Memorandum by the Greater London Authority
(GLA) (HOM 29)
Enclosed is the Greater London Authority's written
evidence to the ODPM Committee's inquiry on homelessness.
The key points that we would like to highlight
are as follows:
— the Mayor strongly recommends the
Government promotes a regional dimension to addressing the issue
of homelessness;
— the Mayor should play a key role
in the development of a pan-London homelessness strategy, particularly
in view of the enhanced strategic housing role for the Mayor set
out in the ODPM's consultation paper on merging Regional Housing
Boards and regional planning bodies;
— there is a pressing need for a more
co-ordinated approach to the separate capital and revenue funding
streams for tackling homelessness;
— the Government should ensure a continuing
adequate programme of investment in new social housing in London;
and
— the Government needs to place a greater
focus on developing more viable housing options and services for
homeless households, to tackle both housing and broader social
exclusion issues.
Mark Kleinman
Head of Housing and Homelessness
1. SCOPE OF
EVIDENCE
1.1 The Mayor advocates a much stronger
pan-London dimension to tackling homelessness in the capital.
The GLA should play a major role in this, in line with both its
existing responsibilities for spatial planning and Government
proposals to strengthen its strategic role in housing.
1.2 Neale Coleman, the Mayor's Director
of Business Planning and Regeneration, would be pleased to give
oral evidence to the Committee.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 The Mayor strongly recommends the Government
promotes a regional dimension to addressing the issue of homelessness.
2.2 The Mayor should play a key role in
the development of a pan-London homelessness strategy, particularly
in view of the enhanced strategic housing role for the Mayor set
out in the ODPM's consultation paper on merging Regional Housing
Boards and regional planning bodies.
2.3 There is a pressing need for a more
co-ordinated approach to the separate capital and revenue funding
streams for tackling homelessness.
2.4 The Government should ensure a continuing
adequate programme of investment in new social housing in London.
2.5 The Government needs to place a greater
focus on developing more viable housing options and services for
homeless households, to tackle both housing and broader social
exclusion issues.
3. KEY POINTS
3.1 The Mayor supports the requirement of
the Homelessness Act 2002 for local authorities to develop homelessness
strategies, but recommends the Government strengthens the regional
approach to addressing the issue of homelessness. The focus on,
and of, localised homelessness strategies threatens the strategic
focus on pan-London issues and risks the strategic agenda being
dominated by local authorities' concerns and their emphasis on
statutory homelessness. Both housing investment (through the London
Housing Board) and spatial planning (through the Mayor's London
Plan) are already co-ordinated at a regional level, and Government
is at present consulting on proposals to integrate housing and
planning more closely at regional level, following the recommendations
of the Barker Review. However, at present homelessness strategies
and Supporting People strategies are developed entirely at borough
level. There is clearly a contradiction between the Government's
strategic regional approach to housing and the highly decentralised
arrangements for homelessness. Government should do more to ensure
that homelessness strategies and Supporting People strategies
are co-ordinated at a regional level, making use of the Mayor's
planning and housing responsibilities. Such an approach would
ensure that issues of co-ordination, service provision, quality
and need and non-statutory homelessness are not constrained by
borough boundaries.
3.2 The variations in need and demand across
London and the mobile nature of London's population mean that
a pan-London approach is both necessary and resource effective.
This is especially true of supported housing where at borough
level numbers may be small for some types of need. The Mayor has
a key co-ordinating role through his statutory responsibility
for the London Plan, the London Economic Strategy and other strategies,
and through his wider GLA Act responsibilities for social and
economic development, the health of Londoners and promoting equal
opportunities. It therefore makes sense that the Mayor and the
GLA play a key role in the development of a pan-London homelessness
strategy.
3.3 There is a pressing need for a more
co-ordinated approach to the separate capital and revenue streams
for tackling homelessness. New social housing to meet need is
co-ordinated through the regional housing pot and the work of
the London Housing Board. Separately, Government has made available
substantial capital funding to hostels to improve and modernise
conditions. Separately again, revenue support to existing and
new supported housing is delivered through the Supporting People
programme. These (and possibly other) funding streams should be
brought together to maxmise benefit.
The Mayor welcomes the substantial capital funding
for hostels in London. He is, however, concerned that this funding
should be used in the context of a coherent pan-London hostels
strategy, which should include not only physical improvements
but also support, services and provision of move-on accommodation.
He further highlights the need to ensure that the implementation
of capital improvements to hostels is co-ordinated on a pan-London
basis so as to minimise the impact of temporary hostel closure
and service loss on the rough sleeping population, especially
over the winter.
3.4 The Government should ensure a continuing
adequate programme of investment in new social housing in London.
The availability of social housing is a key driver of the level
of homelessness. The GLA Housing Requirements Study[37]shows
that approximately 35,000 dwellings per year, including 21,000
social rented units, are required to meet current and future demand
and need and to clear the backlog of housing need. The Mayor supports
current programmes to improve housing options for key workers
and other intermediate groups. But this should not be at the expense
of providing an adequate social rented housing programme (for
both general needs and supported housing) to meet the needs of
the most vulnerable.
3.5 Despite the Government target to end
the use of B&B accommodation for homeless families, there
are still homeless families placed in this accommodation under
legislation outside of the Homelessness Act 2002, to whom the
target does not apply. This unsuitable accommodation is also used
without restriction for statutorily homeless single and childless
households. There are also rapidly increasing numbers of households
in other forms of temporary accommodation across London, with
many remaining in this accommodation for a number of years before
being rehoused permanently. The high use of temporary accommodation
is expensive and unsustainable. The Government needs to place
a greater focus on developing more viable housing options for
homeless households. It should also more actively develop and
support policies that promote social inclusion among both statutory
and non-statutory homeless people while they are living in temporary
accommodation (to tackle issues such as employment and health).
The Mayor supports Shelter's submission on the
issue of a temporary accommodation strategy and the misuse of
intentionality as a tool to discharge housing duties.
4. BACKGROUND
INFORMATION: HOMELESSNESS
IN LONDON
4.1 Statutory homelessness—the national
and regional picture[38]
4.1.1 More than one in five homelessness
acceptances in England are in London. In 2003-04, there were nearly
69,000 decisions on homelessness applications in London, of which
30,500 (44%) were accepted as homeless. A further 14,400 (21%)
were found to be homeless but not in priority need. Two-thirds
of households accepted as homeless in 2003-04 contained dependent
children and/or a pregnant member of the household.
4.1.2 61% of all households in temporary
accommodation are in London. The number of households in placed
in temporary accommodation increased by 79% from March 1999 to
March 2004. 85% of households placed in temporary accommodation
by London Housing Departments at the end of March 2004 had been
accepted as homeless and were awaiting an offer of permanent accommodation.
4.1.3 The Homelessness Act 2002 broadened
the categories of priority need to include young people aged 16-17,
those fleeing violence, and those vulnerable on leaving care,
the armed forces, or custody. One impact of this expansion was
that over 2,400 applicants in the 16-17 year-old category were
accepted as homeless in London during 2003-04.
4.1.4 Half of all homeless acceptances arise
from applicants whose parent; other relatives or friends are no
long able or willing to accommodate them. Loss of private rented
accommodation is the reason for homelessness for 15% of households.
4.2 Ethnicity of statutorily homeless households
in London
4.2.1 According to the 2001 Census[39]Black
and minority ethnic households make up 22% of London's total population,
yet in 2003-04 58% of households accepted as homeless came from
the BME population. The most severely over-represented is the
African/Caribbean population, which accounted for 31% of homeless
acceptances, yet represents only 11% of London's population.
4.3 Local authority housing registers[40]
4.3.1 The number of households on London
local authorities' housing registers at 31 March 2003 was over
242,000. This was nearly one-fifth of the total for the whole
of England.
4.4 Local authority lettings[41]
4.4.1 Since peaking in London at 71,400
lettings in 1991-92, local authority lettings have declined every
year during the period to 2002-03—to 34,200, a fall of 53%.
Over the same period, local authority lettings to homeless households
fell by 58%. Lettings to homeless households represent a growing
proportion of social lettings, from a low point of 33% in 1997-98
to 46% in 2002-03. In England as a whole, 24% of local authority
letting went to homeless households.
4.5 Rough sleeping[42]
4.5.1 During the year April 2003 to March
2004, outreach teams in London worked with 3,534 rough sleepers
of whom 1,669 (47%) were new clients. 88% of these clients were
male. 81% of clients contacted were either white British (60%),
white Irish (10%) or white other (11%). 34% of clients were between
26-35 years, and a further 38% in the 36-49 years age range.
4.5.2 During 2003-04 1,861 clients arrived
at hostels, second stage accommodation or rolling shelters. 37%
of arrivals had an alcohol support need; 44% had a drug support
need; 28% of arrivals had a mental health support need; a further
12% of arrivals had no record of an alcohol, drug or mental health
support need.
4.5.3 1,800 people departed hostel accommodation
during 2003-04 (there were 2,574 departures due to some clients
leaving accommodation more than once). Clients who stayed in the
hostel/second stage/rolling shelter for less than three weeks
made 31% of departures. 30% stayed for 16 weeks or over. 1,017
(40%) of the departures in this year were the result of a planned
move. 925 people had these 1,017 departures. 378 (15%) of the
departures were due to people being evicted from hostels/second
stage/rolling shelters in this year. 345 people had these 378
departures.
4.5.4 493 (19%) of the hostel, second stage
and rolling shelter departures resulted from clients abandoning
the property. 445 people had these 493 departures. 349 (14%) of
the hostel and rolling shelter departures were due to clients
leaving of their own accord. 263 people had these 349 departures.
81 (3%) of the departures resulted from clients being taken into
custody. 77 people had these 81 departures. 47 (2%) of the departures
were due to clients being hospitalised.
4.5.5 284 (28%) of the 1,017 planned moves
were moves to permanent accommodation, and 588 (58%) were moves
to another hostel. The destination of the vast majority of clients
with negative outcomes is not known—745 of 871 (86%). In
103 (12%) of cases the client returned to the streets.
4.6 Move-on accommodation[43]
4.6.1 30% of current residents of hostels
and supported housing projects are ready to move on but there
is no suitable accommodation for them. There is a particularly
high need for independent permanent accommodation—an estimated
84% of the shortage for move on reported. Two-thirds of projected
future move on needs is for permanent independent accommodation.
Projects report a "dramatic" fall in the number of social
lettings made available to non-priority homeless people.
4.7 Overcrowding in London[44]
4.7.1 Overcrowding has grown in London since
1991, almost doubling in the council sector—with severe
overcrowding rising by almost 50%. The growth of overcrowding
in London since the early 1990s reverses a long decline. Severe
overcrowding is now higher, probably for the first time, amongst
London's council tenants than it is amongst private tenants.
4.7.2 Almost half a million London children
live in overcrowded conditions. Overcrowding has been associated
with a range of physical and mental health problems, and has been
strongly linked to an increased risk of tuberculosis. Research
has shown a link with lower levels of educational attainment and
development.
4.7.3 The supply of new social housing is
too low with too few larger properties being developed. Most of
the new supply in London is of dwellings of two rooms or less,
whereas most overcrowded households need three rooms or more.
Even if all council tenants significantly under-occupying their
homes were persuaded to move, it would not address more than a
small fraction of London's severe overcrowding.
4.7.4 Over 150,00 households (5% of total)
are overcrowded to some degree. 61,000 dwellings in London (2%
of total) are severely overcrowded. Since the last census (1991),
overcrowding in London has risen 20%, severe overcrowding by almost
50%. 72,000 overcrowded households in London are in the social
sector, of which 29,000 are severely overcrowded. Between 1991
and 2001 the council sector has overtaken the private rented sector
as the tenure with the highest rate of overcrowding.
4.7.5 Overcrowding is three times more common
amongst minority ethnic households than white British households.
Some groups are far more likely to experience overcrowding than
others—Bangladeshi households are five times more likely
to live in overcrowded conditions than white British households.
4.8 The need for adapted and accessible housing
4.8.1 Around 58% of Londoners with a limiting
illness or disability rent their accommodation.[45]
With the exception of those with a mental health problem, they
are more likely to rent their accommodation from a social landlord
than residents overall, but much less likely to rent from a private
landlord. Over a third of disabled Londoners live in local authority
housing. Over half of people with a mental health problem rent
from their council. Overall, people with a limiting illness or
disability are much less likely to have a mortgage—around
14% compared to nearly a third of the general population.
4.8.2 The vast majority of disabled households
(88%) live in accommodation that is adequate for their needs.
However:
— 31,000 households contain people
that need to move to housing with specialist adaptations (5.4%).
— 21,500 to housing with care and support
(3.7%).
4.8.3 Among households containing people
with a physical disability, around 17% need to move to specialist
accommodation, while nearly a quarter of people with a learning
disability need to do so. Households containing someone with a
long-term illness or disability are more likely to occupy a "non-decent"
property.
4.8.4 In 2003-04, 7% of households (2,289)
accepted as homeless and in priority need were found to be in
priority because of physical disability and a further 10% (3,069)
as a result of mental illness. Where a household contains dependent
children, priority will always be given for this reason regardless
of disability or illness, therefore the extent of illness and
disability will be underreported.
37 The Housing Requirements Study (2004), GLA, www.london.gov.uk Back
38
Source: ODPM P1e returns (includes some GLA estimates for missing
data). Back
39
Any Census data produced in this briefing has been reproduced
with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery
Office and is Crown Copyright. Back
40
Source: Housing Investment Programme, HSSA. Back
41
Source: Housing Investment Programme, HSSA. Back
42
Source: CHAIN Annual Report-April 2003 to March 2004: All Outreach
Teams. Back
43
Source: Silting Up? GLA /Research Information Services
(April 2003). Back
44
Source: Overcrowding in London Association of London Government
(March 2004). Back
45
Source: London Household Survey (LHS 2002). Back
| 
