Memorandum by The Riverside Group (DEC
57)
INTRODUCTION: THE
RIVERSIDE GROUP
1.1 The Riverside Group is a group of housing
associations which includes Riverside Housing Association, operating
in Merseyside, the North West and the Midlands, four other associations
which are local authority stock transfer associations registered
within the last 12 months, and one association which is a community
based housing association formed from stock swaps between housing
associations in an area of Liverpool. We work in 28 local authority
areas in partnership with tenants, local authorities and other
agencies to achieve our vision to be a leading regeneration agency
delivering quality homes and thriving communities.
1.2 Our contribution to this Inquiry is
based on our history of actively involving tenants in the operation
of our business, and our long experience of working with communities.
Riverside Group housing stock is broadly based and varied, comprising
33,000 general needs homes, 2,000 sheltered properties, 1,300
bedspaces of supported housing, a Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
scheme of 145 homes and 700 Low Cost Home Ownership properties.
1.3 Riverside Housing traditionally worked
in General Improvement Areas (GIAs) and Housing Renewal Areas
(HAAs), being one of the associations funded under the Shelter
SNAP project after the Cathy Come Home television programme in
1968. We own and manage over 9,000 properties which are Victorian
terraced houses and large properties converted into flats, now
designated as Houses in Multi-Occupation (HMOs). In their day
these were popular accommodation. That day has now passed and
the older properties are now concentrated in areas of low housing
demand, which are in the core areas of inner cities and towns,
principally Liverpool, Birkenhead, St Helens, Bootle and Leicester.
We currently have 1,200 properties empty in our rented stock of
19,200 in Riverside Housing, just over 6% 540 of those (3%) are
properties which are being held empty, awaiting sale or demolition.
A further 250, or 1.5%, are included in a major repairs programme.
Some of those properties are concentrated in small areas and their
impact on a neighbourhood is significant.
1.4 In the new associations, which are Berrybridge,
Bowlee Park, Carlisle, Lee Valley and Community 7, working in
Liverpool, Carlisle and Rochdale, up to 15% of the 14,000 properties
are void because they are included either in improvement or demolition
programmes following stock transfer. This is all related to the
standard of the accommodation combined with the lack of popularity
of the areas where the stock is situated.
1.5 We are committed to the neighbourhoods
where we or the previous landlord have worked for so many years.
We do not believe that we can walk away, disposing wholesale of
our housing stock and abandoning the responsibilities and duties
that we owe to the people who have been our tenants and their
neighbours for so long. But neither can we continue to offer housing
in unpopular areas, which we cannot maintain at economic cost
in a proper condition which is acceptable to our customers.
2. THE DEFINITION
OF "DECENT"
2.1 The Decent Homes definition was a very
welcome addition to Government policies when it was first introduced.
There is no question that a decent home should be the right of
every person, whatever their tenure, and that the English House
Condition Survey (EHCS) has consistently shown significant failings.
We have no major difficulties with the broad definition of the
decency standard, but we find that it impacts differently in different
tenures. We have clear evidence that Local Authority stock had
sunk to a much worse condition than our own housing stock, as
evidenced in this table below.
Association within
Riverside Group
| % stock failing
Decent Homes
standard 2003
(RSR information)
| Stock profile |
Riverside Housing | 16%
| Mixed profile |
| Berrybridge | 86% | LA stock
|
| Bowlee Park | 85% | LA stock
|
| Carlisle | 32% | LA stock
|
| Community 7 | 86% | Older, previously rehabilitated HA stock
|
| Lee Valley | 83% | LA stock
|
| |
|
We expect to have dealt with all instances of disrepair in
the stock transfer associations within the 10 years of the Decent
Homes planned target, but we may well have some of the older rehabilitated
stock not meeting the standard in 2012, because of the failure
of housing markets in the inner city areas. Many of these properties
actually need to be demolished and cleared, and not further improved
to stand empty waiting for tenants who will never arrive, and
there should perhaps be some reference to this in the definition
of the standard. 38%, or 1,800, of the Riverside Housing properties
that do not currently meet the Decency Standard, will in fact
never be improved—we intend to demolish them as part of
the Housing Market renewal strategy. These are entirely the older
inner city terraced properties.
2.2 Riverside does have a problem with the concept of
Decent Homes, for two reasons. First, we strongly believe that
the concept of decent should not finish at the front door of a
property: no home can truly considered be decent if it stands
in a neighbourhood in which people do not choose to live. Second,
there is absolutely no reason why the decency standard should
not also apply to private rented dwellings and owner occupiers
in the same neighbourhoods where we work and our tenants have
their homes.
2.3 We know from the EHCS that many of the homes in worst
condition are those of owner occupiers, and we believe that these
are generally long term residents, often elderly, who have high
equity levels in their property but with low asset values. They
cannot borrow to improve their properties, and private sector
renewal or improvement grants are no longer available. Consequently
their home conditions reduce and they are trapped in the situation.
3. THE SCALE
OF THE
PROBLEM
3.1 We believe that the scale of the problem of decent
homes is understated because Government policy addresses issues
in the social housing sector only, and not in all tenures, which
hides the major incidence of disrepair and poor maintenance. Government
policy also neglects the wider neighbourhood issues that contribute
to poor decency standards. As neighbourhood managers, one of our
major tasks is to manage decline, and the volume of poor standard
homes owned by others in the areas where we work significantly
affects our ability to manage our own stock.
3.2 The uncertainty of the future of neighbourhoods is
demoralising for residents and for us as managers in those areas.
For example, we work in Granby in Liverpool 8, where investment
in the neighbourhood was delayed for 10 years because of uncertainty
about the future. Owner occupiers felt that their homes were blighted
because no decisions were being made, and associations could not
plan a strategy to deal with disrepair issues. One association
was improving while another was holding properties vacant. The
problems were not resolved until a comprehensive area based renewal
plan was agreed, involving owner occupiers and private landlords,
as well as associations. The use of CPO powers is a crucial factor
in tackling such cases of neighbourhood disrepair.
3.3 Some properties neither can nor should be made decent.
There is a limit to the numbers of times the shell of a house
built 100 years ago can be stripped out and remodelled to meet
contemporary standards. We know that many neighbourhoods would
benefit from clearing the existing properties and replacing with
contemporary properties, both for cost benefit reasons and to
address issues of housing market failure.
3.4 Local Authority estates pose similar problems. When
we start to work in transferred estates, one of the first issues
we address is environmental work and remodelling of local areas.
This is partly due to the general over supply of accommodation
in these areas, but mostly because we know that our improved homes
will fail if their neighbourhoods are not improved. When we started
work in Colshaw Farm, formerly a Greater Manchester overspill
estate near Wilmslow, we worked with local tenants to improve
street lighting, and sponsored a skateboard stunt track for local
children. This helped to encourage people back onto their streets
and into local centres, which in turn improved demand for properties.
Subsequently we have sponsored a bus service from the estate to
the regional hospital and shopping centre, and undertaken a physical
clean up of the area. Completing the improvements to the properties
has turned Colshaw Farm into a desirable area once more, where
the investment in improving homes is now worth the cost. This
then improves values generally in the neighbourhood.
4. THE MECHANICS
FOR FUNDING
AND DELIVERY
4.1 The Riverside Group obviously has experience of using
stock transfers from LAs as a means of delivering decent homes,
and we know it can be successful.
4.2 But the outstanding issue is a comprehensive strategic
approach to neighbourhood improvement, addressing the problems
of low equity owners in accessing funding to improve their homes.
We believe that only addressing the mechanics of home improvement
in the social housing sector allowed the Government to set easy
targets while failing to address the fundamental problems.
4.3 Could a link be made between the need to register
private landlords so that tenants can obtain housing benefit for
their rent, and from registration to qualification for grants
to improve properties?
5. TENANT CHOICE
5.1 Organisations within The Riverside Group are firm
believers in the benefits of involving tenants in decision making
about their homes, and local strategies.
5.2 Choices can obviously be offered about the detail
of finishes in a property, but the decency standard is about the
fundamental quality of properties, and there probably should be
limited individual choice about that. We consult over improvement
programmes, but do not generally offer choices about whether tenants
should be involved in those programmes. And yet there is a financial
cost to tenants, in increased rents, where improvements have been
made. We try to make that rent increase less that the reduction
in costs delivered by improved thermal standards so that there
may be a net saving to tenants.
5.3 The important choice is really between retaining
or redeveloping neighbourhoods, which should involve residents
from all tenures. This would be a really significant decision
for those residents.
5.4 Support strategies need to be developed to ensure
the regeneration process is as sensitive as possible: if the mistakes
of the 1960s are not to be repeated, careful attention must be
given to the process of regeneration and the potential human costs.
Communities were then broken up at great cost to the wider society.
Riverside supports the need to introduce a better balance of tenures,
and in particular new housing for sale, but it will be essential
to provide new housing for rent (at reduced densities) to ensure
that tenants affected by clearance are able to move into decent
new homes without their communities being destroyed.
5.5 Riverside develops local structures, through dedicated
project teams, locally accountable housing associations with local
boards, and we encourage and work with local tenant and resident
groups, community and voluntary organisations and other partners
to understand the needs of local people and respond in a tailored
and specific way. Successful regeneration must be underpinned
by resident involvement and support, and we believe this is a
strength of Riverside.
6. DECENT HOMES
AND THE
WIDER GOVERNMENT
AGENDA
6.1 We see that the decent homes agenda is inevitably
linked to the wider sustainability agenda. It is pointless having
high quality homes in neighbourhoods where nobody wants to live.
6.2 Riverside is strongly committed to neighbourhood
regeneration, and invests in the social, economic and physical
infrastructure of communities and prides itself on being a lead
partner in the re-invigoration of neighbourhoods, employment creation
and promoting social inclusion. Since 2000, Riverside has invested
£2.8 million of its own community investment resources (not
including staff time) into broader regeneration projects (ranging
from credit unions, play/sporting provision, community wardens,
ILMs, family support), supported by a team of regeneration officers.
These projects have been the result of successful local partnerships,
where an additional £14 million has been levered into local
communities.
6.3 We should all be working in a spirit of inclusivity
and genuine partnership, ensuring we understand and respond to
every stakeholder. Riverside has the experience to make difficult
decisions but it is important to work in an open and honest manner.
7. SUMMARY
7.1 Riverside Group is happy with the Government agenda
which sets out the requirement for decent homes. However we believe
that the standard should apply to properties in all tenures, and
that its application only to social housing has set a soft target
for the Government. The real work is in the need to improve properties
owned or managed privately.
7.2 We believe that decent homes do not stop at the front
door, and that decent homes in decent neighbourhoods should comprise
the full standard. Where this means demolishing and replacing
properties, this should be recognised, funded and managed strategically.
| 
