the context of local government funding and finance changes — perhaps with the abolition of the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap (as the Treasury Committee recommended), or through local leaders gaining increased tax raising powers —the need for LABVs may become less acute.

But until then, local authorities that want to act to address the housing crisis, and the associated social problems it creates for residents, would be wise to consider LABVs while learning the lessons from Haringey.

Anthony Breach is an anlyst at Centre for Cities.

Share

You may also like...

  • 2021 outlook: Knowns and unknowns after a tumultuous year 13th Jan, 2021
  • On the hunt in high yield 24th May, 2021
  • Understanding climate risks in short-dated bonds 24th Sep, 2021
  • Finance chiefs may have to ’embrace the uncertainty’ in financial planning 11th Jun, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 21 hours ago

    ‘Urgent consultation’ issued in response to continuing audit delays: CIPFA and the Local Authority Scotland Accounts Advisory Committee (LASAAC) have announced another “urgent consultation” to consider proposals to address the latest issue that has led… dlvr.it/SQJ0kV pic.twitter.com/s6vw0bnGXO

    Room151 2 days ago

    Bags of capacity – now to housing delivery: HRAs have been freed up and councils are starting to invest, but some remain cautious, writes Steve Partridge. He suggests that a minimum of £10bn of additional borrowing could be[...] dlvr.it/SQDvxk pic.twitter.com/yZmoWzHv6U

    Room151 2 days ago

    Bags of capacity – now to housing delivery room151.co.uk/treasury/bags-…

    Room151 3 days ago

    To Michael Gove: a modest proposal: Conrad Hall has written an open letter to the levelling up secretary suggesting an unusual (and tongue-in-cheek) proposal to help councils predict next year’s government grant. Dear Secretary of State,[...] dlvr.it/SQ9GpX pic.twitter.com/mSX1xgeL8a

    Room151 3 days ago

    Queen’s Speech: an ambitious plan hampered by omissions: Richard Harbord examines the impact of the government’s legislative proposals on councils, and concludes that local authorities expect and need more from central government. However you view the… dlvr.it/SQ8hmP pic.twitter.com/BsnziyNPIO

    Room151 4 days ago

    Insights and inspiration from LGPS leaders past and present: Four current and former LGPS leaders have recently given powerful and insightful interviews as part of the Fiftyfaces podcast, which showcases inspiring investors and their stories. Hosted by… dlvr.it/SQ53lC pic.twitter.com/IRYMFPxdA2

    Room151 5 days ago

    Rate rise represents ‘fastest increase in borrowing costs in 25 years’: Partner Content: CCLA Investment Management’s Robert Evans analyses the rationale for the Bank of England’s latest rise in the Official Bank Rate and assesses the likely outcome of… dlvr.it/SQ33k3 pic.twitter.com/A81yiS1UgN

    Room151 5 days ago

    The Liability Benchmark, very much unloved at the recent Room151 treasury briefing, receives a much more positive assessment from Jackie Shute. There’s ‘no better tool for treasury portfolio management’, she says. #localgov #finance room151.co.uk/treasury/in-pr…

    Room151 5 days ago

    In praise of the Liability Benchmark: Jackie Shute responds to recent criticisms of the framework used to plan the future borrowing requirements of a local authority. I’m not suggesting that this debate will have the same[...] dlvr.it/SQ2cGf pic.twitter.com/4rqXTpHC9A

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Audit
    • Blogs
    • Business rates
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Council tax
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Education
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Governance
    • Graham Liddell
    • Housing
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Infrastructure
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • Levelling up
    • LGPS
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Net Zero
    • Private markets
    • Recent Posts
    • Regulation
    • Resources
    • Responsible investing
    • Richard Harbord
    • Risk management
    • Social care
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Transport
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
    • William Bourne
  • Archives

    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story Whiteman raises question of LOBO litigation and mis-selling
  • Next story Stephen Fitzgerald: Finance teams need resilience and strength in trying times

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares