Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
MONDAY 15 JANUARY 2007
COUNCILLOR ANGELA
HARVEY AND
MS ROSEMARY
WESTBROOK
Q160 Mr Hands:
You mentioned looking instead at income levels. How can you look
specifically at income levels and design housing, if that is indeed
the intention, accordingly to fit that particular income level?
Ms Westbrook: It is the other
way around. I think you need to design the housing in terms of
getting a range of housing, including family housing, for a range
of different household sizes. The design in terms of the income
levels needs to be the package that would work at lower income
levels, so for people in work who perhaps in other parts of the
country could afford to buy outright, but looking at the package
and making that work differently for people more flexibly, starting
with lower equity shares, all of those things, turning it around
and doing a lot more consumer research about what is it you need
to make those products work.
Q161 Mr Hands:
Is there any point in the 3% equity shares which some councils
are looking at at the moment; the 5% or—
Ms Westbrook: 10% certainly.
Councillor Harvey: Certainly the
research of the Westminster Housing Commission found that the
lowest density housing in the borough was on social housing estates.
They were concerned that perhaps land could be better used for
the benefit of the community which is already there. What is the
point of an empty space if it attracts anti-social behaviour rather
than something more beneficial? Certainly, what we would be hoping
for in terms of flexibilities is that rather than develop those
lands with an RSL partner is to look at whether the councils'
ALMO would be able to have access to finance. Our experience where
we have had infill before is that with different management in
one space there tends to be much more tension and blame-passing,
whereas if the ALMO was able to have that financial freedom to
be able to develop, some shared ownership on there and perhaps
somehow excel, with other moves that the whole estate is improved,
also giving people who are currently council tenants the opportunity
to move on to that ladder of opportunity, perhaps coming out as
a tenant and buying shared ownership on their own estate where
they know people, they are close to their work, close to their
families and then move through that cycle, we think would be beneficial
for the community as a whole. Of course that would free-up the
tenanted properties to other people on our waiting list.
Q162 Emily Thornberry:
There are so many questions I want to ask you, but I will try
and keep it short. Is not the problem with shared equity schemes
in Central London that given essentially the average small flat
is ten times the wage of your average Londoner, in order for people
to buy an equitable share and then rent out the rest, the level
is so high that people cannot afford to do it? It is quite often
put forward as a suggestion to allow people to get on to home-ownership
but when we have properties that high, would you be able to get
a substantial number of people to have shared equity when the
equitable share is 10% and then they rent the other 90%?
Councillor Harvey: I think it
is about whether people can aspire, and they know they cannot
aspire to 25 or 50 today, therefore, do they want to work more,
do other members of their family want to work, because they believe
they can move up? Even if it is in fairly small incremental steps
it gives them a foothold on the property ladder.
Q163 Emily Thornberry:
From the evidence we got from Shelter they were suggesting why
do you not keep the ability to access shared equity schemes to
those who are already in social housing in the borough? Instead
of looking to who is a key worker, who is not a key worker, who
is on what income, simply to move people out of social rented
into part-ownership would give you the movement within your housing
system.
Ms Westbrook: Certainly in terms
of the approach, it would be very much one of focusing on existing
residents and giving that offer to people to make it a flexibility
between tenants which is not there at the moment, so that option
to local families and their children. If they are in work they
may not need the full subsidy of rented housing but they cannot
live anywhere near their parents and afford then to buy. I think
very much we take that view about local residents and local tenants'
children being able to access those opportunities.
Councillor Harvey: In Westminster
35% of our housing market is in the private-rented sector and
a number of those are certainly affordable rents as well. I do
not think we would wish to limit it to people who are in social
housing, ie council or RSL tenants, but people who are in the
lower income category who are living in Westminster. There are
rented properties at a low rental in Westminster.
Q164 Emily Thornberry:
Surely at a market rent?
Councillor Harvey: It is a market
rent but there are different markets within Westminster, as I
explained; it is a mix of rich and poor.
Q165 Emily Thornberry:
What is the effect on Westminster going to be if the GLA Bill
goes through with the 50% limit?
Councillor Harvey: We already
have 50% affordable housing within our UDP.
Ms Westbrook: Apart from the central
activity zone, which effectively is the West End, which has 30%
affordable housing as the requirement.
Q166 Emily Thornberry:
How long have you had that?
Councillor Harvey: About a year.
Q167 Emily Thornberry:
Is it about 50%? It is all very well having it as a policy but
is it actually delivering as well?
Ms Westbrook: It will. In fact,
our policy up until that point was 30% but Westminster very clearly
delivered that 30%. It was not a target, it was an expectation.
In terms of looking back at performance, 30% of all residential
developments coming forward were expected to be affordable, of
which 25% was affordable rented housing and 5% shared ownership.
If you track back through that, Westminster delivered completely
on those targets. The new policy, which only came in last year
so it will take a bit of time to have effect, is 30% in the central
activity zone and the Paddington Basin area effectively and the
rest of the borough is 50%.
Q168 Emily Thornberry:
Of which affordable rented is what?
Ms Westbrook: 50% of the total
is affordable housing in-line with the Mayor's proposals. At the
moment, it is 70% rented, 30% shared ownership or low cost home-ownership.
Q169 Chair: Can
I clarify that? The information we have is the London plan requires
half of all new houses to be affordable, 35% social rented and
15% shared ownership, so you are in accordance with doing that
anyway?
Ms Westbrook: Yes.
Q170 Emily Thornberry:
And on the size of units?
Ms Westbrook: Yes. There are planning
policies about size of units in terms of maintaining a supply
of family units, and that is right across both social housing
and private sector housing. We do set targets—I cannot remember
them exactly—for a number of three-bed and three-bed plus
units on every site.
Q171 Emily Thornberry:
Is it not something like 30% or something ought to be three-bed
plus?
Ms Westbrook: Yes, it is that
sort of figure.
Q172 Mr Olner:
Can I ask, because I know both of you were in the room when the
previous witnesses were giving their evidence, seeing as Westminster
is a beneficiary of the HRA subsidy scheme whereas Nuneaton and
Bedworth lose out very, very badly, do Westminster think the system
is fair?
Ms Westbrook: No, we do not because
we are not beneficiaries. Subsidy is moving to the north of the
country away from London and the South East.
Q173 Mr Olner:
When I asked the question certain colleagues said, "Yes,
it is all going to London".
Ms Westbrook: No, definitely not.
In fact, between now and 2012 over £2 billion of the management
and maintenance money is going out of London.
Mr Olner: If you are not receiving any—
Q174 Chair: They
are receiving some.
Ms Westbrook: The position is
worsening for all London authorities.
Mr Olner: Yes, but we have reached our
rainy day of £3.3 million we have to give you, you have had
part of it. All I am saying is do you think the whole scheme should
be looked at?
Q175 Emily Thornberry:
You can have 10,000 off my housing waiting list, Bill!
Ms Westbrook: There are some very
strong views, particularly amongst local authorities who have
got an ALMO in place, looking at how the HRA works and trying
to move away from that approach of year-by-year subsidies which
do not relate the account to what is being paid by tenants. Effectively,
what tenants are paying does not relate to the services which
can be afforded and given to them. I think there is a real disconnect.
Some of the pilots that are being taken through at the moment—there
are six pilots, I understand three with ALMOs and three with local
authorities that directly manage their stock—are looking
at whether there is any possibility of disconnecting HRAs from
the subsidy system. I do not know whether that will be the case,
but I think it is still worth exploring to give all authorities
with ALMOs much more certainty and the ability to connect the
quality of service to the amount tenants are paying more effectively
because there is a huge disconnect at the moment.
Q176 Mr Olner:
One of the things you are advocating is the fact that Government
should modify the legislation so that authorities like yourselves
can discharge your duties on homelessness to the private sector.
Why would you want to do that when obviously the tenancies are
insecure and the costs to these residents are very expensive?
Ms Westbrook: Starting back a
bit, I think there is a series of arguments we are making. One
is in terms of London funding, funding is now made on a regional
basis. We have already had sub-regional funding in place for a
number of years. In the north sub-region, within which Westminster
sits, because there are lower costs and greater opportunities
in the north of the north sub-region, far more funding has gone
in that direction. The regional strategy for London in terms of
growth areas, with funding going to the Thames Gateway, funding
going outside London to Ashford and Milton Keynes, will mean a
real shift in where resources go. In a sense, there is a disparity
between that and if you are a Londoner who happens to be in housing
need in Westminster or Camden or Islington, which will not have
so much funding in future for very good regional, national reasons,
you will have a huge disbenefit because you will effectively wait
longer because we will have less housing supply and less funding
to provide new supply. It is in the context of that wider argument
about our responsibilities particularly in homelessness, for example
that if you apply to Westminster we finally have the duty to provide
permanent housing in the way the statutory responsibilities are
lined up. Effectively we have to provide that within our borough,
but the housing opportunities which come forward in Westminster,
for all the reasons we have talked about in terms of cost, are
smaller than many of the other boroughs and will continue to reduce
when funding is going to the east of London and to outside London.
There is a real disparity between where national funding is going
and the responsibilities of local authorities.
Councillor Harvey: Five years
ago we built over 500 units for social housing in Westminster
under the old arrangements; this year we are going to build less
than 100. Our population is rising, demand is rising, and we need
to house those people somewhere. Therefore, if they have fallen
out of a private sector tenancy in one place and we can quickly
re-house them within Westminster in a similar arrangement because
of the relationships we are building up with landlords who can
become accredited, then it is much better for that family to be
in that place rather than to put them into temporary accommodation
perhaps some miles from the children's school and their family.
It is not to worsen the position of someone, it is someone who
presents themselves with a need right now that we might be able
to help them. We supply deposits so they can get the rental and
we have certain guarantees with those private sector landlords
and they will often continue. We ought to explain this in the
context that the population of Westminster turns over 25% every
year and therefore we have a lot of people coming in and a lot
of people going out, so, for some to be in the private rented
sector may be quite appropriate for them.
Q177 Mr Olner:
Again, that leads them into a trap possibly as well because if
you are encouraging them to go into the private sector, thus they
start to have to heavily rely on housing benefits, it does not
give you an opportunity to look at the vulnerability of those
people when you seem to be encouraging them to go into the private
sector. It is, "There you are, you go to the private sector,
get your housing benefit, goodbye, we do not want to know you
anymore, you are okay".
Councillor Harvey: We will continue
to support vulnerable people, we certainly will, but if the funds
have been switched out of places like Westminster so where we
used to build 500 we are now building less than 100, we have got
that gap which we must fill.
Q178 Mr Hands:
What is the geography of destination of these people?
Councillor Harvey: Who, the 25%
who are leaving?
Q179 Mr Hands:
Who Westminster accepts a duty to but houses elsewhere outside
of Westminster? Are we talking of other London boroughs?
Councillor Harvey: Yes.
Ms Westbrook: In terms of temporary
accommodation, we have got 3,000 households living in temporary
accommodation who the borough council has accepted as being homeless.
Of those, 60% are housed in temporary accommodation in Westminster.
| 
