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


Memorandum by the London Borough of Greenwich (DEC 51)

  This paper summarises Greenwich Council's views on the issues under review concerning the Government's Decent Homes Standard.

DECENT HOMES DEFINITION

  LBG welcomed the introduction of the Decent Homes standard and has significantly increased capital investment in order to achieve it. However, LBG believes that the current definition should be expanded to encompass wider issues of concern to tenants such as security and community safety, streetscene and estate environment, communal areas and neighbourhood regeneration. The current focus on achieving the Decent Homes target risks limiting the amount available to invest in addressing these wider community concerns.

SCALE OF THE PROBLEM

  LBG is concerned about apparent inconsistencies in the methodologies used by different authorities and the lack of good data on RSL stock at a local authority level. The wide range of Decent Homes figures being reported across London, for example, is hard to equate with the spread of housing capital investment over the last decade. Whilst the variation could reflect different programme and maintenance strategies and performance, there appears to be underlying uncertainty between boroughs as to the consistency and accuracy of the overall figures for London. This partly reflects the nature of stock condition surveys, which given the expense involved are often reliant on extrapolating data from small samples. It also remains the case that many authorities are currently using data from surveys specified and carried out before the Decent Homes standard and guidance was published.

FUNDING OPTIONS

  LBG believes that additional investment should not be restricted to the three options (PFI/ LSVT/ ALMO) and that it is wrong to tie stock improvement funds (which should be principally needs-based) too closely to service delivery (performance-based). Whilst there are clearly some merits in the focus on housing management delivery which an ALMO offers, there might be dangers of an associated reduction in joined-up working in areas such as support to vulnerable tenants, environmental quality and community safety which closer integration to a council's corporate organisation may deliver more effectively.

IMPLICATIONS OF PSA+ AND NAO REVIEWS

  LBG supports the enhanced stock options appraisal process set out in guidance this June. The PSA+ review rightly criticised earlier option decisions by some authorities who chose stock transfer or ALMO options without consulting tenants in sufficent detail on other options.

  However, LBG urges further caution about stock transfer as a cost effective option, given NAO findings and wider experience of the financial risks involved. Given the restrictive Government view of investment options, there remains a danger that some authorities will effectively be forced to conclude that stock transfer is the only realistic option to meet investment needs (eg if ALMO is ruled out by performance issues), despite concerns they may rightly have about cost effectiveness over the long term. LBG is also concerned that the knock-on impact on an authority's General Fund position is not always fully factored in to options appraisals.

TENANT CHOICE

  Consultation with LBG tenants indicates strongly that tenants want more than just decent homes—wider environmental, security and safety concerns (perhaps best summed up as Decent Neighbourhoods) are equally if not more important. As a result, there is a danger that targeting investment on DH means reduced tenant choice over investment through the capital programme. The current LBG programme was agreed at a local level by each of our 13 neighbourhood housing panels as a flagship element of our Tenant Compact. The five-year programme was agreed before the DH standard was announced. Subsequently the programme has been uplifted to include additional DH elements, but without additional resources (in fact, with HIP due to be reduced by up to 30%) the planned completion timescale of the programme has been delayed. This has undermined the council's credibility at the critical point when the stock options appraisal process is about to commence.

  In summary, there is an inherent conflict between setting a national target and empowering tenants to make real choices over stock investment priorities. Under current policy and guidance, the Government risks giving the impression that it places a higher priority on delivering the Decent Homes target than on maximising tenant empowerment.

LINKS BETWEEN DH AND WIDER SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AGENDA

  LBG recognises the important links between delivering Decent Homes and supporting the wider objectives of the sustainable communities plan. The Council is concerned that there is a need for community cohesion in the Thames Gateway development areas in relation to integrating new populations with existing local communities and particularly options to improve mobility for LA tenants and meet local housing needs. We have concerns about an over-emphasis on meeting London-wide needs and those of key workers in particular at the expense of homeless families and overcrowded Council tenants.

  We are pleased that the Government has recognised that stock options are not always limited to finding ways to make homes decent—in some cases, such as the Ferrier estate in Greenwich, demolition and re-provision is the most sustainable option. LBG will be looking carefully at whether this approach would also be a preferred option for other estates, particularly linked to the wider regeneration agenda in the Woolwich area, an important part of the Thames Gateway growth area.

  LBG welcomes this Select Committee review and would be happy to provide any further background detail and comment if requested.


 
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 7 May 2004