Memorandum by the London Borough of Hammersmith
& Fulham (HOM 61)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 This document sets out detailed evidence
to select committee relating to the housing need and homelessness
issues arising in LB Hammersmith & Fulham.
1.2 We are extremely pleased that the Government
is recognising the issues and complexities within this sector
that are leading to situations of homelessness and would suggest
that the problem is particularly acute in London, more particularly
in Inner London. Our Housing Strategy work takes the Sustainable
Communities agenda as the base for development.
1.3 Various recent studies, including the
Barker Review have indicated that London is different to the rest
of the Country for a number of perfectly valid reasons. London
is an international Capital City that continues to attract inward
migration and is expected to continue to expand from now until
2016. Due to a lack of supply, loss of housing through right to
buy and high land prices, the capital city and in particular inner
London boroughs are facing challenging and complex problems resulting
in large numbers of people being housed in temporary accommodation
and significant overcrowding issues. These problems directly impact
upon the quality if life for all our communities.
1.4 We welcome the opportunity to share
our ideas with the committee on potential solutions for Inner
London. In particular we see these as the delivery of more housing
and large scale social re-engineering. In particular we are keen
to discuss the potential for creating appropriate funding structures
that allow authorities to purchase housing, utilising the private
sector and empty stock more effectively and would like to see
Housing Corporation funding structured to take account of numbers
of persons housed rather than simply numbers of units.
2. CONTEXT
2.1 LB Hammersmith & Fulham is a successful,
high performing borough with an enviable record in building affordable
housing.
2.2 Hammersmith & Fulham has an estimated
population of 165,000. It is the fourth most densely populated
borough in England and Wales with 71.2% of the stock being flats
or maisonettes (48.8% for London). 33.4% of our stock is social
housing (London has a social housing stock of 26.2%) and a large
private rented sector (23.1% compared to 17.3% for London).
2.3 The average property price in the borough
is £361,840, 117% above the national average. Although the
average household income is £30,266, incomes in the borough
are polarised with just over a third with an income below £10,000
per annum.
2.4 Taking the average income of £30,266
and savings at £5,700 and assuming that a household could
secure a mortgage at four times the household income level that
household could still not afford the borough minimum priced one
bedroom flat falling short by just over £16,000.
2.5 The boroughs commitment to meeting housing
need can be seen through its commitment to developing affordable
housing. Although the borough lost some 661 units of council stock
through the right to buy scheme over the last three years there
has been a net gain of 1,015 units of affordable housing over
the same period. In 2003-04 the 309 social rented units were built
in the borough second only to Tower Hamlets this is the highest
rate of build per 1,000 population in London.
3. HOUSING NEED
IN HAMMERSMITH
AND FULHAM
3.1 The 2003-04 Housing Needs Survey estimates
a projected gross need for affordable housing of 4,437 units per
annum over the next five years with a net shortfall of affordable
housing units to meet anticipated need of 3,650 units per annum.
This figure represents both need from households needing to move
now (eg those living in unsuitable accommodation due say to overcrowding)
and anticipated newly arising need (eg from newly forming and
migrant households).
3.2 Net demand is outstripping existing
supply of affordable housing (our available new lets are estimated
to be 787 units per annum) by a factor of 4.6. In comparison with
Inner London and London as a whole, Hammersmith and Fulham's need
for affordable housing is significantly higher at 47.9 per 1,000
households per annum than Inner London and London requirements
which are 32.3 and 27 respectively. Only 37% of all households
needing to move within the year can afford to buy the accommodation
they need on the open market in the borough.
3.3 In addition 8% (over 6,000 households)
of all households in the borough are overcrowded. By far the highest
proportion of overcrowded households by bed size are those needing
four bed accommodation. 61.8% (2030 households) of all households
requiring such accommodation are living in overcrowded conditions,
with 19.9% of that group currently living in either one or two
bed accommodation.
3.4 It is clear from our research that some
households are and will be disproportionately affected by the
lack of affordable housing and levels of unsuitability identified.
As an example Black and Asian households are identified as having
average household incomes of £14,577 and £14,424 respectively,
under half the average borough (£30,266) and white household
(£33,445) incomes identified in the Survey. Therefore these
households will be less likely to be able to resolve any housing
need identified and will be more reliant on assistance to meet
any housing need that occurs. Clearly, there are consequences
that arise from this including; BME households are more likely
to live in unsuitable housing (32% of BME households live in unsuitable
housing compared to 15% of white households) and there are higher
levels of homelessness amongst BME households (in 2003-04 65%
of homeless households accepted for rehousing were BME).
3.5 In real terms and despite proactive
demand management during 2004-05 the number of homelessness families
placed into temporary accommodation has continued to rise in the
borough and at end of August stood at +7.8% when compared to the
previous year average.
3.6 It is important to note that the mean
weekly average for homeless acceptances has not changed since
2003-04 and so the increase in the numbers of families placed
in temporary accommodation is caused by a lack of supply rather
than simply more acceptance decisions.
4. PROGRESS ON
HOMELESSNESS WORK
4.1 We applaud the Government target to
eradicate the use of bed and breakfast for families with children
and pregnant women and successfully met the target ahead of the
March 2004 deadline. However, like many other London Boroughs
this was primarily achieved through our extensive use of Private
Sector Leased (PSL) properties both within and outside the borough
and this raises a number of problems for the authority and for
the wider housing market. It is likely for instance that PSL has
fuelled the buy to let market and may have raised property prices
in areas which had been available for entry level buyers thus
adding to affordability problems and restricting the routes available
to deal with housing need.
4.2 We are unable to meet housing need within
our own borough boundaries and, although we work proactively with
sub-regional partners to maximise available affordable housing,
we have considered a wide range of options to assist those in
housing need. As a result, some 30% of our homeless families have
been placed in PSL properties outside our sub-regional boundary.
4.3 In order to ensure that the PSL scheme
is cost effective and self financing we have been forced to charge
rents that are at the higher end of the HB subsidy thresholds.
In addition, rents in our specialised HALs are also high, recognising
the local market and the specialist nature of the accommodation
provided by our RSL partners. Whilst the vast majority of families
are in receipt of HB and rents are covered by the current subsidy
regime, the result of this charging policy is that families are
subject to a poverty trap. Indeed, in order to be able to afford
the rent charge and be free of HB, households would need incomes
in excess of £50k per annum—much higher than the average
for the borough.
4.4 Although we recognise the need to utilise
the private sector to maximise housing opportunities, PSL schemes
are a short term costly solution and progress towards more innovative
schemes providing longer term solutions such as temporary to permanent
schemes can be slow as funding arrangements are complex and uncertain
in terms of "future-proofing".
4.5 We recognise that the Government is
working to reform the current funding regime and that proposals
for such reform have been postponed due to a recognition of the
instability that could be caused. However, we believe some subtle
changes to the current regime could be easily arranged to assist
those in this particular situation and that some other "bigger"
ideas could also be considered:
— In Hammersmith and Fulham alone some
1,000 families are living in a poverty trap situation with little
or no prospect of finding work whilst rents are so high. A direct
grant paid to local authorities for the provision of this accommodation,
reducing reliance on HB to social rent levels would allow tenants
to actively seek work, would end the poverty trap and could help
to significantly reduce child poverty across London. We intend
in the current LPSA round to propose this option as a "freedom
and flexibility" linked to objectives related to improving
conditions in temporary accommodation for homeless families. We
would welcome any support that can be given to this proposal.
— The opportunities offered by the
large private sector in this borough in particular are harnessed
through our award winning Empty Homes programme and our work with
private sector landlords, however, we believe that further gains
for affordable housing could be secured through the private sector
using a suitable Capital Financing Vehicle to acquire properties
from the private sector supported by a suitable funding stream
(part direct funding, part HB) to maintain affordable rents for
tenants.
4.6 Notwithstanding the difficulties associated
with PSL and HAL schemes, the move into this type of accommodation
and away from B&B and hostel accommodation for families is
welcomed. The vast majority of temporary accommodation provided
this way is significantly superior to that of B&B and standards
are high. Indeed homeless families now living in such accommodation
are significantly better off than those housed in Council stock
who continue to experience unacceptable levels of overcrowding.
This may lead to policy changes reducing the priority previously
given to homeless families for rehousing and could therefore result
in longer stays in temporary accommodation for the homeless across
the Capital.
4.7 The borough has also been able to make
significant progress in utilising the private sector through building
relationships with private landlords and encouraging homeless
people to accept a private sector "direct letting" (this
avenue prevents a homeless application). The scheme is facilitated
through a rent deposit scheme and the borough works proactively
to ensure HB is fast-tracked and monitors tenancies working closely
with landlords on any problems that arise. Whilst we have been
able to house some 100 families over 18 months through the scheme,
the costs can be prohibitive where HB fails to meet the market
rent and the borough pays to "top up" through Discretionary
Housing Payments. In addition, many families can opt out of the
scheme as they know that once they are found "homeless"
the borough has a duty to offer social housing and it's appeal
means that many people are prepared to wait in temporary accommodation
for several years if necessary.
4.8 With the reducing availability of social
housing and the increasing pressure on homelessness caused through
relationship breakdown and overcrowding, an amendment to the homelessness
legislation allowing local authorities to formally discharge their
housing duty directly into private sector accommodation (directly
funded in part as described above) could assist, as those who
were deemed "suitable" for private sector housing would
then not be able to refuse this option.
4.9 Other "prevention" schemes
including mediation and DV projects have proved successful in
delaying homelessness to a certain extent, but doubt remains as
to whether these particular methods are sustainable in the future.
4.10 All prevention projects in this borough
are costly, resource intensive and directly funded by the Homeless
Directorate Grant and depend to a large extent on that grant continuing
beyond 2004-05.
4.11 In placing families outside the borough,
we realise that we are potentially adding to the social and emotional
costs of homelessness by separating families from existing support
networks within the community.
4.12 The advent of the Supporting People
Programme has done much to contribute to preventing homelessness
through active tenancy sustainment work. The inclusion of the
Supporting People Programme within the Homelessness Directorate
has been replicated in the divisional; structures here at Hammersmith
& Fulham allowing a strategic approach to prevention and sustainment.
In this borough a 39% of all supporting people expenditure is
related to homelessness. This compares with a national figure
of 19.5% and demonstrates the level of reliance on SP funding
for preventative tenancy sustainment and support related activities
for the homeless. Funding decisions due to be made shortly (resulting
in up to 7.5% losses) stand to significantly impact this work
and in Hammersmith and Fulham would represent some £1 million
in cuts.
4.13 Hammersmith & Fulham have continued
to fund homeless advice services for non priority need households
via our voluntary sector grants budget. Additionally, we manage
the contracts for outreach and day centre services provided to
single homeless and rough sleepers. The services are very well
regarded, helping the council and the West London Zone (made up
of Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham) meet
Government targets to reduce rough sleeping. However, we have
two linked concerns. Firstly, 75% of the temporary supported housing
schemes report problems of moving clients on to permanent accommodation.
Secondly, our local advice agency reports that the accommodation
options that they can offer non priority need are continuing to
reduce, including large numbers of working households, who would
previously have been able to find accommodation for themselves
in the private sector.
4.14 The NOTIFY project is a positive proactive
move to share data across London for all families in temporary
accommodation with the objective to protect vulnerable children
and is progressing well. However, development of effective support
within boroughs has been difficult to harness across partner services
and organisations including education; PCT and social services
to ensure that all families receive the support they need particularly
when placed in a proliferation of different local authorities
through the use of PSL. Work in this area continues to be in development
and whilst Supporting People funding can help focus on pooling
resources and approaches regionally and sub-regionally eg joint
procurement of floating support services will assist the situation.
5. HOUSING POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The issue of homelessness cannot be
separated from a discussion about overall housing need. Essentially,
existing and future demand for affordable housing cannot be met
through available relets and new build alone. This is leading
to a number of adverse impacts including households living in
overcrowded conditions and high numbers of households reporting
homeless and having to live in temporary accommodation. We already
prioritise our use of available stock through our Allocation Plan
and we define and promote the building of affordable housing successfully
through our planning policies.
5.2 In terms of the type of housing built,
the incentives we currently offer households under occupying social
housing, use of the private sector, conversion and extension of
existing housing and empties in the borough (private and public
sector) we are considering our current policies and approaches
to ensure that we are maximising the opportunities that might
be available to meet need. At the moment we feel that some of
the activities that we might want to pursue are currently constrained
by available subsidy and resources.
5.3 The demand is largely for social rented
housing. Intermediate housing options could meet some housing
needs however only cheaper forms of intermediate housing would
meet the majority of household needs identified in this category.
The demand for more expensive sub market housing is minimal. However,
development costs (eg purchase of land) often make the development
of low cost intermediate housing challenging if not impossible
without some additional subsidy either from the Council's own
capital resources or from for example cross subsidy from the development
of market housing. Additionally, larger family intermediate housing
units become prohibitively expensive and so largely unaffordable
so there has tended to be development of smaller intermediate
units (eg one and two bed) resulting in a serious short fall of
four bed units in recent years.
5.4 The social and economic consequences
of homelessness and the lack of affordable housing are significant.
Partners in particular (both RSLs and the Hammersmith and Fulham
Housing Management Services) have highlighted the adverse impacts
of overcrowding and poor housing conditions on health and well
being, educational attainment and on levels of anti social behaviour.
5.5 Additionally, we have evidence of households
leaving the borough to seek larger often owner occupied accommodation.
The loss of what we could suppose to be low to middle income households
seeking affordable market housing in cheaper areas of London and
the South East has and will potentially increase polarisation
in the borough. Promoting a range of local affordable housing
options that promotes and sustains mixed income communities is
important in ensuring that households "invest" in the
neighborhoods and local services available. The positive outcomes
include; better performing schools that attract children from
households with a range of incomes, a better skilled workforce
for the borough and regional economy and aiding employment, recruitment
and retention in the local area.
| 
