Memorandum by Housing Services, London
Borough of Hillingdon (AFH 33)
THE DEFINITION
OF "AFFORDABLE"
There is a lack of consistency across the country
in terms of the affordable housing definitions, particularly those
derived from circular 6/98 and PPG3. The definitions offered in
circular 6/98 are particularly wide and can obstruct those boroughs
who seek an emphasis on social rented housing. Furthermore, the
circular does not differentiate between traditional affordable
housing and key worker housing—enabling key worker housing
to be provided by developers instead of social rented housing.
This was the case following the appeal on the Hillingdon Hospital
case where key worker housing was accepted by the Appeal Inspector
in place of social rented housing.
An income based definition of affordability
is used in the Hillingdon Housing Needs and Private Sector House
Condition Survey 2001, which was carried out in compliance with
the DTLR publication "Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide
to Good Practice" (July 2000). This definition is "a
household is unable to afford private sector housing if it has
a gross income less than one third its mortgage requirement and
renting privately would take up more than 30 per cent of net household
income".
For the practical purpose of delivering affordable
housing through the planning process the Council requires affordable
housing to be delivered at rent levels not exceeding Housing Corporation
target rents.
THE SCALE
AND LOCATION
OF THE
DEMAND FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The experience in Hillingdon is fairly typical
of boroughs in London—the demand for affordable housing
far exceeds local supply. At the beginning of May 2002 there were
almost 4,700 households registered with the Council waiting for
affordable housing—about 2,000 of these households are statutorily
homeless and in temporary accommodation—and an additional
1,200 households in affordable housing needing to move to more
suitable homes. From income information provided by these households
less than 2 per cent could afford to meet their housing needs
by buying their home through low cost home opportunities.
The borough of Hillingdon is roughly divided
by the A40 road into the more affluent "north" and less
affluent "south". A significant proportion of existing
affordable housing is provided in the south. The greater demand
for affordable housing is from the south of the borough, though
households in the north are also increasingly finding it difficult
to meet their housing needs on the open market anywhere in the
borough.
In addition an increasing number of "key
workers"—nurses, teachers, police officers, paramedics,
occupational therapists, social workers, public transport workers
to name a few—cannot afford to meet their housing needs
on the open market in Hillingdon or neighbouring boroughs and
require some form of affordable housing.
THE QUALITY
OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
The quality of affordable housing in Hillingdon
is generally good. This is as a result of significant investment
in maintaining the Council's housing stock and the fact that the
greater proportion of housing association (registered social landlord)
housing stock in the borough is comparatively new (less than 12
years old).
There are a few Council and housing association
supported and sheltered housing schemes that provide accommodation
with shared facilities. In addition there are a number of Council
and Primary Care Trust registered care homes that do not meet
the Care Standards Act 2000 requirements. These supported, sheltered
and registered properties require substantial investment, running
into many millions of Pounds, to bring them up to modern, acceptable
and statutory standards.
THE ADEQUACY
OF THE
EXISTING SUPPLY
AND THE
AMOUNT OF
RESOURCES AVAILABLE
In Hillingdon a combination of the loss of 12,000
council homes through the Right to Buy and the provision of approximately
5,000 new housing association homes in the same period has resulted
in a net loss of 7,000 affordable homes since the introduction
of the Right to Buy.
The substantial increase in house prices in
the borough over recent years, far in excess of the rate of growth
in incomes over the same period, means that fewer households can
afford to meet their housing need on the open market. The combination
of property price growth far exceeding income growth and the reduction
in the number of affordable homes has contributed to a significant
homelessness problem in the borough.
For a number of years homeless acceptances have
continued to exceed affordable lettings and low cost home ownership
opportunities available. Typically, in the last few years an average
of 800 households are accepted per annum as homeless and affordable
housing lettings opportunities average at 750 per annum. This
has led to increasing numbers of households placed in temporary
accommodation for extended periods of time, up to four years in
many cases.
The Hillingdon Housing Needs and Private Sector
House Condition Survey 2001 identified a backlog of 2,500 households
in unsuitable accommodation needing to move and unable to afford
market housing. In addition the survey estimates annual newly
arising housing need of 3,275 households also unable to afford
market housing. The Survey concluded that low cost market housing
cannot meet any of this housing need. While shared ownership may
be able to help a fraction of these households for the majority
only affordable rented housing would meet their needs.
Resources available for new affordable housing
provision in 2002-03 are the highest they have been for some time
at £12.7 million Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant,
£3.3 million Local Authority Social Housing Grant and £9
million Housing Revenue Account capital funding. These resources
will provide approximately 210 new affordable homes, substantially
short of the Housing Needs Survey estimate of 2,870 new affordable
homes required per annum to meet housing needs for the five year
period 2001-06.
THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
PLANNING GAIN
CAN FUND
THE LEVEL
OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIRED
The role of the planning system in delivering
affordable housing cannot be underestimated. However, the provision
of affordable housing through development plan policies ought
not be regarded as the only way of delivering new affordable housing.
Whilst local planning authorities will be expected to play a fundamental
role in the delivery of affordable housing, other demands and
pressures need to be addressed through the planning system. New
housing, of any tenure, cannot necessarily be provided at the
expense of other environmental, social and economic considerations.
If government targets on decent and affordable
housing are to be met, it will require a greater level of investment
from government and an acknowledgement that it is unrealistic
to expect the private sector to deliver all of the affordable
housing that is required. Section 106 agreements in Hillingdon
from April 1998 to May 2002 will deliver a total of 821 new affordable
homes (718 for rent and 103 for shared ownership). Though this
is a significant number of homes it is far short of what is required
to meet the need for affordable housing in the borough.
HOW RESOURCES
SHOULD BE
BALANCED BETWEEN
SOCIAL HOUSING
AND OPTIONS
FOR OWNER
OCCUPATION
We believe the lack of an adequate supply of
new homes of all tenures in London and the South East is part
of the reason for the dramatic increase in house prices in the
region. Whilst house building for owner occupation has declined
over the last twenty years, this decline has not been as dramatic
as the decline in number of new affordable homes developed over
the same period. Affordable housing supply in London is at its
lowest since records began over 20 years ago.
Because of the crisis in affordable housing
in the region we would suggest the first priority for any resources
would be to substantially increase the number of affordable rented
homes across the region. We believe a substantial increase in
the supply of affordable rented homes is necessary to meet the
backlog of need in the region. In addition affordable rented accommodation
should be provided for the capital's key workers.
We believe a significant increase in the supply
of affordable rented homes, if not at the expense of the loss
of open market housing, will give home seekers more options to
meet their housing need. It is also likely to have a dampening
effect on house price inflation as there will be fewer households
"competing" for open market housing.
As low cost home ownership schemes are by and
large linked to market values, the provision of low cost home
ownership will meet a very small minority of housing needs at
current property prices. However the Council advocates mixed tenure
developments including affordable rented, low cost home ownership
and open market sale units in the interest of creating diverse
and sustainable neighbourhoods. The provision of a small proportion—no
more than 10 per cent of new affordable housing—of low cost
home ownership opportunities will also provide a degree of choice
to households with moderate incomes seeking to become home owners.
WHETHER TARGETS
IN REGIONAL
PLANNING GUIDANCE
ARE APPROPRIATE
The (minimum) targets in Regional Planning Guidance
Note 9 (RPG9) from 1989 and 1996 have both been comfortably met
in Hillingdon. RPG9(1989) required 8,000 new homes to built between
1987 and 2001—9,071 were completed in Hillingdon between
1987 and 2001; RPG(1996) required 3,900 to be built between 1992
and 2006—4,434 were completed in Hillingdon between 1992
and 2001. Nevertheless whilst these targets have been exceeded,
the fact remains that housing demand continues to outstrip supply
in Hillingdon and across London, for both market and non-market
housing.
The anticipated new targets from the Mayor's
draft London Plan may help to bridge the gap a little more but
if it is the intention of any target to fully match housing demand
and supply, it would require (a) an unprecedented raising of the
targets (b) substantial increases in residential density and (c)
reconsideration of other land uses planning policies. It has to
be decided whether that it is the intention of RPG to bridge the
shortfall between housing demand and supply or whether it is to
be accepted that not all new housing demand can be accommodated
within a particular region.
WHETHER TARGETS
ON DECENT
AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WILL
BE MET
BY CENTRAL
AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
The targets require a substantial amount of
capital investment in housing to have any chance of being met.
At the moment there is no indication that the level of investment
required can be met from existing local and central government
resources and the private sector. There has to be a fundamental
rethink of the process of delivering decent affordable homes in
the region in order to be able to meet the targets.
WHETHER CURRENT
POLICIES AND
PRACTICES ARE
LEADING TO
THE CREATION
OF MIXED
COMMUNITIES
The lowering of planning policy thresholds for
the provision of affordable housing will ensure that more schemes,
regardless of location, will contain a proportion of affordable
housing—and a therefore a greater mix within that community.
Most schemes continue to be 100 per cent affordable housing or
100 per cent market housing; only three schemes out of 38 in 2000
and one out of 39 schemes in 1999 contained a mix of housing of
different tenures. Whilst it is hoped that a lowering of the thresholds
will ensure that more schemes contain a mix of house types and
tenures, it is too early to say that genuinely mixed communities
have been created on a significant scale.
WHETHER MORE
GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT
IS NEEDED
TO MEET
HOUSING NEED
The pressure for housing has to be broken down
into housing need and housing demand. Were there to be a substantial
increase in funding, housing need alone could probably be accommodated
within existing urban areas on previously developed land. However,
it is unhelpful to think of housing need without thinking of housing
demand; housing need (ie those unable to afford to buy or rent
housing on the open market) is inherently linked to housing demand
and the upward pressure on property prices which follows the mismatch
between housing supply and demand simply takes housing costs further
away from those in housing need.
Whether more greenfield development is required
to accommodate this overall housing demand will depend on whether
local planning authorities are able to accept substantially increased
residential densities (and a relaxation of other standards), whether
the market will build at these densities—primarily by building
more flats rather than houses—and whether the brownfield
sites will remain on which to accommodate the new housing.
THE COST
TO INDIVIDUALS,
BUSINESSES AND
THE ECONOMY
RESULTING FROM
ANY SHORTFALL
IN THE
PROVISION OF
DECENT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
We believe the housing crisis in the region,
evidenced by high property prices and high levels of homelessness,
can be linked to number of factors including the economic prosperity
of the region and the reduced supply of affordable housing. There
are many costs associated with the lack of decent affordable housing
and a few are summarised below.
Health
The physical and mental health of the individual
in inadequate housing suffers and as a result an increasing burden
is placed on the health, social and associated services and agencies.
Education
It has been know for some time that children
in unsuitable housing perform less well at school. The global
economy is increasingly reliant on a skilled workforce and we
cannot afford to have a less skilled workforce than other regions
and countries. In addition educational attainment is also hampered
by the inability of schools to recruit and retain skilled teachers
(see below).
Recruitment and Retention
The high cost of open market housing and lack
of affordable housing is creating a recruitment and retention
crisis for many employers, particularly for organisations that
provide a public service including health and social care, education,
public transport, the police and the fire service. Many of these
services are spending significant amounts of money in recruitment
but cannot retain staff as housing costs in the region are prohibitive.
Economy
The continuing prosperity of the region requires
a skilled workforce in both the private and public sectors. The
lack of decent affordable homes has already had an impact on many
organisations' ability to deliver a service. If this situation
continues London may lose its global economic position to cities
in other countries.
This is only a brief submission on the issues
but I hope it is of some use to you. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
| 
