House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Written Evidence

Memorandum by the Cheshire Housing Alliance (CHA) (SRH 15)

1. THE CHESHIRE HOUSING ALLIANCE

1.1 This submission has been prepared on behalf of the Cheshire Housing Alliance (CHA), a partnership comprising members from all local housing authorities and the largest RSLs in Cheshire. The CHA researches housing needs and aspirations in Cheshire, to identify and tackle relevant housing issues, inform the regional and sub-regional housing strategy and other broad regional agendas.

1.2 The provision of more affordable housing for local people in urban areas, market towns and rural settlements, both rented and for sale, has been identified as a significant priority, resulting in a strategic sub-regional delivery programme.

1.3 The sub-regional housing strategy sets an annual target for the county of at least 400 additional units of affordable housing to be provided through NAHP funding, 13[13] until 2008 when the strategy will be reviewed. This includes new development, bringing existing buildings back into use and working with private landlords to achieve the decent homes standard and reduce the number of empty homes in the district. Achieving this target is dependant on receiving sufficient social housing grant.

1.4 Local authorities are also working to increase the number of new affordable homes in the county, in addition to the above, through the use of planning conditions, such as s106 agreements.

2. THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC FUNDING REQUIRED TO MEET SOCIAL HOUSING NEEDS

2.1 Current public funding levels are not adequate to meet the needs identified in the region; there is an urgent need for more funding for social rented housing. CHA research has identified specialist housing requirements as a priority in Cheshire, including the need for more extra care housing, physically adapted/ adaptable properties for wheelchair users and housing for people with learning difficulties. The evidence shows that, as well as the need for more floating support, more specialist accommodation is urgently required particularly for the elderly, young adults with disabilities and learning difficulties and care leavers. 14[14]

2.2 The expected growth in the population of elderly people in the UK is well documented. There is also expected to be a further increase in single person and single parent families in the longer-term, due to changes in household make-up and increasing levels of relationship breakdown.

2.3 An increasingly ageing population results in sustainability concerns. Employers are already struggling to fill job vacancies across Cheshire, particularly for lower paid work. This is encouraging inward migration of workers, including large numbers of economic migrants from other EU countries. This increases pressure on the housing markets in the region, as more affordable homes are needed close to available employment opportunities. Likewise, it increases pressure on other services and infrastructure; housing cannot be taken in isolation.

2.4 Growing affordability problems in the region leave many residents unable to purchase property, or to rent privately. The HBOS house price index15[15] shows the average house price to earnings ratio in the UK was 5.68:1 as at July 2006, almost twice the traditional mortgage borrowing rate of three times annual earnings. This increases the pressure on already over-stretched social housing, which has suffered from lack of investment and been depleted by the Right to Buy (RTB) for many years.

2.5 Social housing is not a tenure of last resort, but is a tenure of choice for many allowing greater flexibility in other life choices, including changing locality with relative ease (important for jobseekers) and largely removing the burden of property maintenance for elderly people. Recent research by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) indicates that younger people increasingly prefer private rented accommodation to home ownership, due to affordability constraints, the need for a large deposit and difficulty in obtaining a mortgage. 16[16] The drive to provide high quality, desirable rented properties shown by many RSLs fighting to "de-stigmatise" social housing has increased its attractiveness and, as affordability worsens, demand for social rented housing will only increase.

2.6 Social housing is essential for the most vulnerable members of society, including the homeless, the elderly and disabled people. As the population continues to age, the pressure on social housing will only intensify and funding levels must increase if providers are to be able to adequately house all those in need.

2.7 Extensive research by organisations such as Shelter and the British Medical Association (BMA) 17[17] into the attendant negative effects of poor housing in terms of healthcare and crime etc provides overwhelming evidence that good quality housing has a real impact on such issues. Providing good quality social housing for everyone that needs it would not only benefit the most vulnerable members of our society, but would result in substantial savings to the public purse over the longer-term.

3. THE RELATIVE FUNDING PRIORITY BEING GIVEN TO SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING AS OPPOSED TO SHARED-OWNERSHIP AND OTHER FORMS OF BELOW MARKET HOUSING

3.1 Social rented housing is not given the priority it merits when funding is being allocated. Shared-ownership does have a role to play in meeting housing need, but can only benefit those on the margins of home-ownership and is not an affordable option for the majority. It is more expensive over the long-term than outright purchase, illustrated by a recent National Audit Office report18[18] stating typical shared owners had an average income of between £20,000 and £38,000, well above the UK, North West and Cheshire average incomes of £18,961, £18,100 and £21,434. 19[19] It is less attractive than outright ownership in the current financial climate, as borrowing is relatively inexpensive. Should interest rates rise to any great extent and affordability continue to worsen, shared ownership may gain in popularity, but due to the necessity to pay rent, as well as a mortgage, it will remain an unaffordable option for many.

3.2 Shared-ownership may encourage excessive debt, increasing the level of poverty among owner-occupiers and the risk of repossession. Elderly householders often move into social rented accommodation in later life, rather then struggling to maintain their own property. Home ownership is viewed as an investment for old age, enabling elderly owners to release capital to fund their retirement plans or healthcare needs, rather than relying on pensions and state benefits.

3.3 Shared-ownership is currently the most likely option to be provided by developers on new sites under s106 agreements rather than rented housing, largely for economic reasons. The various elements of the HomeBuy scheme also allow access to shared-ownership-style purchase for those who can afford it so there is a good supply of this type of accommodation, whereas social housing is increasingly scarce.

3.4 The RTB scheme has severely eroded social housing stocks since its inception and receipts from the scheme simply do not cover the cost of equivalent replacement units. The number of RTB sales in the North West since 1991, some 82,924 homes, amounts to almost 15% of local authority stock in the region. By contrast, only 43,449 new social housing units were built in the North West during that period, of which a mere 1,626 were built by local authorities. 20[20] This is clear evidence that units lost through the RTB are not being replaced in anything approaching corresponding numbers. Cheshire lost almost 5% of its total social housing stock last year alone as a result of RTB and Right to Acquire (RTA) sales. 21[21] Similar sales levels in previous years have resulted in serious shortages in social rented stock. 22[22]

3.5 Although there have been few problems to date in selling new shared-ownership properties, many people do not understand or trust the concept and it is not an affordable option for the majority of those in need. Social rented housing is therefore an absolutely necessary alternative and should command a far greater proportion of funding from the public purse.

4. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSIDIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

4.1 There is a clear North/South divide in terms of funding for affordable housing in the UK. Affordability has long been an issue in the South, but is increasingly affecting the North of the country and the region is not getting the investment it needs to tackle the problem effectively. Initiatives like the Northern Way have helped, but without realistic subsidy for housing it will be impossible to meet the wider long-term objectives of the regional development programmes, such as revitalizing the regional economy and creating sustainable, diverse communities.

4.2 Funding is largely targeted at those areas with higher property values but these are not necessarily the areas of greatest housing need. There is particular concern about new housing in rural localities. Although there is a clear need for affordable housing in small rural communities, new developments in rural areas are likely to involve Greenfield sites where there are often strict planning controls. New housing must be developed in harmony with the existing landscape, the local planning framework and taking into account the accompanying demands on local infrastructure, including schools, public transport, healthcare and so on.

4.3 There is a strong argument for the funding criteria to take into account other local issues such as affordability, the needs of concealed households, minority and vulnerable groups, employment levels, average earnings and so on. Even within Cheshire, research has identified three distinct types of housing market, 23[23] each necessitating a different focus.

4.4 Local issues should be tackled at local level; there are distinct markets and diverse factors at work in different areas and a "one size fits all" approach simply does not work. There is a case for a mechanism allowing at least some funding decisions to be taken at a local level. An approach based purely on geographical factors is not effective.

5. THE FUTURE ROLE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS BUILDERS AND MANAGERS OF SOCIAL HOUSING

5.1 Many local authorities have already transferred their stock (or the day-to-day management of it) to other organisations under large-scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) or arms-length management organisation (ALMO) arrangements. In light of the current economic situation, there is little foreseeable possibility of councils undertaking a role as sole builders and managers of new social housing, since local authorities no longer receive funding to develop. They are entitled to borrow privately to fund new developments, but the uncertainty of rental income streams due to the RTB and rent capping realistically prevents many councils from borrowing and any new affordable housing developments must be undertaken in partnership with either a developer or RSL in order to access the capital required. That said, many successful developments are created in this way, often through s106 agreements, providing much needed affordable housing and there is no reason why this should not continue to be the case where it is the best solution to a particular local issue.

5.2 Should the current situation change there is no reason why local authorities should not be as successful at providing and managing new social housing as other organisations. Rented housing is economically sustainable over the long-term, as is proven by the growing success of the private buy-to-let market. It is largely only due to the HRA subsidy system, rent capping and the depletion of stock through the RTB, that the difficulty in sustaining sufficient income to maintain and improve existing stock has occurred.

5.3 Government policy requires local authorities to separate their housing management and strategic housing roles, which may indicate a belief that development is incompatible with the strategic function. 24[24] Properly handled, however, where these tasks are carried out separately there should be no opportunity for conflict to arise. It is accepted that local authorities have a wider, strategic, role to play in terms of housing and are not simply landlords (if they ever were), but there is no reason why an active development and stock management programme should interfere with the wider strategic function.

5.4 ALMOs are essentially "hived-off" local authority housing departments; their relative autonomy comes largely from their board structure but they are short-term arrangements, with the council being able to take back the housing stock after an agreed period. That being the case, why not simply allow the council to access the necessary funding once the appropriate structures and organisational culture are in place?

5.5 ALMOs may appear to allow greater tenant control as tenants have the opportunity to be part of the governance structure of the organisation, but tenant participation and involvement are essential tools for any council. Resident involvement forms one of the key lines of enquiry (KLOEs) used by the Audit Commission to measure the performance of an organisation and best practice is becoming more widespread, with its attendant benefits to tenants.

5.6 Housing is inextricably linked to the wider sustainable communities agenda and to many other national policies and priorities. Local authorities are in an exceptional position in terms of the ability to influence and shape local communities, particularly in partnership with key local providers and with the communities themselves. Encouraging a collaborative approach to regeneration and development is an essential part of achieving the long-term sustainability of an area and the local community.

6. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT SOCIAL HOUSING MODELS INCLUDING TRADITIONAL LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING, ALMOS, HOUSING CO -OPERATIVES AND HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

6.1 Traditional local authority housing works; there can be no doubt about that. The difficulties in reaching and maintaining the decent homes standard for existing stock have arisen largely due to councils' inability to control their long-term income because of rent capping and stock losses due to enforced sales under the RTB scheme. In fact, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council, like many other local authorities, is required to give up a substantial proportion of its rental income to the Government for re-distribution to the minority of councils that are deemed to have a positive subsidy requirement through the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) system.

6.2 Whilst ALMOs have been acknowledged as successful in improving service delivery to tenants, they essentially remain an adjunct to the local authority and there is no real reason, other than the ALMOs' ability to access public funding not available to the local authority, why an integral council housing department should not be able to reach the same standards of performance.

6.3 Housing associations, or RSLs, also have a successful track record in developing and managing social housing and have an invaluable resource of housing knowledge and best practice in their staff. Partnerships between RSLs, local authorities and other organisations mean that this knowledge is shared, enabling continuous improvement and resulting in better service and value for money for the end user, the tenant.

6.4 RSLs often participate in tenant-empowerment schemes that include training in understanding housing issues and the wider context of housing policy, the history of social housing and its inter-relation with other government objectives. This can result in social housing tenants entering the housing sector as employees. This not only helps individuals into work, but expands the collective knowledge base of the organisation still further. At a time when housing appears to be declining in popularity as a career choice, this is an excellent way of tapping into latent talent.

6.5 In spite of the evidence that local authorities and RSLs have been successfully developing and managing social housing and, more recently, play an essential role in developing sustainable communities and improving community participation, it is impossible to make a direct comparison between all the social housing models listed. Until and unless the rules are changed to allow all housing bodies equal access to private finance and grant funding, there can never be equality within the sector.

6.6 At present, local authorities have very little realistic choice when it comes to developing. It is possible to deliver some affordable housing through s106 agreements, but the role of the local authority in these agreements is essentially that of a broker, facilitating the end product, which is then managed by an RSL. There is a strong argument in the face of rising house values and increasing affordability problems to once again allow local authorities to build in their own right. Changes would be required to the RTB scheme to prevent wholesale losses of stock and "cherry-picking" of the best properties and to ensure a sustainable supply of affordable housing into the future. The problem of affordability will only worsen over time; building rates cannot hope to keep pace with rising demand in the short-term.

7. THE ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PRIVATE RENTED HOUSING IN MEETING HOUSING NEEDS

7.1 Recent research by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) indicates that the younger generation now aspire to private rented accommodation rather than home-ownership due to low earnings and difficulty amassing the deposit needed to purchase property and establish a mortgage. 25[25]

7.2 Conversely, it is argued that "private renting is a marginal tenure (about 10% of all households)... [offering] almost no security, that deposits are routinely required and that rent levels are higher than those on low incomes can afford".26[26] These issues all need to be tackled before private renting can make any real impact on meeting the needs of those who cannot afford to access property in their own right.

7.3 Increasing numbers of private rented accommodation in many areas may actually be having an adverse effect on affordability, as entry-level buy-to-let properties are often those traditionally favoured by first time buyers. Private landlords may be eligible for tax relief on the mortgage interest payable for rented properties and on certain maintenance costs and fees, putting them at a further advantage compared to first time buyers. Buy-to-let landlords in some areas are depleting the stock of properties that would otherwise be accessible to many marginal first time purchasers, leaving them no alternative but to rent privately. This has a serious impact on the tenure mix in certain localities and restricts the choice of newly forming households and individuals to a considerable degree. High rents and low wages mean saving is difficult so many are forced into renting privately for long periods of time. The lack of security of tenure for private tenants and the poor quality of some accommodation are very concerning in this context.

7.4 Many private landlords refuse to let to the unemployed; tenants who become benefit-dependant may be victimised and some may be tempted to mislead a landlord about their employment situation to procure or sustain a tenancy. Adverts stating "No DSS" are still common and research by Shelter27[27] shows that landlords are reluctant to take on benefit-reliant tenants due to bureaucracy, delays in receiving payments, shortfalls which the tenant may not be able to make up and a perception that unemployed tenants are more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour than those who are working. The research found that almost one in four property advertisements refused benefit claimants and, in addition, half of those landlords whose adverts did not exclude claimants refused to let to benefit-reliant tenants when telephoned by researchers. Young individuals (under 25 years of age) and large families were the most likely groups to be affected by this kind of exclusion.

7.5 The cost of supporting those needing assistance through housing benefits results in a substantial drain on the public purse. Lack of social rented accommodation means households are increasingly being forced into more expensive private sector properties, resulting in higher costs to the taxpayer. This same lack forces those households not in receipt of benefits but still on low incomes to take the cheapest, usually the poorest quality, private rented housing with all its attendant health risks. The National Audit Office report referred to earlier28[28] states "helping existing and prospective social tenants into home-ownership results in savings for the taxpayer as low cost home-ownership assistance costs half as much as providing a new social home for rent". As before, however, shared-ownership is only accessible to a very small minority of households, as only those on the financial margin of home-ownership can afford it.

7.6 The private rented sector does have a part to play in housing those in need of accommodation, but this is largely because there is no other option available for many households. Social rented housing is in such short supply that local authorities are effectively compelled to house those in the most urgent need in private sector accommodation. While social housing would clearly be preferable, there is simply not enough of it for those in need. Many of these households would become homeless if they were not housed in this way.

7.7 Councils are working hard to build links with private sector landlords and to reduce homelessness through preventative measures and initiatives such as the rent deposit scheme. In Ellesmere Port and Neston, links are being forged through the council's private landlords forum and landlord accreditation scheme. Cheshire local authorities working in partnership have successfully obtained a grant from the DCLG's Homeless Innovation Fund to employ three private sector liaison officers working across the county. These officers build direct links with private landlords to help prevent homelessness, both through access to vacant properties and by working closely with landlords and tenants to resolve any problems which may otherwise result in the tenant being given notice to quit. This has greatly increased the number of households assisted into private sector accommodation and has the additional benefit of introducing an element of choice and flexibility for the tenant.

7.8 Though the private sector has its place in meeting housing need, the primary motivator of private landlords is profit, not the welfare of tenants. Close working links with private landlords and property/ landlord registration schemes can help to make sure the most vulnerable tenants are identified and enabled to receive the support they need, but there is growing evidence that unscrupulous landlords are taking advantage of the current situation, particularly where economic migrants are concerned. The Engagement For Empowerment Project, a two-year research project into the housing and health needs of minority ethnic groups in Cheshire funded jointly by the CHA and Cheshire Supporting People, found for example that "Polish community settlement [is] closely linked with work opportunities and private employment agencies recruiting directly in Poland. As such this group is more prone to exploitation resulting in overcrowded living conditions". Overcrowding and sub-standard accommodation are still manifest and until there is more stringent regulation of privately rented housing there must be concerns about the quality and safety of the accommodation available.

8. THE PRIORITIES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HOUSING CORPORATION, ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS AND THE REGIONAL HOUSING BOARDS IN RESPONDING TO HOUSING NEEDS

8.1 The Housing Corporation plays a vital role in regulating and promoting RSLs, increasing their efficiency and the quality of service they provide and encouraging engagement with tenants. In terms of priorities, the Corporation is committed to the aims of the regional housing strategy, but a lack of flexibility can leave it unable to fund more innovative schemes, particularly in high-value and rural areas where such schemes are often most sorely needed. Property prices have sustained such large increases that the capped grant rate has fallen behind and is no longer adequate. It would be opportune to review both the capped grant rate and the overall financial model used by the Corporation at this time.

8.2 That is not to say that the Corporation does not carry out valuable work at strategic level, which it certainly does where it is able to do so within current confines. In support of the objectives identified by the Regional Housing Boards, the Corporation has provided funding for new housing forming part of wider urban regeneration schemes in and around the Pathfinder areas in Liverpool and Manchester and in the Thames gateway. A good example of new housing contributing to the wider regeneration agenda is the "living over the shop" (LOTS) scheme in Ellesmere Port, which was successful not only in providing affordable housing, but also in assisting the economic regeneration of the commercial town centre in which the flats are situated. The scheme has a number of additional benefits, such as safeguarding Greenfield sites, increasing tenant choice and reducing crime in the area. An integrated approach like this can produce real long-term results, but under the current procurement arrangement would be difficult to achieve where criteria focus on an assessment of housing need solely at a regional planning level.

8.3 English Partnerships (EP) has a flexible, strategic, approach to housing in the UK. Its main interests are urban regeneration, the provision of high quality affordable housing and the creation of sustainable communities. Its approach allows local solutions to be brought to bear on regional issues. Importantly, EP encourages innovation in public/private partnerships, working methods and building materials and strives to drive up the quality of new developments. It aims to work closely with local residents and community groups to engender a sense of ownership. The group takes an holistic view of regeneration, recognising that good quality affordable housing is an essential part of neighbourhood renewal, but ensuring that existing infrastructures, environmental considerations, economic and employment opportunities etc are not overlooked. It is this holistic approach and the ability to allow for local factors that enables EP to champion and drive forward regeneration in its widest sense.

8.4 The role of regional housing boards (RHBs) is to identify regional priorities, draw up the regional housing strategy and, in their capacity as advisor to the Government, they are effectively responsible for the targeting of resources. RHBs must have adequate funding to enable them to carry out adequate research on which to base the regional housing strategy. It is important that there is adequate communication between housing organisations, planning bodies and the RHB, which is facilitated in the North West via the North West Housing Forum. It is essential that the RHBs have access to all available information and can establish a strong evidence base from which key regional priorities and targets can be distinguished. Local and sub-regional housing market assessments can assist in identifying regional priorities and would provide an effective tool for targeting resources.

9. THE ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM, INCLUDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS IN THE PROVISION OF RENTED HOUSING AND SECURING MIXED TENURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

9.1 In accordance with PPG3, 29[29] a range of policies and plans have already been adopted, at both district and regional level, with the aim of measuring, monitoring and meeting housing needs, whilst making the best use of available land. This includes promoting good design and encouraging the creation of sustainable communities whilst protecting the existing environment. The introduction of the Local Development Framework, which replaces the existing Local Plan structure, has inspired local authorities to carry out a comprehensive review of their planning policies and to consult widely with the local community to inform future policy. It is essential that local and regional planning policy be based on the evidenced needs of the communities concerned and not just on increasing supply in whatever form simply for the sake of it.

9.2 Negotiations regarding new developments are often lengthy due to the number and complexity of issues involved, particularly around affordable housing and tenure mix and can often be compromised by the need to deal with planning applications in a very short time period. There needs to be a more realistic balance between the requirement for the rapid processing of applications and the requirement to ensure the quality and suitability of the finished product.

9.3 Section 106 agreements are without doubt useful in securing affordable housing, but not necessarily in the form of rented accommodation, which is generally reliant on some form of public subsidy. Many developers prefer to offer affordable housing for sale or commuted sums as an alternative. The latter are often put to other uses such as upgrading local infrastructures and there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does nothing to increase the supply of social housing.

9.4 There is evidence that some local authorities have much greater success than others in engaging with developers and it is accepted that there is a need for a more consistent approach to the use of s.106 agreements across the region. It is difficult to achieve consistency, however, when there is evidence that there are distinct housing markets operating even within the relatively small area of Cheshire.

9.5 It is our experience that some of the large commercial developers are often reluctant to provide housing for rent for whatever reason and they must be encouraged to work more closely with social housing providers and local authorities to produce greater numbers of affordable housing in general, but particularly rented units.

10. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOUSING BENEFIT AS A MEANS OF PROVIDING ACCESS TO RENTED HOUSING TO THOSE IN NEED

10.1 Housing benefit does allow those most in need of assistance to access housing they would not otherwise be able to afford, but there are several concerns with the current system. Not only is it a huge drain on the public purse, but it can be a disincentive to work for those on the margins of affordability. There may be particular issues around low-paid or part-time work and childcare costs for single parent families. It may also be a disincentive for those who are over-accommodated to move to smaller, more suitable housing.

10.2 Research carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation30[30] shows that those households whose income is just above the benefits threshold are among the poorest in the UK. They are often faced with a stark choice between paying bills and paying for essentials such as food and clothing. Many feel forced to take on informal work to ease their financial situation or fall into debt. The same research indicates that the cumulative effect of losing associated benefits such as free prescriptions and free school meals for children does act as a disincentive to work. These households are clearly not helped by the benefits system. Though many of them may be home-owners who have bought on the very margin of affordability, there is evidence that many social and private tenants find themselves in the same situation.

10.3 Housing benefit can actually limit the choices of newly forming households, as many private landlords refuse to accept benefit-reliant tenants (see paragraph 7.4). The single room rent is a particular instance of this and there is an ethical debate surrounding whether fathers should be able to have access to larger properties to accommodate visits from children from a failed relationship.

10.4 The system is highly complex. Not everyone who is entitled actually claims, whether through ignorance or difficulty in accessing appropriate benefits advice. There are particular difficulties for elderly people, those whose first language is not English, Gypsies and Travellers and those with physical disabilities and learning difficulties.

10.5 Since the advent of Supporting People, there can be confusion surrounding "housing" versus "support" costs for disabled/elderly people, which can cause delays in processing claims.

10.6 Changes in circumstance, however small, may have an impact on the level of benefits payable and delays in processing changes can result in additional hardship, particularly for those on partial benefits, whether through non-backdating of claims or through clawback of benefits already paid.

11. THE IMPACT OF THE OPERATION OF COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT ON THE AFFORDABILITY OF RENTED HOUSING

11.1 Many of the issues already noted about housing benefit also apply to council tax benefit and there is particular concern about poor take-up by the elderly and vulnerable adults. This is again likely to be due to the complexity of the claim system and confusion over entitlement.

11.2 There is anecdotal evidence that council tax benefit acts as a disincentive to work in the same way as housing benefit does and there are concerns that the single person discount may encourage fraud (ie households consisting of more than one adult claiming the single person rate).

11.3 Council tax benefit does help those who receive it in terms of affordability and access to housing, but those who are entitled to assistance yet do not claim may be missing out on other forms of support and greater effort needs to be put into finding households in this situation and understanding why they do not claim.

APPENDIX 1

THE THREE HOUSING MARKETS IN CHESHIRE

1. Predominantly high price areas based upon economic success, which has subsequently fuelled increases in house prices, thus reducing the potential opportunities for local people servicing the intermediate labour market. Affordable housing targeted at urban and edge of town brownfield and rural sites is a priority for these areas. (Examples of these areas include Macclesfield and Chester.)

2. Popular commuter areas combined with good local economic performance leading to sustainable forecasts for future growth. These areas have seen a substantial increase in house prices, which are now at a level unaffordable for many first time buyers. The priorities for these areas are the investment in continued economic success, facilitated through spatial policies and housing investment, which encourage mixed use development of Brownfield sites together with affordable housing provision located in market town and rural areas. (These areas include Vale Royal, Congleton, some areas of Ellesmere Port and Neston and Crewe and Nantwich.)

3. Areas of potential economic growth to be encouraged through appropriate training of local employees to provide the required skills for employers. Housing solutions to facilitate this provision should be aimed at new, good quality, affordable housing to address the high cost of housing even in the lower priced areas of Cheshire. Priorities for these areas are regeneration of the pockets of deprivation coupled with affordable housing to accompany the forecasted economic growth. (These areas include those identified in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2004 as the high deprivation areas of Ellesmere Port and Neston, Crewe and Nantwich, Vale Royal and Chester.)

13 National Affordable Housing Programme funding, administered by the Housing Corporation (formerly known as Approved Development Funding (ADP)). Back

14 See Cheshire Sub-Regional Housing Strategy for further details. Back

15 Available online at http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/HousePriceIndexSept2006.pdf Back

16 Housing Tenure Choices by the Young, Dr Mark Andrew, June 2006, CML, available online at http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/publications/research?keyword=tenure&date=0&key-area=0&mode=search Back

17 See for example Chance of a Lifetime; The Impact of Bad Housing on Children's Lives, Fiona Mitchell, Shelter, September 2006 and Housing and Health; Building for the Future, Dr Roger Burrows et al, May 2003, BMA. Back

18 A Foot on the Ladder: Low Cost Home Ownership, Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office, July 2006, available online at http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/05061048.pdf Back

19 Taken from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) data for 2005, for all employees, published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), available online at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14203& Pos=4&ColRank=1&Rank=192 Back

20 Figures from DCLG live stock tables. Back

21 Local Authority and RSL stock combined. Back

22 Cheshire Sub-Regional Housing Strategy. Back

23 See Appendix 1. Back

24 Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, ODPM, February 2005. Back