Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Second Report

2  The characteristics of coastal towns

The diversity and commonality of coastal towns

9. The size and characteristics of settlements on the coast vary considerably: there are small rural towns and villages, traditional 'seaside resorts', and sites of industrial activity. Many witnesses commented on the risks inherent in any generalisation about coastal towns, given their differing social and economic profiles. Professor Fothergill stated that "there is clearly a huge difference between […] a Great Yarmouth or a Skegness or a Thanet, where there is clear evidence of labour market difficulty, and, on the other hand […] Bournemouth […], where there is evidence of the strength of the labour market".[8] The economic diversity of coastal towns can be seen in the variety of levels of deprivation experienced. For example, Blackpool is ranked as the 24th most deprived out of 354 local authority areas nationwide while the relatively prosperous coastal town of Bognor Regis is ranked 279th.[9] The Government and the RDAs both recognise this diversity.[10] The Government argued that there are many differences between coastal towns, including their "size, the impact of regional and historic contexts and different patterns of economic development. It is therefore difficult to generalise about places ranging from Bournemouth and Brighton to Skegness and St Ives."[11]

10. Nevertheless, there tend "to be some common features shared by coastal towns".[12]
Economic diversity does not negate the fact that coastal towns account for a disproportionately high percentage of England's deprived areas. As the Government told us, "twenty-one of the 88 most deprived authorities are in coastal areas".[13] The South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) reports that nine out of ten of the South Eastfs most deprived wards are in coastal towns or cities.[14] Our evidence has also highlighted other commonalities including:

  • physical and social isolation;[15]
  • high proportions of older people together with higher levels of outward migration among young people;[16]
  • low-wage, low-skill economies and seasonality of employment;[17]
  • frequent dependency on a single industry, and[18]
  • a high incidence of poor housing conditions and a high proportion of private rented homes.[19]


11. One obvious feature of all coastal towns is that they are next to the sea. This can be an asset, providing economic and social opportunities such as employment in fishing, shipping and ports. Several witnesses, however, commented on the detrimental consequences of physical isolation and that this is often a barrier to economic growth. Three interrelated issues were raised regarding physical isolation: poor transport infrastructure, the 180-degree hinterland and the difficult topography found in many coastal towns, often characterised by steep hills and river estuaries.

12. The New Economics Foundation (NEF) argued that poor transport infrastructure "hinders businesses that are dependent on efficient logistics to access […] markets."[20] Others suggested that it is a handicap for tourism in particular.[21] Thanet District Council, for instance, pointed out that from London it takes the same length of time to get to York by rail as to Ramsgate, despite York being three times as far away.[22] Devon County Council argued that by making it harder for people to access jobs or medical help or to see family and friends, poor transport infrastructure acted as a barrier to economic and social inclusion.[23] In contrast, the British Resorts and Destinations Association (BRADA) provided an example of good transport links promoting economic growth. It argued, for instance, "the thing […] driving Brighton is the fact that it has a fast rail link".[24] Secondly, the 180-degree hinterland effectively halves the catchment area for businesses in coastal towns compared to that of businesses located inland, thus reducing their natural customer base.[25] Thirdly, some witnesses, including Devon County Council pointed out that as coastal towns were often situated on river estuaries and surrounded on either side by steep hills, their local topography limited the amount of land suitable for development and as such put land prices at a premium.[26] It was also noted that the fact that many coastal towns included or had nearby areas of land protected for reasons of ecological or historical significance could increase the difficulties associated with development.[27] Development constraints in coastal towns were also recognised by the English RDAs.[28] The physical isolation of many coastal towns is often a significant barrier to economic growth, development and regeneration.


13. Several witnesses drew attention to the risks to which coastal communities are exposed as a consequence of climate change - rising sea levels, more frequent and more severe flooding, coastline erosion and increased frequency and intensity of storms.[29] According to the Environment Agency "by 2080 the UK could be facing major flood events once every three years compared to every one hundred years in the past", putting one million people in coastal communities and £120 billions worth of infrastructure at risk.[30]

14. The severity of these risks is not uniform around the coastline. Some areas face significant levels of risk: the Environment Agency told us that areas such as "the Humber or at Happisburgh or around the Essex coast" would be "in the frontline of the impacts of climate change".[31] It also stated that flood risk will rise by at least 30% around our southern and eastern coasts.[32]

15. Risk exposure to coastal flooding and erosion can be mitigated by sea defences, but the quality of flood defences varies: in London, for instance, there is a one in a 1000 year risk of flooding overcoming flood defences but along other parts of the coast that may have a naturally lower level of risk, the risk might be one in 50 because of the poorer flood defences.[33]

16. In some areas however, as the Environment Agency pointed out, it simply may "not be viable to provide coastal protection, either due to engineering limits or cost" and that "retreating to historic coastlines even in developed areas will in some places be the only sustainable option".[34] The result is that in some areas residents face the loss of their homes. The Government has recognised the increasing risks of flooding and coastline erosion which threaten some coastal communities and acknowledged the considerable concern that has been expressed on the fairness of decisions to defend some coastal communities, using public funds, and not to defend others.[35] In some areas, particularly those areas subject to aggressive coastal erosion, the Environment Agency highlighted the need for long-term, possibly innovative, adaptation solutions. It told us "what preys heavily on people is compensation for their property", and that "there may be a case for recognising the current generation's special needs in grants and social support where individuals are affected".[36]

17. The Government has already taken some steps to address the increased risk exposure of coastal communities resulting from climate change. The Environment Agency is considering a range of options to manage the relocation of coastal communities where coastal defence may not be viable; these include innovative solutions, such as "creating local housing trusts or facilitating local planning authorities to buy up freeholds to endangered property and allow residents to rent them back at a reduced market rate until they must be relocated".[37] In January 2007, the Government announced funding for six pilot projects responding to flood and coastal erosion risk.[38] DEFRA is planning to launch an "adaptation toolkit" in late 2007.[39] Some coastal communities face significant and increasing risks from coastal erosion and flooding. We welcome the Government's consideration of adaptation measures and the launch of pilot projects. We are concerned, however, that the pace of Government action is too slow to meet the needs of those coastal communities where coastal erosion is at its most aggressive and that delay can only increase social injustice and uncertainty for those communities. We recommend that the Government, as a matter of urgency, put in place a fair and transparent national approach to coastal adaptation for communities threatened by the consequences of climate change.

18. The Environment Agency called for improvements in the planning system to reduce and manage the risk of coastal flooding and erosion for existing settlements and new coastal developments, in particular commenting on Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs).[40] SMPs are non-statutory plans that provide a "strategic assessment of the threat to the coast and coastal towns from flooding and erosion", now over a 100-year horizon, and include recommendations for managing this risk, including the option not to defend parts of the coast if they are not viable.[41]

19. SMPs are drawn up by area-specific coastal groups, covering a number of local authority areas, and are composed of maritime district local authorities and other bodies.[42] While the Environment Agency acknowledged that in practice many local planning authorities incorporated SMPs into their strategic development plans, it pointed to instances where this had not been the case, such as in North Norfolk, where the local district council has opposed adoption of the plan owing to local opposition.[43] It is understandably politically difficult for any individual local council to adopt a plan that acknowledges that it is not viable to maintain comprehensive coastal protection and that some people will lose their homes. The Environment Agency told us that SMPs should therefore be made statutory, giving them "equal weighting in development planning with other statutory plans".[44] The impact of this would be to assist coastal authorities to take the strategic, long-term planning decisions that are needed, as there would be a statutory obligation for the authorities to take the SMPs into account. We conclude that SMPs should be made statutory to enable difficult but vitally necessary decisions to be made. We welcome the use of Shoreline Management Plans which are a useful tool for managing development and coastal flooding and erosion risk. The Government should make Shoreline Management Plans statutory to strengthen their use in the planning process. This will ensure that adequate account is taken of coastal flooding and erosion risk.

20. Since the Environment Agency presented its evidence, the Government has published a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS25) on 'Development and Flood Risk'.[45] The Government stated that this "strengthens and clarifies policy that flood risk should be taken into account at all stages of the planning process."[46] PPS25 specifies the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee on all relevant planning applications and introduces further scrutiny arrangements for major developments.[47] PPS25 also enshrines a "sequential test" to avoid the development of land at risk of flooding.[48] We welcome the measures within the Planning Policy Statement 25 that give greater weight to consideration of flood risk in the planning process.

21. The British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA) argued that it is important to ensure that investment in sea defences is linked to the wider regeneration of the area to ensure that economic and social benefits are maximised. This might involve effective sequencing of work, for example by carrying out sea defence work prior to significant investment in public realm infrastructure projects. BURA suggested that such integrated planning had not always been the case and that previously there had been a tendency for the Environment Agency to think "in terms of engineering for flood defences", although there does now seem to be a more strategic approach on the part of the Environment Agency.[49] The Environment Agency confirmed that regeneration was one factor in decisions regarding sea defence investment and it stressed that deriving "multiple benefits" was its "guiding principle".[50] Indeed, its cost benefit analyses included consideration of social and environmental outcomes. It is important that investment in sea defences is linked to the regeneration of coastal areas, and we welcome the steps now taken by the Environment Agency to ensure that the social and economic implications of sea defences works are considered at the outset and that the work contributes to the improvement of the public realm. We urge the Department for Communities and Local Government to work more closely with the Environment Agency and other bodies to ensure that opportunities for regeneration of coastal towns, afforded by investment in sea defences, are realised.

22. The Environment Agency also called for better information to be provided to future generations wanting to live in existing coastal settlements. It called for potential homeowners to be made aware of the risks associated with climate change, including the possibility that their tenure may only be temporary, at the point at which local authority searches are carried out on new purchases.[51] The Environment Agency has been tasked by the Government to produce coastal erosion risk maps and make them available in the public domain in the same way that flood risk maps already are. This is due to take place by the end of 2008.[52] Homebuyers will then be able to make an informed choice about purchasing a property. We agree with the Environment Agency that the information provided to those considering purchasing a property in a coastal area must draw attention to the risks arising from flooding and coastal erosion, and therefore welcome the Government's intention for coastal erosion risk maps to be available in the public domain in 2008 on a similar basis to existing flood risk maps.


23. Several witnesses drew attention to a range of demographic trends in coastal towns. These include: the inward migration of older people and those of working age, high levels of transient and vulnerable people, and the outward migration of young people. The net impact of these individual demographic trends is to leave many coastal towns with a higher than average older population and lower proportion of their population in the first half of their working age. Statistics provided by the Government showed that 29 out of the 31 coastal towns sampled had a lower proportion of their population aged 16-44 years than the English average.[53]

Inward migration

24. Several witnesses highlighted the large number of older people who move to the coast to retire. This phenomenon can bring benefits to these communities. As Lincolnshire Coastal Action Zone pointed out, retired older people can make a positive contribution to their new communities. It also indicated that there were opportunities to design high-quality services that meet their needs, for example the use of state of the art technology to enhance independent living.[54]

25. As BRADA explained, however, the issue for public services is not the number of retired people per se but "the fact that they are creating, down the line, a much greater elderly population".[55] It argued that elderly people in coastal towns may place additional pressures on services, beyond those that might be expected had those people remained in their original area of residency, because they have moved away from family support networks.[56] Several witnesses supported this and argued that the elderly population in coastal towns consequently place particular additional demands on health and social services, for instance, upon the local residential care sector though their greater dependency upon care home provision.[57] The inward migration of older people to coastal towns can bring benefits but it also places significant additional demands on public services, particularly in the areas of health and social care.

26. It is not simply retired people who are moving to the coast. In their report on the Seaside Economy, Professor Fothergill and Christina Beatty found that in the 43 principal seaside towns, the average growth in the working age population had been in excess of 20 per cent between 1971 and 2001. Their analysis also indicates that this growth is attributable to inward migration rather than an increase in the indigenous population.[58] Professor Fothergill also highlighted "an inflow particularly of people […] in the second half of their working lives - from 35, 40 upwards".[59] He told us that this inward migration results in a situation where "the balance between the available supply of labour and the supply of jobs is still seriously out of kilter". [60] This is because people tend to move to the seaside because they want to live there rather than because of specific employment opportunities, so it can be a contributory factor to high unemployment levels.[61] The Seaside Economy report suggests that a proportion of the inward migration population will be on benefits and be drawn to the area by the "stock of suitable housing" (see para 43).[62] A proportion of the working age migrants will also however be in employment elsewhere and commute, drawn by the desire to live by the sea. For example, in Exmouth we heard from stakeholders that a number of local residents commuted to Exeter to work.[63]

Transient Populations

27. Some witnesses highlighted the high level of transience in the population of some coastal towns.[64] The term 'transience' can be applied to people who move on a frequent basis. In coastal towns, the transient population can be identified in broadest terms to be composed of UK adults of working age (who may move with their children) and overseas migrant workers. Blackpool Council told us "only inner London has higher levels of transience than Blackpool […] 11% of the Borough's population could be classified as transient" and that "within the first six months of settlement, 55% are […] likely to move again within the Borough".[65]

28. Lancaster City Council stated that in Morecambe it was "not uncommon for primary schools to experience 30-40% turnover of pupils in a single year".[66] Frequent relocation can have a negative impact on a child's welfare and educational attainment.[67] Torbay Council also argued that the arrival of new children during the school year can cause educational disruption to the other children in the class.[68] In addition, Blackpool Council suggested that high pupil turnover can put significant pressures on teaching staff and the overall school system.[69]

29. Thanet District Council argued that high levels of transience can cause other problems, for instance, working with an established population is a key factor in traditional regeneration but that with transient populations "lasting impact is much harder to achieve".[70]

30. We asked whether migrants from overseas contributed significantly to the transience within many coastal communities. Jobcentre Plus told us there was no proven statistical link between coastal towns and overseas migrants, who are still predominantly attracted to centres like London, despite a recent trend for their greater dispersal across the UK.[71] We received some evidence which suggested that overseas migrant workers can be a particular presence in areas around ports or in places where there is a predominance of low-wage, seasonal work, such as those coastal towns whose economy is dominated by tourism.[72] Nevertheless, evidence regarding the proportion of overseas migrant workers in coastal towns is thin and insufficiently robust to provide a firm basis for conclusions. Indeed, the Audit Commission has made a number of recommendations that call for improvements to data and intelligence sharing on migrant workers.[73] In previous years, it has been suggested that coastal towns had a disproportionate number of asylum seekers and refugees owing to the availability of accommodation (often redundant hotels).[74] Support for, and the dispersal of, asylum seekers is now co-ordinated on a national basis and this has alleviated this particular pressure on coastal towns, particularly in the South East.[75]

Vulnerable Adults and Children

31. Some witnesses suggested that many coastal towns have particularly high numbers of vulnerable adults and children who move into the area. The term 'vulnerable' is often used to refer to people who are unable to meet their own everyday needs owing to a physical or mental health condition or who are vulnerable because of their situation, such as homelessness.[76] Vulnerable people either receive or are in need of community care services, requiring support from service providers such as mental health, housing, and social services. Vulnerable people may move to coastal towns voluntarily; however, they may also be placed there by other authorities to identified suitable accommodation.

32. Lancaster City Council told us houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are often used to cater for vulnerable people.[77] In many coastal resorts there is a ready supply of HMOs and care homes that have been converted from hotels and guesthouses (see para 39). This supply of HMOs and care homes can result in vulnerable people from other areas being placed in coastal areas. Thanet District Council said that "many boroughs, particularly those in London, actively promote relocation to Thanet to people on their housing and care lists".[78] It argued that the problem was exacerbated by the failure of those placing vulnerable people in its area to inform the local authority, even though there is no formal obligation on them to do so.[79] Thanet District Council called for formal tracking for all placements of vulnerable adults and children.[80]

33. There is a significant financial cost to providing support services for vulnerable people, and their movement to coastal towns consequently puts financial pressure on a range of public services. Kent County Council referred to the placement of vulnerable adults and children, in particular by London boroughs, in its coastal towns as 'social dumping', and indeed, it can be seen as this.[81]

34. The same authority highlighted the issue of high concentrations of looked-after children within its district, particularly as a consequence of placements from other local authorities (out of area placements). Its evidence showed that the majority of looked-after children within the Thanet area were there as a result of out of area placements and there were "nearly eight times […] more than in the Kent district of Tunbridge Wells."[82] The Government indicated in its Green Paper, Care Matters: Transforming the lives of children and young people in care, that London boroughs have particularly high rates of out of area placements, with London children being twice as likely to be placed out of authority compared to other parts of the country.[83]

35. Thanet District Council stated that children placed by other authorities have highly complex needs "requiring input from a number of services and are likely to be further disadvantaged as part of a population in transition."[84] The Government stated in its Green Paper that most children wanted to remain in an area that is familiar to them and that those placed elsewhere are less likely to succeed in education than looked-after children placed near their home.[85] The LGA stated that despite the drawbacks to placing children out of their authority area, the most important factor to consider is what is right and appropriate for the child, and in some circumstances, it can be both beneficial and necessary.[86] It also stated that in these circumstances it is important that placing and host authorities communicate as far in advance of the placement as possible.[87]

36. The Government states that the shortage of foster carers is a significant causal factor for out of area placements.[88] Its Green Paper contains proposals to increase the supply of foster carers and improve commissioning arrangements for the placement of children. The Government intends that commissioning arrangements will be supported through the development of regional and sub-regional approaches to commissioning, to increase the choice of placement and the purchasing power of local authorities, and these proposals have been welcomed by the Association of Directors of Social Services.[89]

37. The LGA told us that there is a significant financial impact on coastal authorities that receive out of area placements, for instance, there is no additional funding to support the education of the child.[90] The LGA also stated that in one coastal authority an estimated 25% of its Youth Offending Team's work was with young people from out of area placements.[91] On our visit to Margate, the police stated that high levels of looked-after children in the area placed additional demands on its services, such as an increased level of investigations into runaways and criminal offences.[92] It also argued that these additional demands were not recognised in its funding allocations from Government.[93] The LGA stated it was aware that in some circumstances the placing and host authorities come to an agreement about specific funding for the child, but noted that these arrangements are 'ad hoc' and therefore often not satisfactory.[94]

38. There can be significant drawbacks from placing vulnerable adults and especially children in care away from their home area; we accept that there are times when it may be necessary in the best interests of the individual but it should not be done simply to reduce costs of the placing authority. Placing authorities should ensure that they communicate as far in advance as possible with host authorities about all aspects of the placement of vulnerable children and adults. Placing authorities should also consider the impact of placements on the receiving community and host authority, and they should take responsibility for the financial impact of those placements.

Outward migration

39. Significant levels of outward migration by younger people are a characteristic of many coastal communities. Nevertheless, there are noticeable exceptions to this trend; some coastal towns, such as Brighton and Bournemouth, have been successful in retaining a large proportion of young people. Brighton and Hove City Council, for instance, told us that "one third of [its] population is between 25 and 44 […] we have two universities which bring a large influx of students, many of whom we cannot get rid of. They love to stay and they do".[95] A number of causal factors have been suggested for the outward migration of young people including: the shortage of employment opportunities, housing costs and the shortage of services and facilities for young people.[96] The Foyer Federation suggested that it was related to the high proportion of older people in coastal towns because public services are geared towards the needs of older people rather than young people.[97] Some witnesses argued that it was the higher-skilled young people in particular who moved away. Lincolnshire Coastal Action Zone identified this pattern of migration as a "contributing factor to the low-skill levels in the labour market".[98] During our visit to Margate we heard from a group of local young people who commented that most of their contemporaries in the area intended to move away when they were older in search of better employment opportunities.[99] They also argued that a shortage of facilities and activities for young people in the Margate area was a contributing factor.[100] Many coastal towns have higher than average levels of outward migration of young people which can contribute to a skewed demographic profile.


40. Housing in many coastal towns, especially seaside resorts, often appears to be characterised by a dual economy, with high house prices alongside a large, low-quality private rental sector.[101] We received extensive evidence regarding the shortage of affordable housing, in particular in coastal towns, and it has been suggested that high house prices was one factor which motivated young people to leave the area.[102] Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, for example, told us "something like 80% of people within households aged from 20 to 39 cannot afford to buy the cheapest houses".[103] Similarly the Market and Coastal Towns Association said that while there was no clear relationship between house prices and coastal location, "in general the highest price rises have tended to be on the coast".[104] We discussed the issue of affordable housing in a nationwide context in our report, Affordability and the Supply of Housing, in which we included recommendations designed to increase affordability, particularly through housing schemes such as low-cost home ownership.[105] A number of witnesses also commented on the high incidence of second home ownership in coastal areas contributing to increased house prices.[106] The shortage of affordable housing is not unique to coastal towns but can be exacerbated by the high level of inward migration and the purchase of second homes. Greater provision of affordable homes is a key priority in many coastal towns and could be an important factor in retaining young people in the area.

41. The difficulties resulting from insufficient affordable housing can be exacerbated by poor quality within the existing housing stock. Some witnesses indicated that poor quality was particularly widespread within the private rented sector, drawing attention in particular to the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and care homes in many coastal towns resulting from their legacy of a large supply of former hotels, boarding houses and large Victorian houses.[107] The relatively high numbers of care homes in some coastal towns can contribute to growth in the numbers of elderly moving into the area and place additional burdens on health and social care services. BRADA argued that an inadequate supply of affordable housing can "inadvertently support the viability of the very worst quality HMOs" as the demand levels are consequently high.[108] Many HMOs are in a poor state of repair. The Government recognises that the "physical legacy of guesthouses and high-density housing […] has led to particular housing problems".[109] Its own analysis has shown that poor quality housing is of greater significance in coastal towns and "virtually half of all stock in these resorts was non-decent (compared to 33% elsewhere)."[110] This analysis also shows that there is much greater reliance on private renting in coastal resort areas.

42. Witnesses identified some of the problems that high levels of HMOs can cause. BRADA stated that this can "blight the locality [making it an] unattractive proposition for redevelopment".[111] The New Economics Foundation stated "neighbourhoods can take on the characteristics of slums".[112]

43. It has been suggested that there is a link between HMOs and a transient and vulnerable population "drawn by the easy availability of cheap rented and flatted accommodation".[113] Blackpool City Council said that HMOs "have become magnets for dependent individuals and families across the country" and that some landlords in their area advertise in other UK towns and cities to attract tenants.[114] Bournemouth Churches Housing Association stated that in its view most of the people staying in HMOs in coastal towns were transient and attracted by the accommodation.[115] The difficulties related to transient populations have been discussed previously (see paras 27 to 29). It is clear that many coastal towns suffer disproportionately from poor-quality housing and in particular have high numbers of care homes and HMOs, many of which have been converted from redundant hotels. We recognise the availability of HMOs can attract a transient population into an area, which can bring particular challenges, particularly increasing the difficulty in gaining community involvement in local regeneration.

44. A range of existing controls are available to local authorities to manage HMOs including planning policy tools, such as Local Development Frameworks, Compulsory Purchase Powers and a new licensing regime, introduced in the Housing Act 2004.[116]

45. The licensing regime covering HMOs is designed to "help drive up standards in the private rented sector".[117] Since April 2006, under this regime, all HMOs have been required to be licensed by their local authority and to meet minimum physical standards, with the onus being on the landlord to apply for a license.[118] HMOs are defined under this Act as properties comprising of three or more storeys and which are occupied by five or more persons forming two or more households. Local housing authorities can also choose to introduce additional licensing requirements for HMOs which do not fall within the criteria set in the Housing Act 2004 and which therefore are not subject to mandatory licensing. The Act also enables local housing authorities to introduce selective licensing in areas of low housing demand or with significant anti-social behaviour problems.[119] Although these new licensing powers were intended to improve the quality of housing stock, some have suggested that they have also resulted in a decline in 'rogue' landlords who wish to avoid the licensing standards.[120]

46. Some local authorities are tackling the problems associated with high proportions of HMOs in their area through the use of existing powers, for instance by applying specific planning policies.[121] Others are using the new licensing regime for the same purposes. Blackpool City Council, for example, told us that that it was considering using additional and selective licensing on top of mandatory licensing to improve standards.[122] Nevertheless, some witnesses argued that the existing powers were insufficient. Blackpool City Council suggested that "granting affected areas a special form of pathfinder status […] to rebalance the housing stock" would be helpful.[123] BURA called for "stronger HMO licensing powers or, preferably, a change to the planning use classes order to differentiate HMOs from other residential use".[124] Shelter said that the mandatory licensing regime was weak because it did not cover smaller HMOs and called for the definition of HMOs to be broadened when the Act is reviewed in 2007.[125] Local authorities are currently able to introduce additional licensing requirements that may cover smaller HMOs, however, we note that the level of use and effectiveness of these additional licensing powers has yet to be evaluated by Government. We welcome the provisions within the Housing Act 2004 enabling local authorities to license Houses in Multiple Occupation. We recommend that the Government encourages local authorities to make full and effective use of the licensing and statutory planning powers available (including compulsory purchase) to manage HMOs. We recommend that the Government examines whether local authorities need additional powers to address the problems arising in areas with especially large numbers of HMOs.

8   Q 103 Back

9   Ev 175, HC 1023-II Back

10   Ev 166, 15, HC 1023-II Back

11   Ev 166, HC 1023-II Back

12   Ev 15, HC 1023-II Back

13   Ev 166, HC 1023-II Back

14   Ev 25, HC 1023-II Back

15   Ev 166 and 14 respectively, HC 1023-II. See for example Q 46, 139  Back

16   Ev 14, 47, 98, HC 1023-II. See for example Q 16, 138 Back

17   Ev 96, HC 1023-II Back

18   Ev 14, HC 1023-II. See also Beatty, Christina, Fothergill, Stephen, The Seaside Economy, the final report of the seaside towns research project, Sheffield Hallam University, June 2003, p. 105, (hereafter the Seaside EconomyBack

19   Ev 97, HC 1023-II Back

20   Ev 23, HC 1023-II Back

21   Q 172, Ev 39, HC 1023-II Back

22   Ev 46, HC 1023-II. See also Ev 23, 40, 60, 61, 68, 102, 114, 118, and 152, HC 1023-II. See also Annex D Back

23   Ev 104, HC 1023-II. See also Ev 9, HC 1023-II Back

24   Q 139 Back

25   Q 172 Back

26   Ev 102, HC 1023-II Back

27   Q 3, Ev 10, HC 1023-II Back

28   Ev 14, HC 1023-II Back

29   Ev 10, 30, 53, 83, 84, 106, 137, 167, HC 1023-II Back

30   Ev 156, HC 1023-II, based on Future Flooding, Foresight Programme, DTI, 2004 and Q 389 Back

31   Q 388 Back

32   Ev 156, HC 1023-II Back

33   Q 389 Back

34   Ev 118 and Ev 158, HC 1023-II respectively Back

35   Shoreline Management Plans, Back

36   Q 391 and Ev 118 Back

37   Ev 118 Back

38   New pilots announced to push policy on flooding and coastal erosion, DEFRA News Release 3/07, 4 January 2007 Back

39   Making space for water, Developing a Broader Portfolio of Options to Deliver Flooding and Coastal Solutions, DEFRA: Making Space for Water Programme. Back

40   Ev 116 Back

41   Ev 156, HC 1023-II Back

42   Ev 156, HC 1023-II Back

43   Ev 116 Back

44   Ev 116 Back

45   Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, Department for Communities and Local Government. Published on 7 December 2006, alongside the new Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 Back

46   Ensuring Appropriate Development in Flood Risk Areas, Department for Communities and Local Government News Release, 2006/0164, 7 December 2006. Back

47   Introduced on 1 October 2006.Environment Agency, Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25), Back

48   Environment Agency, Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25), Back

49   Q 279 Back

50   Q 384 Back

51   Ev 118 Back

5 52  2 Making Space for Water Risk Mapping: Coastal Erosion, DEFRA ; Back

53   Ev 175, HC 1023-II. The Mid-Year Population Estimates 2003, by Broad Age Band 16-44 years, showed that the English average was 40.4. Back

54   National Coastal Futures Symposium: The Report, 18th - 19th July 2006, Royal Renaissance Hotel Skegness, October 2006. Unprinted paper from the Lincolnshire Coastal Action Zone Back

55   Q 138 Back

56   Q 138 Back

57   Ev 1, 30, 37, 47, 98, 145, 149, HC 1023-II. Back

58   Q 60 Back

59   Q 92 Back

60   Q 91 Back

61   The Seaside Economy, p 39 Back

62   The Seaside Economy, p 39 Back

63   Annex A. Back

64   Ev 98, 148, HC 1023-II Back

65   Ev 141, HC 1023-II Back

66   Ev 4, HC 1023-II Back

67   Ev 141, HC 1023-II Back

68   Ev 149, HC 1023-II Back

69   Ev 141, HC 1023-II Back

70   Ev 47, HC 1023-II. See also Annex B Back

71   Q 378 Back

72   Ev 33,140, HC 1023-II Back

73   Crossing Borders - responding to the local challenges of migrant workers, Audit Commission, January 2007 Back

74   Ev 46, HC 1023-II Back

75   Ev 170, HC 1023-II Back

76   Ev 4, 47, 73, 80, 93, HC 1023-II. See also Back

77   Ev 4, HC 1023-II. See also para 26 Back

78   Ev 47, HC 1023-II Back

79   Report of the Kent Child Protection Committee Inquiry into the general concerns expressed by officers and politicians in the Thanet Area regarding Child and Public Protection Issues, Kent Child Protection Committee, June 2005. p. 23 (hereafter Thanet InquiryBack

80   Thanet Inquiry, p. 23 and p. 69 Back

81   Ev 67, HC 1023-II Back

82   Thanet inquiry, p. 36.See also Ev 147, HC 1023-II. Back

83   Care Matters: Transforming the lives of children and young people in care, Department for Education and Skills Green Paper, 9 October 2006. p. 50 Back

84   Thanet Inquiry, p. 24 Back

85   Care Matters: Transforming the lives of children and young people in care, Department for Education and Skills Green Paper, 9 October 2006 p. 44 Back

86   Ev 122 Back

87   Ev 122 Back

88   Care Matters: Transforming the lives of children and young people in care, Department for Education and Skills Green Paper, 9 October 2006. p. 50 Back

89   Care Matters: Transforming the lives of children and young people in care, Department for Education and Skills Green Paper, 9 October 2006. p. 45. See also Response from the Association of Directors of Social services (ADSS), the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Confederation of Children's Services Managers (Confed), Back

90   Ev 122 Back

91   Ev 122 Back

92   Annex B. See also Thanet Inquiry, p. 45 Back

93   Annex B Back

94   Ev 122 Back

95   Q 34 Back

96   See for example District of Easington Council, Q16  Back

97   Q 9, Q 326.See also Annex A. Back

98   Ev 123, HC 1023-II Back

99   Annex B. See also Annex D. Back

100   Annex B Back

101   Q 291 Back

102   Ev 17, 18, 19, 29, 32, 37, 52, 77, 102, 119, 160, HC 1023-II. Back

103   Q 296. See also Q153 Back

104   Ev 30, HC 1023-II Back

105   ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Third Report of the Session 2005-06, Affordability and the Supply of Housing, HC 703-I Back

106   Ev 17, 84,102,125,159, HC 1023-II Back

107   Ev 97, HC 1023-II Back

108   Ev 97 Back

109   Ev 169, HC 1023-II. See also Q 511 Back

110   Ev 169, HC 1023-II. See also Q 511 Back

111   Ev 97, HC 1023-II Back

112   Ev 23, HC 1023-II Back

113   Q 51, See also The Seaside Economy, p. 39 Back

114   Ev 143, HC 1023-II Back

115   Q 321-324 Back

116   Ev 143, HC 1023-II Back

117   Ev 169, HC 1023-II Back

118   Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs): Frequently Asked Questions, Department for Communities and Local Government website - Back

119  Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs): Frequently Asked Questions, Department for Communities and Local Government website - Back

120  Landlordsselltoavoidpropertylicense,RoyalInstituteofCharteredSurveyors,25September2006, Back

121   ListoflocalauthoritiesthathaveHMOplans, HMOLobbyGroup, Back

122  Ev143, HC 1023-II Back

123  Ev143, HC 1023-II Back

124   Ev 88 Back

125   TheSupplyofRentedHousing: Written Evidence,Communities and Local Government Committee, HC47-II of Session 2006-07,Ev120. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 7 March 2007