Memorandum by Westminster City Council
(HOM 38)
SUMMARY OF
KEY ISSUES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Homelessness is arguably the number one housing
issue faced by many London local authorities, having implications
on people's quality of life which go far beyond bricks and mortar.
The ODPM commitment to homelessness as evidenced by the Homelessness
Act and funding support is very welcome, however more can still
be done.
— Strategies, targets and resources
to reduce the reliance on Bed and Breakfast accommodation have
been welcome. However, Government investment should be focussed
on delivering permanent, not temporary, solutions.
— Recent growth in investment has been
targeted at key workers not social rented, this needs to change
so that a more appropriate balance is achieved.
— A strategy is needed to address the
needs of increasingly vulnerable single people concentrated in
B&B accommodation.
The homelessness and housing supply agendas
do not seem to be working in tandem, causing inefficiencies and
potential conflict between local responsibility for homelessness
on the one hand, and an increasing regional and sub-regional responsibility
for supply on the other.
— Local connection rules should be
amended to reflect the sub-regional and regional arrangements
in place for planning and delivering new supply in London.
The current means of financing temporary accommodation
effectively creates a poverty trap for residents, with no incentive
to enter employment.
— A funding mechanism is required that
recognises the high cost of providing temporary accommodation
and incentivises residents but does not place a burden on local
council tax payers.
Rough sleeping remains a difficult issue in
central London in particular—resources and focused attention
must continue to reduce numbers further.
The current high policy priority and investment
in homelessness services need to be sustained. This is an issue
that cannot be solved overnight.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Westminster City Council welcomes the
opportunity to provide evidence to this Select Committee Inquiry.
In Westminster we are not new to the challenges of homelessness
and have a wealth of experience and expertise to bring to the
national debate.
1.2 Tackling homelessness is a high priority
for the City Council, as we face what is possibly the most challenging
homelessness situation in the country. Westminster is one of the
most expensive places in which to purchase or rent a property
and finding a secure and affordable home is virtually impossible
for many people. Demand for accommodation that is both affordable
and appropriate is overwhelming. At the same time, central London
acts as a magnet for the homeless, the vulnerable and those with
complex social needs.
1.3 Through this submission we hope to demonstrate
the scale of the problem we face here in central London, and to
outline some of the initiatives we have in place to respond. We
also propose ideas that the Government should consider implementing
in order to address the homelessness crisis.
2. SETTING THE
SCENE—HOMELESSNESS
IN WESTMINSTER
2.1 In the last financial year 5,436 households
applied to the City Council as homeless and 1,117 of these were
accepted under the homelessness legislation. At the end of March
2004 2,944 households were supported in temporary accommodation
(TA), plus a further 630 who were "homeless at home"[59]
Due to high demand and a relatively small supply of social housing,
Westminster consistently ranks among the top London boroughs with
households in TA. For the past four years at least, over one-third
of London's households in TA have been accommodated by just five
boroughs.
2.2 Of those accepted as homeless in the
year to March 2004, less than half demonstrated a local connection
to Westminster for more than three of the last five years. Over
250 households demonstrated a local connection for six of the
last 12 months and 248 had no local connection (ie, they had moved
around so much that they had not established local connection
to any borough at the time of their application to Westminster).
2.3 The level of statutory homelessness
in Westminster has been consistently high for many years now.
It is, however, only part of the picture. In addition to the statutory
homeless population, Westminster has the highest number of rough
sleepers in the country (175 at the last full street count in
April 2004) and approximately 1,140 hostel bed spaces which are
full every night. There are also many more people who are what
could be termed "hidden homeless"—they stay with
friends or live in over-crowded conditions but do not appear on
official statistics. Our homelessness review, carried out in late
2002, estimated that there could be up to 11,000 people in Westminster
who are homeless or vulnerable to becoming so.
2.4 We are facing an ever-increasing gap
between the demand for affordable housing in Westminster and the
amount of housing we have available to meet this demand.
2.5 It is not just the scale of the problem
that is the issue here in central London, but the nature of the
problem that concerns us. Of the households we accept as homeless
each year, it is not uncommon that 20% will be accepted due to
a mental health problem, 10% due to a physical health problem
and a further 10% due to old age. This is more than double the
national rate in each case.
2.6 The causes of people's homelessness
are also very different in Westminster than is the case nationally.
While a similar proportion of households become homeless due to
being asked to leave by family or friends (38%), in Westminster
comparatively few households are homeless due to relationship
breakdown (about 8% compared with nearly 20% nationally). A major
cause of homelessness in Westminster is that accommodation is
unreasonable to occupy, predominantly because of overcrowding.
2.7 It is very clear that homelessness requires
different responses in different parts of the country. There is
no one-size-fits-all solution. It is also clear that homeless
people, particularly in central London, are extremely vulnerable
and have a range of support needs in addition to their basic need
for accommodation. Nearly half of our Supporting People programme
is for services that provide support for single homeless clients
and rough sleepers, demonstrating the level of demand from this
client group.
3. SUB-REGIONAL
SUPPLY TO
MEET LOCAL
DEMAND?
Affordable housing supply
3.1 Increasing the supply of affordable
housing is the only realistic, long term solution to the homelessness
problem in London. But, we have concerns about the ability to
deliver at the local level and respond to local needs. With the
current focus on "numbers", we are likely to see future
supply opportunities move to outer London and the Growth Areas
where units can be developed more cheaply. Development in more
expensive areas, such as inner London, will lose out to cheaper
areas unless targets for new housing supply are about more than
the number of new homes that can be produced. In the case of the
Growth Areas, the total cost of new housing development needs
to be considered. These areas are being prioritised by the Government
over enabling investment in existing communities that have extensive
infrastructure already in place and where development might in
fact be more cost effective and sustainable.
3.2 In Westminster we have a strong track
record of using our own resources to deliver new affordable homes.
We previously funded new permanent accommodation through Local
Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG), and spent £10.34
million in 2002-03. However, the Government abolished LASHG from
April 2003 which led to a reduction of our planned 2003-04 programme
from £11 million to £2.141 million. This has obviously
had a significant impact on our ability to meet local housing
need and has stopped us accessing additional new supply through
our own funds.
3.3 As we discuss below (see para 4.2),
while a greater proportion of our temporary accommodation (TA)
is being procured in-borough, it is likely that future supply
of permanent homes will be outside Westminster. Whereas in the
past, people could have expected and had a legal right to be housed
within the borough that accepts them as homeless, this is no longer
feasible and expectations of housing applicants need to be managed
very carefully.
3.4 Government focus on key workers reduces
resources available for general needs accommodation to address
homelessness. In the North London sub-region[60]
for example, only 54% of new supply in the next two years is for
social rented housing. Within North London, homelessness acceptances
continue to outstrip new social lettings, with an annual sub-regional
deficit of approximately 500 units.
3.5 There is a desperate shortage of larger
units of accommodation to house larger-sized families. Overcrowding
is a particularly key issue in London, and homeless families wait
for many years in temporary accommodation for a permanent home
of the right size to become available. In 2003-04, the average
waiting time in Westminster was circa two years, while
for those households requiring homes with four or more bedrooms,
the average waiting time was circa five years.
3.6 This is becoming more of an issue as
an increasing proportion of the households accepted for rehousing
come from Black & Minority Ethnic communities, some of which
have traditionally large families. The current funding regime
of driving down the grant per unit only serves to concentrate
the provision of smaller units. For example, 69% of all units
funded in North London in 2003-04 are one and two bed units. In
contrast, our sub-region needs a significantly higher percentage
being directed towards 3+ bed dwellings.
3.7 We welcome the Government's intention
to revise the current overcrowding definition through provisions
of the Housing Bill. This should bring these seemingly archaic
standards into the 21st century, however any change in definition
must be accompanied by adequate resources and mechanisms to properly
enable local authorities and partners to provide more appropriate
accommodation, particularly in central London. Mechanisms to encourage
under-occupying residents to release their properties for others
need also to be considered.
Local connection
3.8 The new sub-regional approach to investment
needs time to bed down, however a major stumbling block is the
fact that local connection rules have not changed to reflect the
new investment regime. The homelessness and housing supply agendas
do not seem to be working in tandem, causing inefficiencies and
potential conflict between local responsibility for homelessness
on the one hand, and an increasing regional and sub-regional responsibility
for supply on the other. We believe that local connection rules
in homelessness legislation need to be amended to reflect the
location of new investment and supply.
4. TEMPORARY
ACCOMMODATION
Families in TA
4.1 The Government's recent focus on the
living conditions of families housed in TA has been very welcome.
With the aid of funding from the Homelessness Directorate, we
have been able to dramatically reduce our reliance on Bed &
Breakfast accommodation for families with children. At the beginning
of 2002-03, 306 families had been in B&B for longer than six
weeks but two years later this number was down to zero.
4.2 Working with local RSL partners and
private sector property owners, we have been able to significantly
enhance our portfolio of high quality, long term TA within the
City, making the most of market opportunities and changes to Government
subsidy. This has enabled us to significantly reduce the number
of moves households make throughout their time in TA with increased
stability for the many families involved.
4.3 However, the policy has had a number
of unintended consequences including the concentration of single
vulnerable people in B&B accommodation, and the mismatch between
the location of much of our TA supply and future permanent housing
opportunities.
TA procurement
4.4 The high costs of temporary accommodation
effectively create a poverty trap as people can only afford the
high rents through remaining workless and on benefits. What is
required is a funding mechanism that recognises the high cost
of providing temporary accommodation and incentivises residents
but does not place a burden on local council tax payers.
4.5 We are promoting proposals where individuals
benefit entitlements are linked to local social housing rents
with a top up from a pooled funding regime. We believe this would
enable customer choice and promote work, while maintaining standards
and containing costs. At the same time we have commissioned a
study to identify what more we can do to promote employment as
a route away from homelessness.
5. ROUGH SLEEPING
The problem
5.1 As a local authority at the very heart
of London, Westminster has always had one of the highest concentrations
of rough sleepers in the country. We have tried all kinds of approaches
and partnership working over the years and gradually the numbers
of those sleeping rough have been coming down but they still remain
too high. Our street counts over the last year or so suggest that
currently the population sleeping rough in Westminster on any
given night varies between 100 and 200.
5.2 Perhaps the scale of the challenge is
best expressed by an estimate from our partners Thames Reach Bondway:
for every 15 people they help off the streets in Westminster,
another 14 arrive to take their place. Our recent studies suggest
that 42 new people are sleeping rough in Westminster every week.
And from our most recent audit, 24% of those interviewed were
new to sleeping rough in London.
Our approach
5.3 The approach we have taken in Westminster,
in partnership with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has
reduced the numbers of rough sleepers in the heart of London and
changed many hundreds of lives for the better. Last year we were
able to move over 650 people off the streets and into accommodation.
Now we are undertaking a ground-breaking initiative to reduce
the number of remaining entrenched rough sleepers through an approach
that combines care and enforcement.
5.4 The Council is planning to reconfigure
and restructure the provision of services such as advice on housing
and benefits and access to medical and social services support.
Rather than provide these services on the streets, they will become
building-based services—provided through shelters, hostels
and day-centres. This will result in more thorough assessments
being possible than can be made on the streets, and will also
challenge the behaviour of entrenched rough sleepers, rather than
simply sustaining them on the streets.
5.5 A new, rapid intervention Street Outreach
Services (SOS) team began operation on 1 October 2003. The provider
of this service, Thames Reach Bondway, responds rapidly to individuals
who are new to the streets to prevent them becoming hooked into
the street culture. Where it is appropriate they divert newcomers
to the streets back to their home town with assistance including:
family mediation, travel arrangements and liaison with local homelessness
services. In other cases, new rough sleepers are given access
to detox or health treatment, or a hostel place and an introduction
back into mainstream society.
5.6 Our longer term strategy is that following
successful operation of the SOS, street services in the recognised
sense will be withdrawn and moved to building-based provision.
In order to ensure that the most vulnerable rough sleepers do
not slip though the legislative safety net, the Joint Homelessness
Team will continue to undertake Mental Health Assessments on the
streets. A new Street Rescue Service, operated by Thames Reach
Bondway, will target and protect those vulnerable and isolated
rough sleepers who, for genuine reasons, are not able to take
the first step of coming indoors.
What still needs to be done
5.7 The Government's targeted campaign over
the last few years has really made inroads, but it is still a
priority issue for us and resources and focus need to be maintained.
Some aspects of the problem are outside our control and we suggest
a number of initiatives that are needed to enable us to reduce
and sustain a reduction in rough sleeping in Westminster:
— Support for a national diversions
protocol to assist us to return rough sleepers to services in
their place of origin.
— Initiatives to address rough sleeping
among the EU accession country nationals, which is already increasing
the number of rough sleepers.
— Arrangements for failed asylum seekers—a
number of rough sleepers (although proportionately few) have failed
asylum applications and prior to removal are left in limbo, with
no option but to sleep rough.
— Provision for people with personality
disorders—some of the most vulnerable and socially excluded
rough sleepers have personality disorders but this group has inadequate
provision and clearly are falling through the statutory legislative
safety nets.
— Improved resourcing and efficiency
of the Clearing House to speed up "move on" for rough
sleepers and free up hostel spaces.
6. SUPPORT FOR
VULNERABLE PEOPLE
Single vulnerable people in B&B
6.1 The push to move families out of B&B
has resulted in a concentration of single people, with varying
degrees of vulnerability, in hotel accommodation and numbers are
continuing to rise. We have invested significant resources in
providing support to vulnerable clients, through the single vulnerable
support team and Joint Homelessness Team, for example, however
the concentration of many vulnerable people in B&B hotels
is cause for concern.
6.2 Last year we also opened a new 24-hour
supported temporary accommodation scheme for clients with severe
and enduring mental illness. The scheme enables joint working
between homelessness and community mental health services to access
accommodation and community services for clients. We have also
recently jointly commissioned with the PCT a B&B floating
support[61]
service to provide targeted, specialist support to single vulnerable
people in B&B.
6.3 To properly address the longer term
housing and support needs of our single vulnerable clients, we
would welcome better knowledge of the Government's strategic intentions
for this group.
Supporting people
6.4 Nearly half of our Supporting People
budget is for single homeless or rough sleeping services, which
demonstrates the very high level of demand for homeless support
services in Westminster. While widely predicted, the Government's
recent announcement of substantial cuts to Supporting People budgets
over the next three years is a serious concern to us. As a result
of the cuts we could see vital projects closed and providers withdrawing
from the sector altogether.
6.5 The move to an allocations formula based
approach should take into account that many SP services meet a
pan London rather than an immediate local need. However it is
these cross authority services that are most under threat following
any reduction in grant levels. Closure of these will impact directly
on the most vulnerable homeless and the delivery of wider priorities
such as the local Crime and Disorder Strategy, anti-begging and
anti-social behaviour initiatives.
6.6 The mechanism for distribution of the
funding to local authority level is not yet clear, however should
previous years be an indication we would have serious concerns.
We would argue that reductions in grant levels should not be applied
uniformly (as has been the case previously), but targeted at the
highest spending authorities where substantial provision was developed
recently. Authorities such as Westminster that have low unit costs
and where the great majority of services are well established
should retain existing funding levels.
7. PREVENTION
AND PARTNERSHIPS
7.1 Our homelessness strategy is based on
the strong partnerships that exist in Westminster and it is through
working together, and through the support of Government, that
we have begun to tackle homelessness on a number of fronts. While
affordable housing and support for vulnerable people are key planks
in our strategy, we have also been working hard on preventing
homelessness and ensuring homeless households have access to mainstream
services.
Homelessness prevention
7.2 Homelessness prevention is a key theme
of Westminster's Homelessness Strategy. Last year the City Council
enlarged and enhanced the prevention service, with the creation
of a dedicated Homelessness Prevention Team at the Assessment
and Advice Centre. This team now brings together private sector
advice officers, non-priority officers, visiting officers, and
a Connexions Personal Adviser and Social Worker working with vulnerable
young people.
7.3 In its first year, the team was successful
in preventing or delaying homelessness in over 130 cases through
home visits, mediation, fast-tracking Housing Benefit claims and
intervention in private sector tenancy issues. We now visit 100%
of cases where threatened homelessness is the result of parents
or relatives no longer willing to accommodate and where there
is not a threat of violence or abuse; and households being served
with a notice by their private sector landlord.
7.4 Another successful enhancement of our
service is our Housing Assessment & Advice officer based in
the Probation Service, to provide a link between the two services
and to assist people who upon their release from prison are likely
to become homeless. The role of the officer is to advise, assist
and try and secure hostel accommodation for single homeless people
on probation and to assess risks and possible vulnerability of
the client. It is a priority to provide a one-stop service to
assist clients without the need to make a referral to the Assessment
and Advice Centre and make a homelessness application.
Health based partnerships
7.5 We have well developed partnerships
in Westminster that provide a comprehensive support service for
our homeless population and access to health services for homeless
people is an area in which we have focused attention in the past
year. Westminster Primary Care Trust have been successfully running
two pilot schemes to increase access to GP services in the City's
homeless day centres and at Great Chapel St Medical Centre, primarily
for hostel residents and rough sleepers.
7.6 The PCT's Health Support Team also provides
an invaluable service to households living in TA. The team offers
health advice and assessment, screening services, referrals to
mainstream and specialist services, group awareness sessions and
outreach work both at GP surgeries and through home visits.
7.7 We are also lucky to have exceptional
voluntary sector partners in Westminster, such as the Bayswater
Families Centre (BFC) run by the National Children's Homes (now
NCH) and part funded by the City Council. The BFC offers a range
of services to homeless and refugee and asylum seeker families
including housing and welfare benefit advice, general advice and
counselling, drop in play facilities and early years classes,
clothing and laundry facilities, ESOL courses, homework clubs
and food donations. The Centre also hosts health and housing surgeries
in conjunction with the Primary Care Trust's Health Support Team
and the City Council's Housing Assessment & Advice service.
This community-based service has proved so successful that we
are currently developing a similar service to operate in the south
of the City with another of our partners—the Cardinal Hume
Centre.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The Government has acknowledged our
position and provided much needed support on a number of issues
which have helped us to drive forward with our homelessness strategy.
There are however still many challenges ahead of us and we have
highlighted a few examples where further assistance should be
provided. We would urge the Government to continue to recognise
the very high demands placed on homelessness services in central
London and that the focus on these issues need to be sustained
in the years to come. Without continued support, much of the good
work that has been done may well come undone.
59 Applicants to whom a housing duty has been accepted
under the homelessness legislation, but who remain in their existing
accommodation until a permanent home can be found rather than
move into B&B or second stage temporary accommodation. Back
60
The boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey, Islington and
Westminster. Back
61
"Floating support" is support provided to clients in
their own homes, rather than in an institutionalised setting.
The level of support can change according to the varying needs
of the clients and can be provided or withdrawn as and when required. Back
| 
