Memorandum by the North West Housing Forum
(SRH 18)
1. BACKGROUND
TO THE
NORTH WEST
HOUSING FORUM
1.1 This response has been prepared by the
North West Housing Forum and is endorsed by the North West Regional
Assembly in their capacity as Regional Housing Board. The North
West Regional Housing Forum is an inclusive and independent body
which represents strategic housing organisations and a range of
other stakeholders who have a shared interest in influencing policy
and maximising resources to meet the housing and housing related
needs of the Region. It was established in 1999, and since that
time has gone on to be recognised as the independent voice of
housing in the region.
1.2 The Forum was a Member of the original
North West Regional Housing Board, and continues to be a major
player in the new structure under the North West Regional Assembly
offering both sub regional representation and technical expertise.
1.3 The North West Regional Assembly is
now the Regional Housing Board. The Regional Housing Group has
been established to provide high level strategic advice and support
to the Assembly's Executive Board in order to carry out its role,
as Regional Housing Board. The Executive Board has strengthened
its membership, increasing from 18 to 21, to provide a balance
of 70:30 between Local Authority and stakeholder partners. This
reflects the balance of the Full Assembly as the statutory regional
planning body. The role and membership of the Regional Housing
Group has been established and includes the original Regional
Housing Board members together with sub-regional representation
and technical expertise.
1.4 We welcome the opportunity to submit
a joint respond to this inquiry, particularly at a time when so
much emphasis is being placed on the future direction of social
housing. However, it is crucial that the outcomes from the inquiry
as considered alongside the wealth of consultations/reviews ongoing
at the moment including the DCLG discussion paper "from decent
homes to sustainable communities" and the Professor Hills
review of social housing. Indeed in our response to the former
we have urged DCLG to pull together recommendations emerging from
all of these various consultations into a coherent strategy for
moving forward.
1.5 Our response to the questions raised
in the inquiry can be found in the following section. However,
we would also ask the Committee to take into account the additional
comments raised in section 3 which gives some additional context
to the debate. We would particularly ask the Committee to recognise
the need and role that social housing has to play in the delivery
of sustainable communities. We do not wish to return to the days
of developing large social housing estates, indeed we have learnt
the lessons from the past. Increased social rented housing must
be about communities that are more economically active, not welfare
dependant. There is, however, an urgent need to consider the crucial
role than social rented housing has to play in developing mixed
communities.
2. RESPONSE TO
THE INQUIRY
2.1 The level of public funding required
to meet social housing needs: We would recommend that a significant
level of public subsidy is required to meet social housing needs.
This should be seen in the context of current housing market conditions
and increasing problems of affordability (across a range of property
prices), together with the need to supply a mix of housing tenures
to suit the needs of all, and specifically to support vulnerable
residents. Furthermore, consideration needs to be given to some
of the other drivers which are likely to increase the need for
social housing, such as increased life expectancy and relationship
breakdown.
2.2 Although in some circumstances we need
to accept that social renting is a tenure of last resort, we also
need to recognise that social rented can be a tenure of choice;
indeed we can evidence that in some areas social housing is indeed
the rented market, ie no private rented market. Social Housing
does provide an essential backdrop for many of the most vulnerable
in society and for those on limited incomes. Therefore we need
to ensure that good quality social rented housing is a top priority
for public sector investment, which in turn will continue to support
other Government priorities including cultivating social cohesion
and eradicating inequality and deprivation.
2.3 In parts of the Oldham and Rochdale
Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder area there is evidence that
shows displaced owner/occupiers and tenants of private landlords
are choosing to rent in the future from a public landlord. In
the region of 42% of the more than 300 referrals, from owner/occupiers
or private and RSL tenants, have chosen a First Choice Homes Oldham
(local ALMO) publicly rented property. Many owner/occupiers have
chosen this because continued owner-occupation is not affordable.
Many of these owners could be described as "marginal owner/occupiers"
where the market value compensation for their home enables debts
to be repaid and a new start to be made as a tenant of a social
landlord.
2.4 Furthermore, we can show that in areas
where the image of social housing has been changed this has increased
the popularity of the stock. Where ALMOs and stock transfers have
delivered both the capital investment and the service improvements
we have seen demand rise and the level of voids and hard to Lets
fall. Local Authorities are also addressing the issue of breaking
down the large concentrations of social hosing and introducing
mixes of tenure, which in turn makes the remaining social rented
stock more popular. This can be evidenced in Langley in Rochdale,
an estate of 4,000 houses with 1,000 empty and un-lettable houses
three years ago. Following stock transfer the estate was remodelled,
800 properties demolished, 300 homes for sale developed and sold
to-date with more being built and a waiting list of over 600 people
applying for rented homes on the estate. This demonstrates that
we need to be moving towards ensuring that social rented housing
is pepper-potted across neighbourhoods, rather than the development
of large social rented estates. This, however, can only be achieved
on any scale by buying existing housing, repairing/improving and
then renting out, which needs to be resourced.
2.5 Ultimately, we accept that levels of
investment in social rented housing has improved over recent years;
however, we are still playing "catch up" from decades
of under investment, and current levels are insufficient to compensate
for this.
2.6 The relative funding priority being
given to social rented housing as opposed to shared ownership
and other forms of below market housing: The Forum would suggest
that it is legitimate for the social rented market to have the
greatest share of public funds as opposed to shared ownership,
for a number of reasons. There is a need to recognise that shared
ownership is still a relatively untested market and as such we
are unable to judge the future market for the sale of equity shares.
Shared Ownership can also prove to be a very costly form of purchasing
a property. When you consider the need to find a deposit, pay
a mortgage and in many instances pay rent on the remainder of
the value of the property, then (as publicly funded opportunities
for buying are currently constructed) this no longer becomes a
viable option for many on low incomes. Indeed, it could be argued
that in some instances this actually encourages debt in marginal
owners. Although we support shared ownership and the role it has
to play in increasing choice, we do, however, feel that there
is a need for the Committee to consider the current level of debt
in the UK, which has recently risen to one trillion pounds. Although
we acknowledge that opinion is split on how far the servicing
of this debt is a problem, we would suggest that there is a moral
question around public subsidy being used to push those on relatively
low incomes to take on mounting debt to purchase their home. Furthermore,
it can be evidenced that in pathfinder areas particularly the
elderly have not opted for this model, with many older owner/occupiers
choosing to rent, as this has relieved them of the burden and
hassle of home ownership and all that goes with that in terms
of property maintenance.
2.7 In the North West Region 26% (£53
million) of Housing Corporation funding through the National Affordable
Housing Programme (NAHP) for 2006-08 has been allocated to new-build
home-buy to deliver 1,573 units. A further £9.7 million has
been allocated to deliver 340 units through open market home buy.
A grant of £200.8 million is allocated to provide 3,811 new
and refurbished home32[32]
showing that funding through the Corporation has an important
role to play in the provision of new/refurbished social rented
housing, which needs to be balanced against an increasing emphasis
on products for sale which are needed to increase choice within
the region.
2.8 We can also evidence that social rented
housing has a history of providing value for money from the public
purse. It is a long term investment for the Government, and not
only provides a roof over peoples heads, but the contribution
that it makes to other Government agenda's including health, social
care and education cannot be underestimated. We would add that
it provides a "safety net" for unforeseen personal circumstances.
2.9 Furthermore, in support of the greatest
share of resources being directed to social rented housing, we
would maintain a view that any market products should be supported
by increased private sector investment. Ultimately, market products
will be expected to bring increased profits, but these will not
be to the benefit of the public purse and therefore we need to
encourage the private sector to take a holistic approach to development
which includes the subsidising of below market products.
2.10 We would also ask the Committee, when
considering the levels of investment required, to give consideration
to where money can be more effectively spent on improving properties
for rent, rather than the current emphasis on new build. In many
instances in this region, where there is still a demand for the
types of older housing that need investing in, this would allow
for better value for money, using existing stock for remodelling
or improvements and bringing both the properties and indeed the
wider neighbourhoods up to a decent and desirable condition (as
shown in 2.4). We recognise that there are implications in terms
of higher grant rate for refurbishment, which is an issue for
regions such as the North West. However, if we take into account
all costs associated with demolition and new build (plus the more
difficult to quantify but important environmental and social costs)
rehabilitation does become a better value for money option, and
offers the opportunity for the wider regeneration of existing
communities.
2.11 Ultimately, however, we would support
an approach that enables decisions over the relative funding priorities
to be made at a sub regional and local level. Therefore once decisions
have been made around the national split of resources, decisions
should be made locally about the best use of public funds in intervening
in local housing markets to ensure that they address gaps that
are left in housing need. Furthermore, in our opinion, national
decisions about the split should themselves by influenced by an
aggregated picture of the local assessments of need for rented
and owner occupied. In our view, markets are still very localised
and therefore an aggregated view of local assessments should provide
a very robust basis for national and regional decision-making
about the best way to allocate resources designed ultimately to
make the housing markets work effectively.
2.12 The geographical distribution of subsidies
for affordable housing: We would argue that subsidies should be
targeted at those who need it most, to maintain sustainable communities.
Affordability issues arise in both high demand and low demand
areas, as affordability is about the relationship between price
and income rather than price alone. Even in a perceived affluent
county such as Cheshire, many households will struggle to purchase
even a 50% share of a property. Consideration needs also to given
around the need for people to be able to take the risk of investing
money in low quality and low value areas. Without support for
this there is a real risk that these areas will not regenerate
and meet the aim of them becoming attractive places to live and
therefore a valuable part of the housing offer of the region.
It is important that rather than seeing imbalances of supply and
demand or stock condition as separate issues, we start to take
a more joined-up approach to decision making. Addressing stock
condition can actually help to tackle problems of supply by making
low demand areas more attractive and so help to take some pressure
off high demand areas, as well as giving more people a chance
of a decent home and neighbourhood.
2.13 In the North West region we took a
significant hit through the Single Housing Pot last year, with
changes to the formula and indicators which skewed investment
towards high value property areas specifically in the South, whilst
removing many of the regeneration indicators. Therefore we would
suggest that it is not about where but about how that need is
defined. During last year's consultation we put forward detailed
arguments on the impact of the changes in this region and the
need for any national formula to support the development of sustainable
communities across the whole of the country. It is our understanding
that a further consultation is expected during the Autumn regarding
future funding through the Single Housing Pot, and we will once
again be providing a strong evidence base to highlight the need
for subsidies to reflect the differing issues of affordability
including acknowledging the need for regeneration of existing
communities as just as important to the affordable housing debate
as the need for new supply/growth.
2.14 We would add to this that we need to
give consideration to how the "value" created is redistributed
to target those in most need, especially as more home ownership
created by Government initiatives results in more of it being
created and released. With ever increasing property prices it
is crucial that we explore ways of ensuring that this increased
value can be reused to support the continued need for affordable
housing provision.
2.15 The future role for local authorities
as builders and managers of social housing: The Forum represents
a wide range of enablers and providers, and we support the roles
that they all have to play in the development of Sustainable Communities.
With regard to whether local authorities should in the future
be builders and managers of social housing, then we would argue
that these decisions should be made at a local level and not directed
by the centre. However, at the present time this is not an economically
realistic option, and changes need to be made to the rules which
would enable these choices to be made. We support the need for
similar rules for all, whether it be local authorities, ALMOs
or housing associations, in terms of this being tied to performance
and based on a strong business case. We would also support the
need for a strong evidence base to enable these decisions to be
taken. Part of this evidence base [specifically for Local Authorities]
would be to demonstrate that building and managing homes would
not distract from their enabling and strategic role. Ultimately,
however, the important issue for any organisation is that they
invest not just in housing, but that they have a long-term interest
and make the necessary investment into the development of neighbourhoods.
It is also important for decisions to be made about balance between
increased pluralism in providers and economy/efficiency that can
be achieved by limiting number of developers.
2.16 The effectiveness of different social
housing models including traditional local authority housing,
ALMOs, housing co-operatives and housing associations: We strongly
believe that all organisations are more effective where mature
partnership working has been developed, which brings with it knowledge
and expertise and choices for residents. You cannot, however,
compare the individual organisations as you are not comparing
like for like. For example, housing associations offer value for
money as every £1 of public subsidy is matched by private
investment. However, unless the rules are changed to allow local
authorities and ALMOs to access private finance we are not looking
at a level playing field, and many believe that with this level
playing field we can increase the effectiveness of delivery.
2.17 Once again we would argue that this
needs to be closely linked into local decision making, rather
than prescription from the centre. Generally we believe that the
sector is performing well, however, further subsidy is still required
to enable the delivery of more units.
2.18 The role and effectiveness of private
rented housing in meeting housing needs: The private rented sector
certainly has a role to play. However, its role and effectiveness
very much depends on the market in which it operates. We should
not, however, lose sight of the fact that the objective of the
private sector is to make a profit, and although they do meet
a housing need (across the spectrum of households) this is often
by default and not design. This said, increasingly the production
of new housing units by the private sector is having less impact
on meeting housing need, due to many new homes built being bought
as an investment rather than as a home to meet a household's requirements.
2.19 We would support the need, in some
parts of the market, for regulation and licensing to ensure that
standards are high and that low income and vulnerable households
are not left in sub standard and poorly managed properties.
2.20 The priorities and effectiveness of
the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and the Regional
Housing Boards in responding to housing needs: In the North West
region the Housing Corporation, as a Member of the Regional Housing
Board, is committed to the regional priorities as set out in the
Regional Housing Strategy. However, the ability to respond to
these priorities can be hampered by a lack of flexibility in response
to locally agreed priorities when working within a national framework.
Examples from Members of the North West Housing Forum are quoted
below:
— Bolton received extra resources
from a commissioning bid which was aimed at looking at new tools
for refurbishment. Part of the bid included acquisition for demolition
to be supported through Social Housing Grant, however, two years
later they are still waiting for a decision on whether this will
be supported as it does not fit with the Corporations financing
model (a decision which now can only be made by central Government).
The frustration here is that the bid was all about innovations
and seeing what could be done outside of the existing framework.
— Members can evidence that whilst
not across the board, in some parts of Cumbria an informal cap
on grant rate of £100k has been applied which just does not
work, specifically in areas such as Eden where it is impossible
to purchase properties for less than £150k.
— An example of the above in Cumbria
is a scheme in the Lake District National Park for the conversion
of a former school building into three units for rent for local
people. This scheme attracted no less than four multipliers: pre
1919; conversion; Lake District National Park Authority; and rural.
The grant required was £200k per unit which was naturally
rejected by the Corporation. Looking to reduce the grant rate
to £100k would have put the scheme in deficit for over 40
years. We would argue that there needs to be recognition in areas
such as this that high property and land values together with
a need to provide subsidised rent schemes in turn create a need
for high grant rates. This informal cap on grant rates mean that
in these areas it is virtually impossible to achieve the priority
of affordable homes for rent in these rural areas.
2.21 Furthermore, we can evidence that more
flexibility can enable delivery. The North West Regional Housing
Board made available a relatively small amount of funding (£12
million) for affordable housing schemes in the region. The aim
was to encourage innovation in delivery, and the results have
been very positive. Those who made the decision to receive the
funding directly, rather than via the Housing Corporation, believe
that approach is what has enabled them to deliver effectively.
For example, in Cumbria there are specific problems around planning
permission within the Lake District National Park resulting, on
occasions, with the failure of schemes to actually deliver. Without
the normal restrictions under this funding pot, they were able
to simply reallocate the resources themselves rather than losing
a failed scheme and having to bid again for resources for any
new development. We welcome the increased opportunities that this
flexibility has given us and look to working with partners such
as the Housing Corporation to explore whether these flexibilities
can be developed further using NAHP funding.
2.22 This is not a criticism of the priorities
of the Housing Corporation, indeed we work closely with the North
West regional office and they are committed to targeting investment
to the agreed regional priorities; rather our criticism is of
the rules under which they work, which does in turn impact on
how they can effectively respond to new and innovative proposals.
This question obviously relates very closely to the Government's
current review of housing and regeneration, and specifically to
future role of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships,
therefore our key response to this issue would be to advise that
the challenge of any institutional reform is to address these
issues.
2.23 Along with the Housing Corporation,
English Partnerships is also an important Member of the Regional
Housing Board, and it is fair to say that much closer relationships
have been developed over recent years. Indeed, a positive contribution
has been made to the work of the Board by English Partnerships;
however, they are also an organisation that is driven by the centre,
and therefore by national rather than regional priorities. For
example, it is felt that English Partnerships could have an effective
role to play in the regeneration of rural areas through the development
of affordable housing and employment opportunities, but this does
not seem to fit with the national priorities. The Forum therefore
believes that the current roles of both organisations, regardless
of the make-up of any new agency, can only work effectively if
they are strongly tied into the regional agenda and regional structures.
2.24 The emergence of Regional Housing Boards
has been broadly welcomed in the North West. The development of
a Regional Housing Strategy which identifies the fundamental needs
and priorities of the region builds on many years of close working
across the region. Naturally, in a region as diverse as the North
West, it will not be possible for the Board to gain the support
and agreement of all, although working closely with the Forum
they have attempted to be as inclusive as possible, whilst having
to make difficult decisions over funding priorities. Unfortunately
for this region, we have been badly hit by funding allocations
from the centre (as outlined in 2.13) which in turn has impacted
on decisions taken by the Board. We are currently in a position
where we are moving towards a stronger evidence based strategy
which will in turn inform both investment and policy decisions
not just for the Board but for partners. There is a clear commitment
to aligning the Strategy with the Regional Economic Strategy and
the Regional Spatial Strategy, and although these changes do take
time positive moves have been taken which will have clear benefits
to the region in the future. Therefore we would suggest that the
Government allows these relationships and structures to mature.
Regional bodies by their very nature are much better placed to
make decisions about the regions; however, this must be backed
up with appropriate policies and resources from the centre.
2.25 The role and effectiveness of the planning
system, including section 106 agreements in the provision of rented
housing and securing mixed tenure housing developments: We recognise
that the planning system works more effectively in some local
authority areas than others, and that we need to be more proactive
in making Section 106 agreement work to secure mixed tenure developments,
and specifically social rented housing (acknowledging that it
is easier to secure low cost ownership properties on sites than
social rented). Indeed, we welcome DCLG's commitment to looking
at new ways of using S 106 agreements to provide affordable homes,
and raising more from planning gain. but feel that more could
be done to raise awareness and promote areas of good practice.
2.26 There is a need for dialogue between
housing, planning and developers, and in the North West we have
started facilitating these discussions on a regional level. In
some areas there is a concern that Local Authority Planners need
to recognise that development is not just about numbers, and consider
housing need and the mix of properties. This said, there are some
good examples in the region of positive joint working between
housing and planning. Across Merseyside housing and planning officers
do work closely to address issues around the need and type of
properties required, and within that sub region the New Heartlands
Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder uses a Developers Forum to address
design issues in relation to HMR redevelopment issues in Liverpool.
With regard to developers, we feel that it is time for Local Authorities
to hold their nerve, insisting that the right mix of accommodation
is agreed before granting consents. The inquiry needs to recognise
the complexities of bringing about the right mix of tenure on
any new developments. It is not as simple as the private sector
not wishing to provide social rented housing for a number of reasons,
including the fact that this provides less return and there is
a perception that this will have a detrimental effect on the sale
of other properties. Whilst this is certainly a crucial factor
we also need to consider the need for public subsidy to support
the development and indeed the need for a willing landlord. Therefore
we would recommend that any review must consider all the issues
and not just part of the problem.
2.27 We have got a framework within which
to work, but it is how individual organisations operate that can
have a real impact on the effectiveness of the system. Whilst
some authorities stipulate mix of tenure on new developments others
advise that tenure cannot be specified. Some examples of the issues
faced, and how organisations are responding, from within the North
West region are highlighted below:
— Eden District Council took a
firm stance with developers two years ago over levels of affordable
housing on sites, and whilst initially walking away the developers
have now come started to come back to the Local Authority to negotiate.
— Oldham Council have been using
resale covenant schemes with an in perpetuity discount applying
to a percentage of properties on a development. However, this
needs to be properly resourced as the experience is that with
re-sales purchasers are putting forward arguments that they should
be allowed to market the properties as normal, and if these arguments
are successful then the discount would be lost. As a region we
are keen to see how these individual schemes will be brought together
with others, such as equity loans and social homebuy, and the
impact this will have on increasing the number of units and supporting
the development of affordable housing provision.
— Cheshire as a sub region has
been very effective in the use of S106 agreements in delivering
new affordable housing (in 2004-06 grant funded schemes numbered
258 new units with 303 delivered through S106/private finance.
This will rise to 450 through grant and 631 through S106/private
finance in 2006-08). This should be seen as positive joint-working
with developers and planners in terms of using the planning system
to deliver affordable housing, and has a valuable contribution
to make in meeting housing need in the sub region. However, we
also need to recognise that in reality the properties developed
using S106 tend to be other forms of affordable housing, with
rented properties requiring grant funding on separate sites (for
the reasons already highlighted in 2.26). These affordable properties
for sale, however, are no longer affordable when sold on due to
the high property values, and therefore not really addressing
the longer term affordability issue. Flexibility in the use of
grant to support S106 developments would make the development
of rented housing more affordable, and certainly there is an urgent
need for this in many areas. Generally, across the region and
the range of housing markets, we need to use the planning process
to ensure that we stretch the Housing Corporation allocations
as effectively as we can.
2.28 There is also a need to recognise the
specific issues of rural areas. Housing Association Members in
Cumbria feel that planning gain is of limited use on small rural
exception sites and would welcome more use of CPO powers by planning
authorities on redundant and unused building and land. In parts
of Cheshire recent guidance from DCLG for planners to use in assessing
the sustainability of rural schemes are now causing delays at
best and could actually prevent schemes at worst. An example being
a scheme agreed by the local and parish council, with evidence
of high need for affordable housing, and grant secured by the
Housing Association which planners have now raised concerns over
with regard to insufficient infrastructure based on the new guidance.
Furthermore, Planning Gain Tax is unlikely to have an impact in
these areas where it is access to land that is needed.
2.29 We also support the use of commuted
sums through S 106 agreements providing that they are used effectively
to provide/support the provision of affordable housing within
the same area. However, we know that without these funds being
ring fencing for that purpose, in some authorities there is a
danger that the monies will be used for other local priorities
such as transport and leisure services.
2.30 The effectiveness of housing benefit
as a means of providing access to rented housing to those in need.
We would not argue that the system is effective in that is does
allow access to housing, but there are a wider range of issues
that need to be considered. Whilst allowing access at one level,
it can also exclude people from/limit choice. Discretionary housing
benefit is not sustainable and therefore can only be used as a
short-term measure, ie to enable someone to remain in their home
or to help them secure accommodation. This will invariably prevent
access to many properties in the private sector where rents may
be traditionally higher than the public sector.
2.31 An unintended consequence of housing
benefit is that it can be a disincentive to work, and hence creates
a welfare dependant culture, however, any changes to the system
would need to strike a delicate balance between this and ensuring
there is support for those most in need.
2.32 The impact of the operation of Council
Tax Benefit on the affordability of rented housing. The reality
is that the system of Council Tax benefit is too complex. This
can be evidenced by the low take up by the vulnerable, and therefore
we fail to see how the existing system is supporting the affordability
of rented housing. Furthermore, the way the system works means
that those who are not entitled to 100% benefit on council tax,
eg those working but on a low wage, may still find the payments
they are required to make high compared with their relative income.
As with housing benefit this then can be a further disincentive
to work and another contributory factor to the welfare dependant
culture.
2.33 Overall any system of benefits (either
housing or council tax) should be one that allows/supports access
to decent housing, whilst also providing an incentive for employment.
3. OTHER COMMENTS
3.1 Although not specifically asked in the
inquiry we would raise a question to the Committee as to what
is meant by the term "social rented housing"? Many feel
that the term in itself brings with it a stigma, and would prefer
to see this re-branded as public, as opposed to private, rented
housing. However, there is a bigger issue and that is around the
diversity of the social rented market. It covers a wide spectrum
from homelessness; through the desire for people to leave their
family home; the necessity to find urgent alternative accommodation
as a result of relationship breakdown; the specific requirements
of those people with special needs; the particular design demands
relating to cultural preferences; including at the opposite end
of needs that merge into, or are interchangeable with, aspirations.
So, understanding better the complexities of the social rented
market—how it is evolving along with what factors influence
and shape it not least of which is how its "image" gets
in the way of it effectively fulfilling its role, are essential
pre-requisites to arriving at informed decisions over the levels
of investment required to meet the needs the market throws up.
3.2 We would also reinforce that if we are
to succeed in our aim for truly sustainable communities then we
must ensure that there is choice and opportunity for all. We do
not wish to return to the days of monolithic social housing estates
which we now acknowledge are not sustainable; however, we must
ensure that social rented housing is an accessible and indeed
desirable option for people. We can show the Committee examples
from the North West region where there is a great deal of work
going on to this aim. For example, in the Oldham/Rochdale Housing
Market Renewal Pathfinder they are ensuring that there is this
mix on new developments with approximately 25% social housing
and up to 10% intermediate housing, and also importantly that
these subsidized homes are indistinguishable from the private
properties and not in clusters. Meanwhile, on existing social
housing estates eg Langley, they are reducing the numbers of social
rented properties in order to introduce a broader range of economically
active residents.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 We welcome this inquiry in that it contributes
to the wider agenda of sustainable communities of which the supply
of rented housing is crucial. The Assembly and North West Housing
Forum are committed to increased choice for all within the region,
not just those with the financial capacity to purchase a property.
This submission to the inquiry highlights only a few of the many
examples from across the North West Region where Members are working
hard to achieve this aim; however, there are many more which we
would be happy to share with the Committee should they require
them.
32 Housing Corporation Allocation statement 2006-08
North West (May 2006).
Back
|
