Supplementary memorandum by the Department
for Communities and Local Government (WUF 3)
JOINT EVIDENCE SESSION FOR THE COMMUNITIES
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SELECT COMMITTEES
Thank you for your letter of 1 December following
the joint Select Committee session I attended on 21 November.
I'm glad you found the session helpful.
As agreed at the session, I now attach further
information and notes on the following matters listed in your
letter:
— a note on the joint working between
Communities and Local Government and DFID, following World Urban
Forum 3. (It has not been possible to give details of budgets
for the areas of joint working. These are being taken forward
as part of normal day to day responsibilities and it has not been
necessary to identify separate budgets for them. Both Departments
will be bidding for funds for World Urban Forum 4 when the programme
becomes dearer, and my Department is bidding for resources for
the Shanghai Expo too, but budgets cannot be set until we know
the outcome of CSRO7);
— a note on water and sanitation programmes
for the urban poor for which DFID is responsible; and
— a note of the definitions of household
overcrowding used by Communities and Local Government and the
UN, and whether there are communities in the UK living in UN-recognised
slum conditions.
If the Committee would find it helpful, we would
be pleased to share our plans for our involvement in WUF4 in Nanjing
with the Select Committees later in the year when more details
of the event are available and we have a better idea of how we
can best contribute to it.
Baroness Andrews
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT/DFID COLLABORATION
IN FOLLOWING UP WORLD URBAN FORUM 3
NOTE FROM
BARONESS ANDREWS
TO THE
COMMUNITIES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES
Preparations for the World Urban Forum 3 in
Vancouver in June 2006 provided a new impetus to Communities and
Local Government and DFID to work together on a range of bilateral
policy issues and initiatives relating to urban development. Much
of this joint policy working is still evolving but the key areas
of closer collaboration stimulated by the event are outlined below.
1. Closer Bilateral Working Between Communities
and Local Government and DFID
a) Following the meeting between Baroness
Andrews and Hilary Benn, International Development Secretary,
in November 2006, the two Ministers have agreed to keep in touch
through bilateral meetings every six months or so.
b) Officials from Communities and Local
Government's Regional, Urban and Economic Policy (RUEP) Directorate
attend the periodic meetings of the Urban Poverty Group, which
is chaired by DFID. This group brings together a range of organisations
involved in international urban development work to exchange learning
and best practice on issues of common interest and receive updates
on UK funded programmes.
c) Ad hoc and informal exchanges on urban
and regional policy issues continue to take place regularly between
Communities and Local Government and DFID officials. In addition
to meetings, this includes the exchange of information on policy
and programmes relevant to the work of both Departments, and invitations
to conferences and workshops in which there is a joint interest.
2. Supporting and Developing an International
Dialogue on Cities and Urban Policy
a) DFID will engage with Germany during
the G8 presidency in 2007 and with the Development Assistance
Committee of the OECD, the EC and other bilateral donors to ensure
that urban issues are addressed during dialogues on supporting
sustainable growth. DFID will also collaborate with Sweden, the
World Bank, Cities Alliance and others on developing new urban
research initiatives.
b) Communities and Local Government (RUEP
and Planning Directorates) are working with the German EU Presidency
on its urban policy and territorial cohesion agenda within Europe
in 2007, including the draft Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European
Cities. The Charter's emphasis on integrated urban policy development
and improving the prospects for residents in deprived areas is
relevant to DFID's urban work. CLG will work closely with DFID
to ensure its content and outcomes are shared as widely as possible.
c) Communities and Local Government (RUEP
Directorate) will explore the scope for making the European Urban
Knowledge Network (EUKN)—which shares knowledge and experience
on tackling urban issues across Europe at local, regional and
national level—more accessible to developing countries in
collaboration with DFID.
d) Communities and Local Government (RUEP
Directorate) represents the UK on the Urban Working Party of the
OECD Territorial Development Policy Committee. This assesses trends
and challenges in urban regions and promotes learning and exchange
of best practice across Member States to achieve more sustainable
cities and regions. Communities & Local Government will share
relevant work, for example on international city comparisons and
benchmarking, with DFID to assist its evidence-based policy making.
DFID was represented at the Communities & Local Government's
hosted City and Regional International Comparisons and Benchmarking
workshop on 11 January.
e) Communities and Local Government's main
focus for comparative international work is on the US, Canada
and the EU, especially Germany, by reason of their similarities
with the UK, there is an opportunity to support dialogue between
international cities worldwide. Wilton Park is exploring the possibility
of hosting such an event, and if that comes about Communities
and Local Government/DFID would play a role and encourage LGIB
and the Core Cities to have an input.
3. Developing Place Making Skills
a) Communities and Local Government (RUEP
and Planning Directorates)/DFID will continue to promote the development
of skills for successful "place-making" and sustainable
communities as described in the DFID funded "Making Planning
Work" publication to domestic and international audiences.
This will involve the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC),
in conjunction with the Royal Town Planning Institute and the
Local Government Association's European and International Bureau
(previously the Local Government International Bureau (LGIB)).
b) The ASC hosted a European symposium on
place-making skills in Leeds in November 2006 as a follow-up to
the UK Presidency of the EU. This is part of an ongoing development
of the ASC's role in driving a European consensus on the key skills
and knowledge required for successful place-making. Communities
and Local Government/DFID will explore the ASC how its knowledge
and good practice experience can be extended beyond Europe.
c) Communities and Local Government is exploring
with the DFID/ RTPI how it might best promote the ongoing development
of ideas and international best practice on place-making skills
through new learning networks and initiatives. Its Special Grants
Programme has helped establish and develop a website (www.communityplanning.net)
to disseminate good practice guidance, including the contents
of the DFID funded "Making Planning Work" handbook which
was launched at WUF3.
4. Preparing for UN-HABITAT World Urban Forum
4, in 2008 and Shanghai Expo in 2010
a) Communities and Local Government (RUEP
and Planning Directorates)/DFID together with other likely interested
partners (currently DEFRA, British Council, Core Cities, LGIB,
RTPI) will establish an Advisory Group in early 2007 to start
planning for a UK presence at WUF4 in Nanjing, China, in 2008.
This will include establishing clear objectives for and outputs
from our involvement. Our attendance is expected to include a
joint stand in the Exhibition area of WUF4 to showcase the public
and private sector role in UK urban and regional development and
in urban development internationally.
b) Communities and Local Government/DFID
will prepare business cases for a larger presence at WUF4 than
was the case at WUF3 in Vancouver once more details of the Nanjing
Forum are available.
c) Communities and Local Government/DFID
are collaborating with DEFRA on the Sustainable Development Dialogues
specifically in China where urban development has been identified
as a priority theme. We are seeking to involve ASC and one of
DFID's resource centres in this dialogue. The dialogue outcomes
are likey to feature in UK's in WUF4. It complements the work
of the Deputy Prime Minister's China Task Force which has a new
focus on sustainable cities.
d) Communities and Local Government and
other UK Departments also expect to have a presence at the Shanghai
Expo in 2010 and will be working up a business case in early 2007.
Cities and urban development will be a key theme along with climate
change and trade. (We do not anticipate DFID involvement as this
is more a trade and promotion event).
e) The likely budget for World Urban Forum
4 has yet to be finalised, but both Departments will be bidding
for funds when the programme for the event becomes clearer. My
Department will be seeking programme resources for the Shanghai
Expo too, but budgets cannot be set before we know the outcome
of CSR07.
DFID PROGRAMMES ON
URBAN WATER
SUPPLY AND
SANITATION
General
Although most of the population of developing
countries without access to safe water and sanitation live in
rural areas, the picture is rapidly changing with rapidly growing
urban populations. Main challenges will be in slums and informal
settlements where utilities are often not legally permitted to
provide services and in peri-urban areas where expansion is particularly
rapid and the primary infrastructure (the large trunk water mains
and sewers) is limited. The challenges for urban sanitation are
especially acute as the possibilities of on-site solutions are
less applicable in high-density areas. Extending basic drinking
water to peri-urban and slum areas to reach the poorest people
helps prevent outbreaks of cholera and other water-related diseases
in overcrowded settlements.
The urban poor rely mainly on the informal private
sector. This is true of 95% of residents in informal settlements
in Khartoum for instance. Vendors often provide a reasonable service,
although much inferior to the piped water and sewerage available
to the better off; but costs are high (with prices often 5-10
times higher than those paid by richer users, who are connected
to water supply networks). Performance of urban water supply and
sanitation utilities in developing countries is weak and rarely
financially self-sustainable.
DFID Programmes
DFID has active urban water and sanitation programmes
in India, Pakistan Bangladesh, Ghana, and Zambia. DFID sector
and general budget support programmes in other countries will
also contribute to urban service provision.
DFID also supports a number of global initiatives
which include work on urban water and sanitation.
— Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP),
where is addition to core funding, DFID is supporting an initiative
looking at leveraging greater financial and technical inputs from
the domestic private sector with a particular focus on finding
ways to unlock the potential of small and medium service providers.
— Water and Sanitation for the Urban
Poor (WSUP) is a partnership between the private, public and civil
society sectors to provide more effective delivery of water supply
and basic sanitation services to the urban poor. WSUP works through
an alliance with local stakeholders to identify and develop projects,
and a local project consortia to deliver projects. Emphasis is
on building the capacity of the local service authority staff
and on the sustainability of service delivery. DFID is providing
£3.95 million to WSUP over a period of three years. Other
funding is secured from German Development Cooperation, KFW and
from contributions by WSUP members: CARE International UK, Cranfield
University, Halcrow, Thames Water, Water Aid and WWF International.
So far two pilot projects have been identified, in Bangalore and
Naivasha Kenya, and are being set up.
— The World Bank IBNET (International
Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities) initiative,
to which DFID contributes, carries out performance assessment
and benchmarking of utilities through the use of a standard set
of performance indicators. Over 2,000 utilities have been assessed
and will enable cross-country comparisons to be made.
— Global Partnership on Output Based
Aid (GPOBA) pilots new approaches to targeting the poor through
performance based subsidies and is particularly relevant for extending
connections and services to poor households.
Proportion of DFID funding allocated to Urban
Water and Sanitation
The proportion of DFID bilateral water and sanitation
expenditure attributed to urban water and sanitation in 2005-06
was 22% corresponding to a total of £28.3 million.
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT/INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO WORLD URBAN FORUM 3
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
REQUEST
1. Definitions of household overcrowding
used by Communities and Local Government, the UN and other
organisations and, if possible, the number of households in the
UK by each definition
1.1 Definitions of overcrowding for England/UK
— The Statutory Standard dates from
1935 and is no longer used for practical purposes. No regular
assessment is made of the number of households who are overcrowded
by this definition. However a modelled estimate was derived in
2003 of around 20,000 households in England. This was based on
results from the Survey of English Housing for 2000-01, 2001-02
and 2002-03 and from the English House Condition Survey for 2001.
— The Bedroom Standard is what is now
generally used as a working definition. The most recent estimates,
derived from the 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 SEH surveys, suggest
that there are 526,000 overcrowded households in England.
— The Occupancy Standard, used in the
2001 Census, which is a measure of under-occupancy and overcrowding
based on the number of "rooms" and not "bedrooms"
required by a household.
Further details on Statutory Standard and Bedroom
Standard definitions and the Occupancy Rating are contained in
an Appendix. These are the only definitions of overcrowding we
employ and, apart from the UN definition which principally applies
to developing countries, we do not use any other definitions produced
by other organisations.
1.2 Definitions of overcrowding used by UN
— UN-Habitat uses an operational definition
of slums which covers overcrowding in order to track progress
in reaching Millennium Development Goal Target 11—"to
obtain a meaningful improvement in the life of at least 100 million
slum dwellers by the year 2020".
— A slum household is defined as a
group of individuals living under one roof in an urban area who
lack one or more of the following five conditions:
5. Sufficient living space.
— In this context, the percentage of
homes with three or more persons per room are considered overcrowded.
— UN-Habitat indicators are largely
designed to improve housing standards in less-developed countries.
Our targets will be much higher eg the decent homes standard.
— Further, the Housing Health and Safety
Rating System in England covers a wide range of "potential
risks to health and safety from deficiencies in residential dwellings".
The HHSRS, though not itself a standard, has been introduced as
a replacement for the Housing Fitness Standard.
2. Whether there are any communities (in
the UK) that are living in UN-recognised slum conditions
We have applied the UN definition above to the
recent Survey of English Housing data and found that very few
households in England would be overcrowded on this basis—maybe
3,000 or so.
APPENDIX
DEFINITIONS OF OVERCROWDING USED IN ENGLAND
1. STATUTORY
OVERCROWDING
— Statutory overcrowding is a standard
that has remained unchanged since 1935, and whose origins are
probably even older. These standards, now generally acknowledged
as being completely unacceptable, were restated in Part X of the
Housing Act 1985, as the Room Standard and the Space Standard.
Under the Housing Act a dwelling is overcrowded if either of the
standards is contravened.
— The Room Standard is breached if
two people of opposite sexes who are not living together as husband
and wife must sleep in the same room. Living rooms and kitchens,
as well bedrooms can be treated as available sleeping accommodation—"a
room is available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type
normally used in the locality either as a bedroom or as a living
room". Children under 10 do not count for the purpose of
determining whether the Room Standard has been contravened.
— The Space Standard specifies the
maximum number of people who may sleep in a dwelling according
to the number of rooms available as sleeping accommodation (Table
I) and the floor area of each room (Table II).
— Two calculations are required and
the lower number applies.
— Babies under one year do not count
and children under 10 count as ½. Table I in the Act lists
the maximum number of persons for the number of rooms available
as sleeping accommodation in the dwelling. Thus for one room the
maximum is two persons, and this rises to 7½ for four rooms.
For five or more rooms, the maximum number of persons is two for
each room. The definition of a room available as sleeping accommodation
is the same as for the Room Standard.
— Table II of the Space Standard specifies
the number of persons to be allocated to each available room,
defined as for Table I, based on the floor area of that room.
The number allocated to each room is used to calculate the maximum
number of persons who can sleep in the dwelling. For rooms of
110 sq ft or more the number of persons is two. This is reduced
for smaller rooms, and for the smallest category of room (50-70
sq ft) the number of persons allocated is only ½.
— Information on compliance with the
standards has not been collected systematically but, in the autumn
of 2001, an attempt was made to estimate the number of households
living in conditions that breach these standards. Using data from
the Survey of English Housing for the three years 1997-98, 1998-99,
1999-2000 and from the 1996 English House Condition Survey it
was estimated that there were 25,000 households who were so overcrowded
that the 1935 standards were breached.
2. THE BEDROOM
STANDARD
— This indicator of occupation density
was developed by the Government Social Survey in the 1960s for
use in social surveys.
— A standard number of bedrooms required
is calculated for each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital
status composition and the relationship of the members to one
another. A separate bedroom is required for each married or cohabiting
couple, for any other person aged 21 or over, for each pair of
adolescents aged 10-20 of the same sex, and for each pair of children
under 10. Any unpaired person aged 10-20 is paired, if possible
with a child under 10 of the same sex, or, if that is not possible,
he or she is counted as requiring a separate bedroom, as is any
unpaired child under 10.
— This standard is then compared with
the actual number of bedrooms (including bed-sitters) available
for the sole use of the household. Bedrooms converted to other
uses are not counted as available unless they have been denoted
as bedrooms by the residents, bedrooms not actually in use are
counted unless uninhabitable.
— If a household has fewer bedrooms
than implied by the standard then it is deemed to be overcrowded.
As even a bed-sitter will meet the bedroom standard for a single
person household, or for a married/cohabiting couple, single person
and couple households cannot be overcrowded according to the bedroom
standard.
— If a household has two or more bedrooms
fewer than implied by the standard then it is deemed to be severely
overcrowded.
3. OCCUPANCY
RATING (USED
IN THE
2001 CENSUS)
— This provides a measure of under
occupancy and overcrowding. It is based on "rooms"—and
not "bedrooms"—simply because the 2001 Census
didn't ask about number of bedrooms. It relates the actual number
of rooms (see below) to the number of rooms "required"
by the members of the household (based on the relationship between
them and their ages). The room requirement is calculated as follows:
1. a one person household is assumed
to require three rooms (two common rooms and a bedroom);
2. where there are two or more residents
it is assumed that they require a minimum of two common rooms
plus one bedroom for:
— each couple (as determined
by the relationship question);
— any other person aged or
over;
— each pair aged 10-15 of
the same sex;
— each pair formed from a
remaining person aged 10 to 15 with a child aged under 10 of the
same sex;
— each pair of children aged
under 10 remaining; and
— each remaining person (either
aged 10-15 or under 10).
The actual number of rooms
Census question: How many rooms do you have for
use only by your household?
This variable captured the number of rooms in
each household space. Bathrooms, toilets, halls/landings and storage
rooms were not counted. If two rooms had been converted into one,
they were counted as one room. Rooms shared between a number of
households (eg shared bathroom or kitchen) were not counted.
| 
