The Large Sites Infrastructure Fund, a recoverable investment fund, provides loans to private developers to fund upfront capital for infrastructure needed to support large developments.

According to Inside Housing:

“The government has today published a prospectus calling for bids for funding under the scheme.

The prospectus said: “Schemes may be ready to go but cannot raise the significant upfront capital that is needed to pay for major infrastructure – roads, bridges, schools, utilities, power supplies – the fundamental structures that need to be in place to support major housing schemes. This has meant many major housing schemes are unable to progress as quickly as needed.”

To be eligible for funding, bidders have to be “private sector partners” and schemes have to be of 1,500 homes or more.

Bidders need to be able to demonstrate local support for the scheme by having outline planning permission or the site designated for development in a Local Plan. Bids need to be accompanied by an investment proposal. Interest rates offered will depend on the Homes and Communities Agency’s assessment of the bidder’s credit-worthiness.

The government is also offering advice and brokerage to help overcome hurdles to building large sites. These services are available to both councils and developers.

UPDATE: 20.10.15 1.14pm

The Department for Communities and Local Government has now confirmed housing associations will also be able to bid for funding under the scheme.”

One of the recurring themes that came up throughout the fundraising review was the role of trustees with regards to the fundraising activities of their charity. In particular, many spoke to the review panel about an insufficient involvement of trustees in the planning of fundraising campaigns, with too much focus on the ‘how much’ and not enough on the ‘how’. Some also raised concerns about the fact that there has been an abdication of values by trustees when it comes to fundraising, allowing a disconnect between the charity’s general ethos and its fundraising.

Accordng to NCVO

“A key part of the report therefore aims to address this issue, and advises trustees on how they can take more ownership of their charity’s fundraising and ensure it is carried out to high standards while avoiding disproportionate burdens.

Existing guidance

Trustees have an overriding duty to act in the interests of the charity. In doing so, they must act prudently, balancing issues of resourcing and potential risks to the charity. Trustees’ duty of care requires that they exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out their responsibilities.

The Charity Commission’s guidance on Charities and Fundraising (CC20) makes it clear that these duties also apply to fundraising, trustees must therefore ensure their charity complies with the law relating to fundraising on all aspects, including:

• fundraising methods
• the costs involved
• the financial risk
• how the money raised is spent.

Furthermore, where members of the public or volunteers are fundraising on behalf of the charity or where the charity employs a professional fundraiser, trustees should ensure that they have proper and appropriate control of the funds. It is important that trustees bear in mind that even when the day-to-day management of fundraising has been delegated to staff or volunteers, trustees still carry the ultimate responsibility.

Lastly, but most importantly, the guidance states that trustees should be aware of whether the proposed fundraising activities correspond with the charity’s values, and it highlights the importance of carefully considering the reputational risks and ethical implications of any method of fundraising.

The Charity Commission has announced that it will be revising and strengthening its fundraising guidance – a draft version is likely to be published for consultation later this month.

New requirements for trustees

Several Government amendments to the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Billcurrently going through Parliament will place new requirements on trustees in relation to their charity’s fundraising.

In particular, trustees will be required to make a statement in their Annual Report each year setting out their approach to fundraising. This should include whether they use commercial fundraisers, and what the charity has done to protect vulnerable people and other members of the public from undue pressure in their fundraising.

It is expected that, by obliging trustees to record their policies in their reports, they will be better informed about fundraising and ensure they have appropriate oversight. This in turn should raise standards and boost a culture of transparency.

Furthermore, Government has announced that it will strengthen its own powers to intervene in fundraising regulation, if malpractice continues to occur and the current system is deemed to have failed.

Fundraising review recommendations

The review has structured its recommendations on a new regulatory regime of fundraising to reflect a ‘three lines of defence’ model. Here, trustees are the first line of accountability for the charity’s fundraising activities and have the responsibility to ensure fundraising is carried out in compliance with the law and adhering to high ethical standards.

Furthermore, the review concluded that fundraising should be regarded as a critical governance issue. This means that trustees should have a strong governance framework in place so that they have strategic oversight of all fundraising activities, including when they are using a professional agency to raise funds on the charity’s behalf.

The report sets out a number of practical steps that trustees should make, including:

• making a statement in the annual report on whether the charity is registered with the new Fundraising Regulator and pays the fundraising levy
• regularly reviewing their charity’s fundraising processes and compliance with the Code of Fundraising Practice, and not simply whether targets have been met
• including fundraising activity on the risk register and managing it accordingly
• regularly inviting their director of fundraising or other responsible staff to attend board meetings and report on activities.

For more recommendations see the full report ‘Regulating fundraising for the future: trust in charities, confidence in fundraising regulation’.”

London’s largest housing association is to help smaller providers replace homes lost through the Right to Buy by offering them a ‘risk-free’ opportunity to purchase new build properties at cost price.

We love this idea.

According to Insisde Housing:

“In the first initiative of its kind on such a scale, 70,000-home L&Q has announced it has set aside an initial £100m to buy and build on public and private sites in London and the South East which can each deliver up to 50 homes each.

L&Q said it will take on all development risk under the Untapped Sites initiative, with small associations able to purchase homes on completion.

Jerome Geoghegan, group director of development and sales at L&Q, said: “This initiative can help smaller housing associations meet their commitment to replace all homes lost through the Right to Buy, mitigate against the loss of local authority homes and replace homes before they are lost.

“We recognise the development challenges that both smaller housing associations and SME developers and contractors face, and L&Q is in a position to assist them.”

Mr Geoghegan said if an association registers an interest, L&Q would then identify potential sites in the area in which it operates.

At no point in the process would providers be required to make a legal commitment to purchase the properties and could opt out at any time.

When this happens, the homes would be offered to other providers or become part of L&Q’s portfolio.

The initiative was welcomed by Richard Blakeway, deputy mayor for housing at City Hall. He said: “L&Q’s plans will help take forward the next wave of housing.”

Mike Wilkins, treasurer at the G320 group of London’s smaller providers, said the initiative could work on a wider scale.

He added: “This makes a lot of sense for people with capital receipts from the Right to Buy extension who do not do development.”

A similar plan in 2013, which relied on 10 smaller providers investing £1m each and L&Q matching the £10m total, was abandoned.

Mr Geoghegan said there was no take-up as the risk was seen as prohibitive to smaller providers. ​

IN NUMBERS: L&Q’s ‘untapped sites’ scheme

£100m – amount initially put aside to buy sites

50 homes – maximum size of sites

70,000 – homes owned by L&Q

221,000 – housing association tenants eligible and about to afford the Right to Buy, according to National Housing Federation research in February”

A further 40 per cent real terms reduction in local government grant funding in the Spending Review would deliver the £10.5 billion knock-out blow to cherished local services, the Local Government Association warns today.

Non-protected government departments have been ordered to draw up savings plans worth, in real terms, 25 and 40 per cent of their budgets ahead of the Spending Review on November 25, which will set out government spending plans for the next four years.

According to an LGA media release 19 October 2015:

“Analysis by the LGA, which represents more than 370 councils in England and Wales, reveals a 40 per cent real terms reduction to core central government funding would be worth £8.4 billion. The same cut to separate local government grants would see a further £2.1 billion lost from council budgets.

This would mean local government losing 64 per cent of its grant funding between 2010 and 2020.

In its Spending Review submission to the Treasury, the LGA has already predicted councils will face almost £10 billion in separate cost pressures, through government policies, inflation and demand, by 2020 even before another penny is taken out of council budgets.

Together with another 40 per cent reduction to funding from central government, this would leave councils facing £20 billion in funding cuts and increased cost pressures by the end of the decade. Local government leaders say this would devastate local services and communities.

To put those figures into context, annual council spending on individual services in 2013/14 include:

Bin collection and recycling – £3.3 billion;
Arts and leisure (libraries, leisure centres, museums) – £2 billion
Road maintenance – £1.3 billion;
Subsidised bus services and free travel for elderly and disabled – £1.7 billion
Street cleaning – £717 million;
Parks maintenance – £690 million;
Street lighting – £530 million
Trading standards, noise, environmental health – £480 million.

The LGA said even if councils stopped providing all of these vital services for their residents, it would still not be nearly enough to plug the potential £20 billion hole in their finances by the end of the decade.

Lord Porter, LGA Chairman, said:

“Councils are under no illusions about the challenge that lies ahead. We know we face almost £10 billion in cost pressures by 2020 even before the prospect of further challenging funding reductions over the next four years.

“What is clear is that another 40 per cent real terms reduction to local government grant funding on top of these cannot be an option on November 25.

“It is a false economy to reduce funding to local government while attempting to prop up other departments.

“Providing councils with fairer funding is the only way to avoid the unintended consequence of other parts of the public sector, such as the NHS, being left to pick up the financial pieces. When making its spending decisions government must consider the huge pressure funding reductions to councils would have not just on vital local services but on the public sector more widely.

“Councils have worked tirelessly to shield residents from the impact of the 40 per cent government funding reductions they have been handed since 2010. However, the resilience of local government services cannot be stretched much further.

“It would be our residents who would suffer as councils are no longer able to deliver some of their statutory duties, like street cleaning and providing the free bus travel that is a lifeline to our elderly and disabled.

“Closing every children’s centre in England would save £700 million but this would only be enough to plug the funding gap facing adult social care for one year. Councils could stop fixing the two million potholes they fill each year to save £600 million by 2020, but this would still not be enough to keep providing free bus travel to elderly and disabled residents.

“These are the difficult decisions councils will be forced to face. Many of the things people take for granted, like clean and well-lit streets, maintained parks and access to leisure centres, will become a thing of the past as a result.”

Additional information

Breakdown of local government core spending (figures in £000s and exclude expenditure on schools and housing benefit).

– See more at: http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/7534443/NEWS#sthash.KV5TP3yB.dpuf “

The Right to Buy may not be rolled out to all housing association tenants at the same time due to funding constraints.

According to Inside Housing:

“A government source told Inside Housing that the “Right to Buy discounts will be subject to the overall availability of funding for the scheme”.

This suggests the scheme may not immediately be available for all 1.3m housing association tenants the government is committed to expanding the scheme to.

Media reports have suggested that the discounts could initially be made available to tenants who have lived in their properties for the longest length of time, but the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) would not confirm this.

Prime minister David Cameron said in a speech earlier this month that “the first tenants can start to buy their homes from next year”, but has not said all 1.3m will immediately be able to benefit from the policy.

The Right to Buy extension is being funded through the sale of high-value vacant council housing as they become empty.

The Conservatives have previously estimated that 15,000 empty, high-value council homes could be sold a year, generating £4.5bn a year to be spent on discounts, replacement council homes and on contributions to a £1bn brownfield regeneration fund. However, the Chartered Institute of Housing has estimated only up to £2.2bn is likely to be raised annually through the sales.

Michael Gelling, chair of the Tenants’ and Residents’ Organisations of England, said it was important that tenants hit by Pay to Stay – under which households earning over £30,000 (£40,000 in London) from April 2017 pay up to market rent – are not “punished for being put in a queue” for Right to Buy. Mr Gelling said those tenants intending to take up the Right to Buy should be exempt from Pay to Stay.

A DCLG spokesperson said: “Our historic agreement with the National Housing Federation will give 1.3m housing association tenants the opportunity to purchase their home at Right to Buy-level discounts. The government will be working closely with the sector on the implementation of the agreement.” “

The chair of Peabody and former head of the civil service, said the original intention under the previous coalition government was to provide Starter Homes on sites not earmarked for housing, and allow developers to receive “an uplift” through relaxed planning obligations.

According to Inside Housing:

“The term ‘affordable housing’ has been rendered useless by the Conservative government’s decision to expand the use of new Starter Homes in planning agreements, the former head of the civil service has warned.

Lord Bob Kerslake, who was permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government when Starter Homes were first proposed under the coalition government, said: “There is no doubt [that the Starter Homes policy] was intended to be focused on using land that had not been designated for housing – a sort of brownfield exception site.

“The policy now is fundamentally different from that. Starter Homes are seen as being instead of, rather than additional to, affordable housing.

“The definition of Starter Homes stretches the definition of affordable housing beyond breaking point. The inclusion of Starter Homes [as affordable] means we will have a definition of affordable that is too broad to be useful – it has, to coin a phrase, been rendered useless.”

The chair of Peabody and former head of the civil service, said the original intention under the previous coalition government was to provide Starter Homes on sites not earmarked for housing, and allow developers to receive “an uplift” through relaxed planning obligations.

However, the Conservatives last March announced that if elected they would allow Starter Homes to be counted as affordable housing in planning agreements. David Cameron went further earlier this month and said councils would no longer be able to insist on affordable rented housing, as opposed to Starter Homes, in planning agreements on any developments.

Lord Kerslake said he supported the deal to extend Right to Buy voluntarily despite his opposition to the original proposal, due to the “clear threat” of reclassification and the potential for inflexible legislation on the issue.”

We liked this on social media from bromford – we think you might too

https://johnbromford.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/a-people-association/?utm_content=bufferada8c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Social tenants will not face an immediate hike to market rents when they cross the Pay to Stay threshold.

In a consultation paper, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said a “gradual increase in rents may be a fairer system”.

High_Income_Social_Tenants_-_Pay_to_stay

According to Inside Housing:

“The policy will be introduced by April 2017, the document says, and confirms it will be introduced through primary legislation.

The scheme, first revealed in the July Budget, will see households earning £30,000, or £40,000 in London, required to pay market rents in social or affordable housing.

Inside Housing first revealed a tapered system was being planned in July, after warnings that a sudden hike in rents could cause serious financial difficulties for tenants.

The consultation, which runs until 20 November, says there are “different options for how this could be implemented” and says there will be “trade-offs between ensuring rent closely reflects income and simplicity and certainty for both the tenants and the landlord”.

It says it would be unlikely that rents will be adjusted frequently, and that it will allow landlords to respond to “changed tenant circumstances” such as “a sudden and ongoing loss of income”.

The document says: “A gradual increase in rent for social tenants as their incomes rise may be a fairer system.

“One way this could be achieved is through a system that would ensure that households earning in excess of minimum income thresholds would pay increasing amounts of rent as income increases, for example in the form of a simple taper.”

The document does not give detailed information about how exactly the taper would work.

It also confirmed local authorities will be required to return the rents to Treasury for “deficit reduction”, but will be allowed to keep some funds to pay for the administration of the scheme.

Housing associations will be allowed to keep the increased rent “to reinvest in new housing”, as well as meeting the costs of administrating the scheme.

The government says it will consider what other powers should be introduced, such as “requiring the provision of information by tenants”.

It also confirmed the income would be measured by household – either a couple’s combined income, or that of the two highest earners.”

“The chancellor made clear in the July budget that he wanted to make progressive choices in the 2015 spending review. This report shows, through detailed analysis of the figures, that he could choose to protect social care, expand free childcare, protect education for 16–19-year-olds, support young people into work, and invest in housing, science, energy efficiency and the northern powerhouse – while still reaching a surplus in 2019/20.

The report also demonstrates that the chancellor could choose to avoid destructive 40 per cent cuts to other public services, such as the police and the courts, by doing two things. First, he could target a slightly lower surplus than the £10 billion he is currently aiming for in 2019/20. Second, he could make modest extensions to three of the tax changes he announced at the July budget: slightly reducing tax relief for the pensions of the richest; aligning capital gains tax for high earners with the new dividend tax rate; and bringing the insurance premium tax closer to the rate of VAT.

The recommendations presented in this report would, if adopted, make government spending more preventative, integrated and devolved, while boosting employment and economic growth. They would also, crucially, leave the UK as well prepared as possible (within the constraints of the government’s fiscal rules) for the economic, demographic and social challenges of the 2020s.

While IPPR does not agree with the rate of spending reduction planned in this parliament, and would prefer a deficit reduction programme that is more responsive to the wider economy and operates over a longer time-horizon, the recommendations presented in this report are nevertheless consistent with the government’s fiscal mandate.

The fully costed recommendations in the report include:

• holding funding constant for the revenue support grant, the public health grant and the Better Care Fund in cash terms, to relieve the pressure that the underfunding of social care is placing on the NHS, and to ensure that rising demands on the care system do not cut too deeply into funding for other local government services
• introducing an entitlement to 15 hours of holiday childcare for an additional 10 weeks of the year, targeted at 2–4-year-olds in families that fall within the poorest 40 per cent of the income distribution, to support employment and improve families’ finances
• protecting 16–19 education on a flat cash-per-pupil basis, to better support school-to-work transitions
• guaranteeing a job for six months, paid at the minimum wage, for all under-25s who have claimed jobseeker’s allowance for more than nine months, to combat youth unemployment and improve skills
• establishing a ‘troubled lives’ programme to join up services around severely excluded adults who use both homelessness and drug and alcohol services, and to act as an exemplar of service integration
• tripling the budget of the Homes and Communities Agency, with the aim of grant-funding the building of approximately 50,000 social rent homes per year, to reduce the housing benefit bill and help solve the housing crisis
• financing the ‘One North’ package of integrated investment in road and rail capacity in the north of England, to put it on course for completion in 2030, thereby driving economic growth
• accelerating investment in energy efficiency measures for low-income households, upgrading a third-of-a-million homes per year with the objective of upgrading all low-income households by 2030
• protecting the science budget, which is vital to UK productivity, economic growth and research and development, in flat cash terms.

Once the difficult task of eliminating the deficit is complete, the settlement outlined in this report can be built upon to prepare the UK for the economic, demographic and social challenges of the 2020s.”