Memorandum by PLUS Housing Group (SRH
17)
1.1 THE LEVEL
OF PUBLIC
FUNDING REQUIRED
TO MEET
SOCIAL HOUSING
NEEDS
— We would recommend that a significant
level of funding is necessary to address social housing requirements.
Funding is required to meet a wide range of current housing needs.
Social housing provides essential support for vulnerable members
of society and is an important safety net for those with changing
life cycles, eg marriage breakdown. Whilst social housing is often
seen as a tenancy of last resort we consider that it can also
be a tenure of choice, especially in the North West where rented
housing can be of poor quality or too expensive for those on low
incomes.
— Whilst social rented housing
through a regulated agency does provide a viable option to the
private rented sector we consider that social housing can provide
a high-quality intermediate rented market whilst addressing issues
of affordability.
— The term social housing should
be omitted as it is seen now as a stigma.
— We would suggest that investment
in social housing needs to address a wider remit within the context
of current housing market strategy, eg creation of mixed income
communities, creation of sustainable communities and the alleviation
of poverty and deprivation. In this respect we would consider
that funding for initiatives such as NRF should be longer term
as we are addressing a generational problem and whilst providers
are starting to mainstream improvements in service there are still
financial pressures on Local Authorities because of the way in
which central Government funds them, ie it is very prescriptive
in how LAs can spend.
— On a similar theme, we would
recommend that funding allocations consider the creation of quality
housing and quality sustainable communities. The current system
focuses on outputs and numbers of new/improved homes. We would
recommend the Housing Corporation change their approach to measurement
and assessment when allocating funding. We would recommend a change
away from outputs toward a wider quality indicator that measures
housing quality and social/economic/neighbourhood factors.
— We believe the current system
of funding is fairly complex, eg funding is provided through a
large number of sources. We also believe that under the current
system long-term planning can be restricted due to uncertainty
about future levels of funding. For example, the 10-15-year HMRI
programmes are currently on two-year funding cycles. The uncertainty
about future levels for HMRI funding limit the level of long-term
planning. Additionally, short funding cycles cause uncertainty
about possible changes in Government priorities in respect of
strategies and funding allocations. We recommend a simplified
and consistent approach to funding that guarantees long-term levels
of funding to particular projects and strategies.
1.2 THE RELATIVE
FUNDING PRIORITY
GIVEN TO
SOCIAL RENTED
HOUSING AS
OPPOSED TO
OTHER FORMS
OF HOUSING
PROVISION
— We welcome and recognise the
need for other types of housing such as shared ownership, equity
and intermediate renting within the North West. We feel that social
housing providers are in a good position to supply intermediate
rented housing and shared ownership properties in the North West.
We feel that these products will offer a wider range of choice
in a market that is facing increasing problems of affordability
both for purchase of housing and in the private rented sector.
Social housing has traditionally provided more
than bricks and mortar, fulfilling a number of social and economic
functions for the local community. We recommend that social housing
providers are in the best position to provide these additional
functions as opposed to private developers who have traditionally
solely focused on building homes.
1.3 THE GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION OF
SUBSIDIES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
— Housing needs in the North West
are different to those in the South East of England. For example,
in the South East, affordability may be a greater issue whilst
in the North West housing stock is of poorer quality, leading
to poor health, poor standards of education and often located
in severely economically deprived areas. Whilst we acknowledge
the Northern Way has brought in essential money to economic regeneration
we would recommend that further analysis is required of overall
economic regeneration requirements and that there should be greater
focus on funding in the North to tackle these problems.
— We feel that consideration needs
to be given to the needs of organisations who are investing in
low-quality and low-value areas. Operating in these areas is a
high risk strategy that attracts little private funding. Without
the adequate funding support there is a high risk that these areas
will fail economically to regenerate and become a viable proposition
for people to move to.
— In low quality areas with severe
deprivation we feel the focus on the importance of creating sustainable
communities is right. However, as housing associations become
the main provider of housing and other related services the Housing
Corporation should consider how funding from its programme includes
resources to address wider neighbourhood issues—especially
in those areas where neighbourhood renewal programmes do not operate.
— At a national level we would
recommend clearer funding priorities that support regeneration
within the North (as has been done for the South of the country)
with the Regional Housing Board providing a clearer strategy on
how it deals with all of the housing and related neighbourhood
issues in the North associated with deprived communities.
— A large number of developments
in the North West take place on brown-field sites. This type of
development is often more complex and time consuming than building
on a green-field site. The uncertainty, complexity and high risk
of development on brown-field sites, particularly in HMRI areas
significantly raises costs compared with development on green-field
sites. On HMRI sites the large number of partners involved, requirements
for the decanting process and requirement to meet specific designs
raises costs that are not recognised in grant rates and impact
on the efficiency of the affordable housing programme.
— Whilst new housing provision
is considered less of a priority in the North West there are still
many areas where there is still a huge need for new social housing,
eg North Sefton, West Lancs. We would recommend that these issues
are considered and addressed.
2.2 THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF DIFFERENT
SOCIAL HOUSING
MODELS INCLUDING
TRADITIONAL LOCAL
AUTHORITY HOUSING,
ALMOS, HOUSING
CO -OPERATIVES
AND HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS
— In stock transfers there needs
to be a greater emphasis within the business planning of the new
companies about how they intend to introduce a range of tenures
that will support changing needs of their communities. Therefore
we strongly believe that any social housing model should follow
overall Government strategy to create mixed income neighbourhoods
and wider agendas than pure housing provision. We would suggest
the introduction of a Housing Regeneration Model that meets and
identifies the needs of an area.
— We recognise that the different
models in the housing sector are currently operating under different
funding and different regulatory regimes. We would welcome an
introduction of a system of inspection, evaluation and review
that has a consistent and fair approach for all providers of social
housing.
— Following on from the above
point we would welcome a system that also is flexible in its funding
regime, eg allowing both revenue and capital streams to support
work.
2.3 THE ROLE
AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF PRIVATE
RENTED HOUSING
IN MEETING
HOUSING NEEDS
— We acknowledge that the private
rented sector meets a need within the housing market and believe
this role varies according to the market it operates within. In
particular we believe that private rented housing is more accessible
than social housing meeting a short-term demand to house working
people on low incomes at short notice. We suggest that by attracting
low earners away from the private rented sector social housing
providers could help to contribute towards the creation of mixed
communities.
— We recommend that, as with developers
who are now receiving affordable housing grants and are accredited
by the Housing Corporation, private landlords who are receiving
housing benefits should be monitored more effectively. Landlord
Accreditation programmes essentially work on goodwill and co-operation—we
need a system that links performance and standards to receipt
of central government funding.
— Motivation for provision of
housing in the private sector is mainly for profit and does not
necessary fit with overall housing needs. For example, the current
provision of high-rental city centre flats is mainly for investment
rather than meeting need for cheap rented housing.
3.1 THE PRIORITIES
AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
HOUSING CORPORATION,
ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS
AND THE
REGIONAL HOUSING
BOARDS IN
RESPONDING TO
HOUSING NEEDS
— We would like to see more joined
up working at a regional level and sub-regional level. We recommend
closer working between the LA and RHB at a sub-regional level.
3.3 THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF HOUSING
BENEFIT AS
A MEANS
OF PROVIDING
ACCESS TO
RENTED HOUSING
TO THOSE
IN NEED
— We would recommend a longer
funding cycle for the Supported People programme to support vulnerable
people on housing benefit.
|
