Decent Homes in relation to the
Sustainable Communities agenda
79. Virtually all the stakeholders from the social
housing sector who gave evidence to our enquiry were concerned
that the Decent Homes standard should include standards for communal
areas and the neighbourhood environment more generally, and that
the Decent Homes policy and the Sustainable Communities agenda
were insufficiently coordinated and integrated at present.
80. Several of our witnesses had carried out survey
work among tenants showing that neighbourhood and community issues
come top of the list of priorities among tenants. The Local Government
Association told us that in their biannual surveys of tenants,
neighbourhood management issues such as crime and security consistently
come out in the top.[81]
The National Housing Federation has reached much the same conclusion:
"
the
tenants' survey work that we have done and also the work we commissioned
separately by Professor Richard Skates showed that number one
in terms of tenant aspirations and desires were things like a
safe neighbourhood, a friendly environment, security and crime
and things like the condition came further down the list. Certainly
in the tenant satisfaction surveys that we carry out generally
speaking I am afraid it is the old traditionals that come up top
such as litter and dogs, they are predominantly the things that
tenants get most concerned about which is looking outwards beyond
the front door. To answer your question, there is statistical
evidence which shows tenants do have a broader view of what they
consider to be a decent environment."[82]
81. The Hammersmith and Fulham Housing Commission[83]
and Citywest Homes both told us that their experience of tenant
priorities 'on the ground' confirmed the findings of such surveys.
The Hammersmith and Fulham Housing Commission said that although
their tenants welcome the Standard,
"the main criticism from tenants was the lack
of any estate wide aspect to the standard, especially things like
entry door systems, estate improvements, lift standards, that
kind of thing, that should be added to the standard because tenants
care about what happens outside their front doors as well as what
happens inside."
Citywest Homes added that their tenants:
"took the view that good kitchens, good bathroom
and good thermal insulation are very important things but if the
money is only spent on that and not spent on improving lifts and
the estate environment, play areas, and all of the things that
make living there decent then it will not achieve an improvement
in the quality of life, so people will have better kitchens but
will not feel better about the place they live."[84]
82. The ODPM does recognise that Decent Homes and
Sustainable Communities are closely intertwined:
"
two thirds of non-decent social rented
housing is in the 112 most deprived local authorities identified
for housing resource allocation purposes. Poor housing conditions
are also linked to low demand. The 20 local authorities that make
up the market renewal pathfinders own 18% of the non-decent social
housing. Delivery of the decent homes agenda is therefore essential
to the success of neighbourhood renewal and housing market renewal
polices."[85]
83. However, our witnesses, particularly ALMOs and
Local Authorities, were virtually unanimous in arguing that the
two policies need a great deal more integration, and that the
Decent Homes policy in itself needs to be more flexible in allowing
some Decent Homes funding to be spent on broader environmental
issues important to tenants. The Sunderland Housing Group put
the point about policy integration succinctly:
"
meeting the criteria for sustainable
communities is a bigger agenda than Decent Homes. As such, Decent
Homes should sit within the wider agenda of sustainable communities
rather than being the sole driver for strategy and investment."[86]
According to the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH),
however, under current arrangements:
"
the PSA target on decent homes is in
danger of undermining other elements of the government's housing
policy - in particular those related to the sustainability of
communities. [
] Pressure to achieve the DHT may force social
housing providers to spend scarce funds on work that delivers
the DHT but that does not create sustainable communities. A practical
example here would be window replacement programmes in low demand
tower blocks where demolition and renewal may create a more sustainable
community. Recognition should be given to the additional costs
and time needed to deliver 'sustainable decent homes' - particularly
in areas where a neighbourhood renewal or community regeneration
approach is needed."[87]
84. Nottingham City Council is known for having turned
around estates with low demand problems by investing in the general
fabric of the communities. However, the investment in neighbourhoods
has meant less investment in the stock itself, and the current
funding arrangements do not stretch to both reaching the Decent
Homes target and at the same time keeping up the level of neighbourhood
investment.[88] In their
evidence to the Committee, Nottingham City Council concurred with
the Chartered Institute of Housing in pointing to the link between
lack of investment in the general fabric of communities and low
demand which in turn can send whole communities into a downward
spiral of unsustainability:
Not only is the imbalance between the internal and
the external expenditure wrong per se, it is also misguided in
that people choose houses primarily because of the characteristics
of the area they are in. The internal appointment of the house
is always a secondary factor and if we are to stop depopulation
in some of the towns and cities in the English regions then we
should be placing emphasis on the environment far more as a means
of attracting people to live in currently less popular areas.
By pursuing the current policy we could create well appointed
homes with no one to live in them."[89]
85. The fact that the inspectorate for the sector,
the Audit Commission, cautiously agreed that in some cases, environmental
improvements are at least as important as internal work
to carry out the Decent Homes standard only serves to strengthen
the point. The Audit Commission also admitted that:
"
more funding might be needed if 'decent
neighbourhoods' are to [be] achieved alongside DHS [the Decent
Homes Standard]."[90]
86. As for the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) sector,
the National Housing Federation told us that they are already
encouraging their members to invest in neighbourhoods:
"Our new sector change initiative, 'iN Business
for Neighbourhoods' is the largest project ever undertaken by
the National Housing Federation; it encourages our members to
continue to improve their performance and to provide improved
neighbourhood services."[91]
87. We have heard evidence from many stakeholders
that the Decent Homes target and Sustainable Communities policy
need to be much better integrated. As things stand, there is a
tension between the two aims, not least in funding terms. It makes
no sense to make internal improvements to homes situated in dilapidated
neighbourhoods with unsustainable communities, without also addressing
the wider environmental problems. We recommend that the Sustainable
Communities and Decent Homes policies be properly integrated,
and the funding coordinated so that a home can only be seen as
decent if the external environment and neighbourhood are also
decent and sustainable.
Decent Homes Plus?
88. The current definition of a Decent Home is not
only very narrow, but also very basic. Some witnesses have argued
that the Standard should be, and indeed could be, changed at this
stage others have cautioned against doing so. The Committee has
concluded that desirable though it would be to raise the level
as well as increasing the breadth of the standard at this stage,
it would be neither feasible nor fair on housing providers to
do so. Furthermore, as pointed out by Norman Perry from the Housing
Corporation, changing the standard now would entail significant
consequences in terms of the monitoring of progress:
"In terms of being able to monitor the performance
against the standard, you are talking about several hundred local
authorities and a couple of thousand housing associations, and
it has taken quite a big effort to get them all pointing in the
same direction in terms of collecting data and submitting that
on a regular basis. To change now, I think, would have a time
lag for the quality of data."[92]
89. In the course of our inquiry, a couple of witnesses
touched on a very different idea, namely the notion of having
a 'Decent Homes Plus' standard. The Hammersmith & Fulham
Housing Commission recognised the need for creating a standard
which goes beyond the Decent Homes standard, and they have therefore
defined their own local Decent Homes Plus standard. The Commission
explains the background thus in their memorandum to us:
"The Commission viewed the Decent Homes Standard
as a minimum that applied mostly to the condition of individual
homes and buildings. It does not take account of local conditions,
the shared environment relevant to estate life, or the need for
regular planned maintenance to keep common parts in good decorative
order.
The Commission felt it was important to set a Decent
Homes Plus Standard as a way of addressing the local needs
that arise from the inner city location of our borough, our own
aspiration to improve residents quality of life, and new demands
that are placed on estate facilities by changes in the wider society,
government regulations and new technologies."[93]
90. Interestingly, the Housing Corporation seems
to endorse the idea of having a 'Decent Homes Plus' standard
with a target date some years beyond 2010:
"If a government were to set another higher
standard, say, for 2015, then there would be the lead time necessary
to make the necessary changes."[94]
91. The Committee would like to see a more ambitious
definition of Decent Homes, whilst at the same time recognising
that it would be unhelpful to move the goalposts for the 2010
target at this stage. The Committee recommends that a more
aspirational 'Decent Homes Plus' PSA target be set now for achievement
at a later date, in which a higher and broader standard is aimed
for. Depending on the exact level and breadth of this new 'Decent
Homes Plus' Standard, the target date should be set in the 2015-2020
range.
92. The new 'Decent Homes Plus' should be better
aligned to the wishes and expectations of occupants, and it should
include:
a) A much more ambitious thermal comfort criterion
which is in line with building regulations in force at the time
when the new Standard is set. Policy development, evaluation and
funding for this criterion must be closely integrated with other
key policies such as the Fuel Poverty Strategy.
b) Accessibility standards for elderly and
disabled people
c) Internal noise insulation within and between
dwellings
d) Standards for the external environment
such as communal areas should be included in the standard. This
may be done through an integration and coordination of the Sustainable
Communities policy with the Decent Homes policy.
We would not expect Local Authorities and Registered
Social Landlords (RSLs) to formally start recording or monitoring
progress against the 'Decent Homes Plus' standard until a later
date. However, we would hope that most choose to incorporate it
into their planning as soon as possible.
9 DEC01, para.
2.1. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Back
10
The Housing Bill: Explanatory Notes; December 2004; Para 46. Back
11
DEC01, para. 2.6. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Back
12
ODPM: English House Condition Survey 2001: Building the Picture;
July 2003; para. 3.7. Back
13
ODPM: English House Condition
Survey 2001: Supporting Tables: Table A3.8. Back
14
ODPM: A Decent Home: The Definition and Guidance for Implementation:
February 2004. Annex A: para 11. Back
15
DEC37 para 1.1.1, Chartered
Institute of Environmental Health; DEC59, Section 1. The Places
for People Group. Back
16
DEC26, para. 2.6. Richard
Hand. Back
17
DEC21, para. 3.2.1. National
Housing Federation. Back
18
Q347, Dr Smith, Atlantic Housing Group. Back
19
Q314, Mr Greenwood, Bethnal Green & Victoria Park Housing
Association. Back
20
DEC01(c), p2. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Back
21
The Government's Response to the ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local
Government and Regions Committee's Report on the Draft Housing
Bill; CM6000, November 2003, para 10. Back
22
ODPM Select Committee 2003;
Draft Housing Bill, CMHC751-III: Q640, Keith Hill. Back
23
ODPM: A Decent Home: The
Definition and Guidance for Implementation: February 2004. Annex
A: paras 3.6 Back
24 ODPM:EnglishHouseConditionSurvey2001:SupportingTables:TableA3.8. Back
25 ODPM:ADecentHome:TheDefinitionandGuidanceforImplementation:February2004.AnnexA:paras3.17-3.19. Back
26 DEC21,para.3.2.2.NationalHousingFederation. Back
27
Q221, Eileen Short, Defend Council Housing. Back
28
Q13, Sarah Webb, Chartered
Institute of Housing. Back
29
Q13, Peter Brown, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Back
30
A dwelling with an outside toilet would not be seen as having
"an appropriately located bathroom and WC", but as long
as it was seen as having three other among the six characteristics,
the dwelling might pass the Decent Homes Standard. Back
31
Q13, Peter Brown, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Back
32
Q411, Mel Cairns, Environmental Health Officer. Back
33
DEC01, para 2.3. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Back
34
ODPM: A Decent Home: The Definition and Guidance for Implementation:
February 2004. Annex A: para. 3.22. Back
35
ODPM: A Decent Home: The Definition and Guidance for Implementation:
February 2004. Annex A: para. 3.23. Back
36
ODPM: English House Condition Survey 2001: Building the Picture;
July 2003; paras 3.4 - 3.5. Back
37
For details on the Fuel Poverty Strategy, see: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/consumers/fuel_poverty/strategy.shtml
Back
38
See for example DEC09,
National Energy Action; DEC11, All Party Parliamentary Warm Homes
Group; DEC30, The Sustainable Energy Partnership. Back
39
See for example Q3, Sarah Webb, Chartered Institute of Housing
and Andrew Griffiths, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Back
40
Q4, Peter Brown, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Back
41
DEC37, para 1.1. Chartered
Institute of Environmental Health. Back
42
DEC29, p2, The Energy Saving Trust. Back
43
DTI: The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, November 2001; Back
44
NAO: Warm Front: Helping
to combat fuel poverty; HC769, June 2003; paras 1.10 - 1.11 Back
45
ODPM: English House Condition Survey 2001: Building the Picture;
July 2003; Supporting tables: Decent Homes; Table A4.28 Back
46
E.g. in written evidence to the inquiry into fuel poverty by the
Trade and Industry Committee Back
47
DEC11, para. 2.5. Back
48
DTI: Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon
Economy; February 2003; Foreword Back
49
Energy White Paper: Our
Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy; February 2003;
para 2.14 Back
50
Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon
Economy; February 2003; para 3.5. Back
51
Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon
Economy; February 2003; para 3.32. Back
52
DEC29, The Energy Saving Trust, p2. Back
53
DEC30, The Sustainable Energy Partnership, paras 4-5. Back
54
Q54, Georgia Klein, National Consumer Council. Back
55
Cf. DEC29, p2., The Energy Saving Trust; DEC09a, National Energy
Action. Back
56
See also paragraphs 48
and 49 above. Back
57
DEC45, p7. National Consumer
Council. Back
58
See for example comments by the Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health (Q3), as well as DEC45 p7, The National Consumer Council;
DEC26, para 3.11, Richard Hand. Back
59
DTI: The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy: Annex A: Energy Efficiency
Measures; November 2001, para 2. Back
60
ODPM: Housing Bill Explanatory Notes; para 248; Back
61
ODPM 2003: Contents of the Home Information Pack: A Consultation
Paper; p18. Back
62
DEC26, para. 3.11, Richard Hand. Back
63
Q57, Ronald Campbell, National Energy Action. Back
64
Q3, Andrew Griffiths, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Back
65
DEC31, paras 4-6, The Disability Rights Commission, The Habinteg
Housing Association, and The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Back
66
Q65, Marie Pye, Disability Rights Commission. Back
67
DEC31, Executive Summary , The Disability Rights Commission, The
Habinteg Housing Association, and The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Back
68
DEC31, paras 12-14. , The
Disability Rights Commission, The Habinteg Housing Association,
and The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Back
69
Q64, Marie Pye, Disability Rights Commission. Back
70
Q70, Marie Pye, Disability
Rights Commission. Back
71
DEC63, para. 5.2, Care & Repair England. Back
72
Q67, John Stewart, UK Noise Association. Back
73
DEC02, p1. UK Noise Associaiton. Back
74
Q69, John Stewart, UK Noise Association. Back
75
Q171, Roy Irwin, Audit Commission. Back
76
Q88, Neil McDonald, Director of Housing, ODPM. Back
77
Q169, Dr Norman Perry, Housing Corporation. Back
78
DEC21, para. 3.1. The National Housing Federation. Back
79
Q445, Jim Coulter, National Housing Federation. Back
80
Q56, Jill Johnstone, National Consumer Council. Back
81
Q250, Mr Atherton, the Local Government Association. Back
82
Q458, The National Housing Federation Back
83
Q281, Steve Hilditch, Hammersmith & Fulham Housing Commission. Back
84
Q284, Nigel Brooke, CityWest Homes. Back
85
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_609324-02.hcsp#P223_21918 Back
86
DEC49, para. 3.2. Sunderland Housing Group. Back
87
DEC58, para. 7.2. Chartered Institute of Housing. Back
88
David Blackman: Two Sides to the Story in Inside Housing, 28 February
2003. Back
89
DEC14, para. 13. Nottingham City Council. Back
90
DEC61, para. 38. The Greater London Authority (GLA). Back
91
DEC21, para 8.1. The National Housing Federation. Back
92
Q174, Dr Norman Perry, Housing Corporation. Back
93
DEC28, p 2. Hammersmith & Fulham Housing Commission. Back
94
Q176, Dr Norman Perry,
Housing Corporation. Back