Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 October 2004