|
Memorandum from BRE Housing Group (BDH 40)
Summary of key points
§ Setting standards is not always the best way to improve housing § National standards reduce the scope for real tenant participation in decision-making and setting priorities § Standards need to be agreed, easily measured and monitored § Encouraging more stock transfers will not necessarily improve standards - it is the quality and commitment of the people that matter rather than the type of organisation that they work for. § Tenants do not want more 'standards' - they want improved and more intensive housing management and caretaking.
The following observations draw heavily on the work I have carried out for CLG in investigating how social landlords were implementing the Decent Homes standard in practice and a recent project for the Greater London Authority assessing what a successor standard might cover.
1. Standards are not always the most appropriate or efficient way to effect improvements in housing. Standards are useful to provide clarity about what tenants should expect and what social landlords should deliver but they can be inflexible. Items to be covered by standards should satisfy all of the following:
§ be seen as important by all stakeholders § have overriding significance for the country § be easily and objectively assessed § be within the power of social landlords to decide and influence § not duplicate existing standards and requirements
2. Many items that have been suggested as part of a 'new standard' do not conform to these. For example - fuel poverty is often suggested as an additional item but social landlords have no control over two of the most important determinants - household income and fuel prices. Similarly there is a lot of talk about standards relating to 'estates' or 'security' but how do you set a single standard for all estates and are tenants and leaseholders willing and able to pay the extra service charges for it?
3. For other aspects that do not satisfy these criteria, there are more effective strategies to improve performance and provision; principally by consulting with tenants to agree priorities and solutions for particular areas, estates or blocks.
4. It is also important to remember that improvements do not necessarily have to involve spending large sums on capital projects and there are a number of areas where more intensive housing management and enhanced responsive and cyclical maintenance have a pivotal role to play in improving standards. This includes issues of noise and Anti Social Behaviour as well as general upkeep of estates and essential services like heating and lifts. The focus on building work and hardware has diverted resources from housing management and there is a need to rethink the balance between capital and revenue expenditure in some areas. Similarly, substantial improvements to some aspects could be achieved by relatively modest works e.g. improving controls to communal heating system and reducing overrun on cold water supplies. One of the tenants who attended the focus group we set up as part of the work for the GLA summed it up very simply
'You're looking for a new standard, but in actual fact, above all, what tenants will want is not a new standard but to do things properly'.
5. There is a strong case for a successor standard to Decent Homes setting basic minimum levels of performance and aspirational regional or national targets for different types of buildings in the following areas: § Energy efficiency § Carbon emissions § Summer overheating § Water use § Dwelling security § Serviceability of lifts
6. These levels of performance should be based on simply constructed scores that recognise that different parts of the stock have different potential for improvements. Any successor standard should keep evaluation of these elements separate, rather than allowing Landlords to trade these elements off against each other through a score based system.
7. Social landlords should consult with residents at an appropriate level (area, estate or block) to establish what improvements (physical, management and maintenance) are needed to the following aspects and what the priorities for investment should be. They should then incorporate them into their ongoing stock management and maintenance plans for individual estates or areas for incremental improvement: § Noise § Health and safety (beyond the statutory minimum) § Security of the surrounding estate/area § Provision of lifts to blocks of flats § Provision of block security systems § Storage and recycling of domestic waste § Provision of accessible green space § Flood risk management § Provision of play/child friendly space § Provision of cycle storage § Provision of clothes drying facilities § Biodiversity in the local environment § Parking facilities
8. This will involve detailed consideration about the balance of investment in capital works and additional resources related to caretaking and housing management. Addressing these issues is likely to result in an increased management and maintenance costs, which may have implications for service charges.
9. The following aspects need improving on some estates and in some areas, and will make a difference to resident quality of life, but are best dealt with by Service Level Agreements and targets.
§ Maintenance of heating systems § Maintenance of lifts § Standard of common areas, estates and immediate environment § Maintenance of block security systems § Maintenance of accessible green space § Maintenance of play areas/child friendly space.
10. Accessibility of social housing should be improved incrementally by encouraging Landlords in their refurbishment schemes to take more account of this and to exploit quick wins in this area. Tenants and leaseholders should be provided with advice on how to use their homes efficiently especially in the areas of overheating, energy efficiency, recycling of domestic waste and water use.
11. Simply changing the type of organisation will not improve property conditions. Using the Decent Homes targets as a way of forcing Local Authorities to carry out stock transfers and/or set up ALMOs has been deeply unpopular with tenants and staff within these organisations. From my experience of talking to many authorities, ALMOs and associations I am struck by the fact that it is the drive, calibre and vision of the staff (particularly those at the top) that is important in delivering improvements and a quality service rather than the type of organisation that they work for.
September 2009 |