Annex
Visit to Stockport 23 November
2009
Participants
| Dr Phyllis Starkey MP |
John Cummings MP |
| Neil Turner MP | Alison Seabeck MP
|
| |
Programme
10.30 am Introductory meeting with Stockport Homes and Stockport
Council.
12 noon Tour of social housing area and visit to homes
1.15 pm Lunch with interlocutors: Stockport Homes; Stockport
Council; Finley (Building Contractor); Johnnie Johnson Housing
Association; GM Procure; tenants
2.30pm Evidence Session (National Federation of ALMOs, East
Durham Homes; Residential Landlords Association; Professor Tony
Crook, Professor of Housing Studies)
Meeting notes
Stockport Homes
In 2005 the ALMO was established and the first funding came through
that August. They received £20 million to spend in 6 months
so had had to make detailed preparations before receiving the
funding.
In 2003 housing in Stockport had been 54% non-decent. In 2006
Stockport Homes received its funding; at that point the stock
was 37% non-decent. The level of non-decency had now fallen to
12% of stock. Stockport had needed £104 million to reach
the decent homes target by July 2010. They had received accelerated
funding of £2 million in 2007 and £5 million in 2009.
In the previous ten years funding had not been available to do
refurbishment and available money had been spent on the basics
such as heating. Kitchens and bathrooms had only been done up
when absolutely necessary and as a result some had been 40 or
50 years old before the decent homes programme.
Stockport Homes managed 11,500 housing units on three main estates.
There were 22 high rise buildings, 150 medium rise and 500 low
rise properties. The decent homes standard was based on a "normal"
house and did not take into account the needs of communal areas
around high rise buildings. There were 900 non-traditional properties
spread out across the borough. These were hard to heat but discussions
with tenants had revealed that people wanted external over-cladding
rather than internal measures. This work had been started a few
years ago and had reduced inhabitants' fuel bills.
The decent homes standard was a "fantastic government programme"
and it would a great shame if the work was wasted because of a
lack of funds after 2010. If the review of the HRA subsidy system
was successful, the decent homes programme in Stockport would
be able to grow and improve. If the only resources provided after
2010 were through the current HRA system, then there would not
be sufficient funding to maintain the decent homes standard.
The decent homes standard itself was minimal and they and others
had reached a "decent homes plus" standard, which led
to higher tenant satisfaction.
The decent homes standard provided a core skeleton of necessary
work. Kitchens and bathrooms had been improved on top of that.
Every property received a "pre-entry survey" to determine
all the improvements needed and the cost involved, to allow the
decent homes work and any other necessary work to be done all
at the same time. Each customer received a bespoke design for
the work before it was carried out.
The work had been carried out across different geographical areas
at the same time, rather than completing areas sequentially.
The funding received was spent on the kernel of decent homes work
but on other works as well, and Major Repairs Allowance funding
had been added in to the available money. A consortium, GM Procure,
had been set up four years ago. This brought together 55 social
landlords who had agreed common specifications for improvements
to homes. The group had then split the supply chain into labour
and materials. The consortium had been able to capture significant
rebates paid to contractors for buying materials from suppliers
in large volume. Stockport Homes had received £2.5 million
in the last year in this way. The money was recycled back into
the housing improvement programme, allowing them to put showers
into properties even though these were not required by the decent
homes standard. They had also built into the work programme home
adaptations for the elderly and disabled, rather than returning
at a later stage to do those works.
Before the decent homes work was carried out a building cost model
(stock condition survey) was used to assess standards of the stock,
the work needed and the cost of that work. This was a rigorous
process. However, there were no checks or auditing carried out
after the work had been done and prices could have changed since
the original cost model was produced.
The Audit Commission required an independent stock survey to be
carried out and Savills had conducted a survey of 10% of their
stock in 2003, 2005 and 2009. Those in house surveyors conducting
the internal stock condition surveys were trained by Savills and
it was noted that there was a fairly uniform standard of expertise
across the UK.
Stockport produced regular monthly updates on the works programme
using an in-house database. Homes were re-surveyed after work
had been carried out and that data entered into the database.
The database allowed them to predict which properties were about
to become non-decent. The information from the database was fed
back to the Council and reported to the Government.
Savills had also audited the stock condition database to ensure
that the system was robust.
GM Procure included local authorities, RSLs and ALMOs from across
the North West, Cumbria and East Lancashire. The consortium had
started in Manchester. Other regeneration consortia existed but
none of the same volume; GM Procure was the largest in the country
and had been designated a "trailblazer". Other areas
wanted to join.
The consortium dealt with 40 contractors. They aimed to use small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as large contractors had high
overheads. Also SMEs could be influenced to a greater extent—the
consortium specified, for example, that two trainees must be employed
for every £1 million work provided. There were 27 trainees
at work on the Stockport programme, 46% of whom were female or
from black or minority-ethnic background. A range of community
enterprises were supported through the programme involving the
engagement of ex-offenders.
The consortium was used to supply all materials for both new building
and home improvements. Using the same components for both meant
that it would be easier to carry out refurbishments in the future.
Stockport Homes was the first ALMO in the country to build new
homes whilst receiving a grant from the Housing Corporation.
There was no legal relationship between the contractors and suppliers
but all signed up to a procurement framework. Performance was
excellent because GM Procure was one of the largest customers
in the country. Over 90% of work was done on time without defects.
The incentive for the contractors, although they did not receive
their rebate from suppliers under GM Procure, was a long term,
sustainable programme of work. The programme was also a vehicle
for NVQ level 2 training and trainees could work for different
contractors in sequence under a "carousel" system. The
programme was also training unemployed people to obtain driving
licences in order to work, which was of long term benefit. GM
Procure was also working with persistent ex-offenders from three
prisons, with "really good" outcomes.
It was easier for landlords in other geographical areas to join
an existing consortium than to set up their own. There had been
many doubters when GM Procure was set up but success had brought
many more organisations into the network.
Individual officers had driven GM Procure forward through sheer
energy and strength of personality. Stockport had taken a risk
in jointly setting up GM Procure, which then had to be made to
work. The other side of taking the risk was that the founder members
of the consortium were now enjoying the best returns as they had
preferential rights.
The ALMO community was good at sharing best practice and housing
associations had also been brought into the network. There was
further to go and a new work stream had been brought in to cover
responsive repairs. They had just let a tender for 3,000 vehicles
in the largest such contract in the country and had secured a
discount of over 30% which would be recycled back into the programme.
All the windows used in the works programme were the same system
although different styles. They were "secured by design"
(a security standard endorsed by the Police) and PAS 23 or 24
(a security and performance standard for doors). The glass used
reduced the release of heat by a property and the PVCu in the
frames was recycled. It had taken 7 years to replace all the windows
in the stock.
The advantage of the procurement framework used by the consortium
was that the performance management could also be leaner: fewer
staff were needed in Stockport Homes to manage the relationships
with suppliers and contractors.
When the decent homes programme was established, councils had
to choose out of several options for the management of their stock.
Stockport had tried to arrange a large scale voluntary transfer
(LSVT) to a housing association but the tenants federation had
campaigned against it. Setting up an ALMO was the only remaining
option, and Stockport had bid successfully for funds in Round
5.
Following the campaign against the proposed LSVT, and in order
to persuade tenants to agree to the transfer of management to
an ALMO, Stockport Council had worked hard to regain the trust
of tenants. This had been a long process involving the production
of an updated, more detailed stock appraisal. Tenants placed great
value on the fact that under an ALMO they would still be council
tenants.
The 5% of decent homes funding which could be spent on sustainability
measures had been used for community work. The decent homes standard
was a major success and it had raised tenant expectations as there
had been no spending on improvements before then. It would be
a terrible shame if the achievements of the programme were lost
through funding being cut or clawed back. Decent homes money should
not be redirected to new build. The decent homes programme created
jobs and had a beneficial effect on a greater number of people.
Very vulnerable people would not receive the improvements they
had been promised if funding was re-programmed.
In Stockport the waiting list for council homes was 9,000. Demand
was very high and there were high levels of owner-occupation.
The Government had prioritised house-building in 2007. Land was
not available for new build in Stockport.
The proposed HRA reform could allow Stockport to sustain and expand
the work already carried out. New building in Stockport was resourced
through grant funding and prudential borrowing. Stockport was
driven by achieving value for money.
Stockport was working with the HCA to bring together social landlords
to look at sustainable products for retrofit and new build. There
were strict codes for standards of new building. There was scope
for a huge amount of work retrofitting renewable technologies
to existing stock.
The SAP rating which could be reached with older stock was limited
by the design of the housing. SAP ratings were brought into new
build properties. Over-cladding of older properties saved the
residents around £200 a year in fuel bills. Rents had not
increased.
Stockport had the lowest rents in the North of England and was
at the lower end of the scale nationally. Rents were now increasing
in line with government policy on rent restructuring.
Standards in the private rented sector were low. There were few
resources for improvements in the private sector. Some homeless
people were housed in the private rented sector.
Stockport Council
It was essential to take a long term view of the stock condition
in order to foresee and prevent homes falling below decency standards.
There were tensions around building on green field land. In Stockport
there were lots of "bitty" brown field sites scattered
around, which made it more expensive to build. They were trying
to maximise the available land for new building but if home improvements
did not continue, the work carried out so far would have been
wasted.
Insulation work reduced excess winter deaths and mould growth
in properties, and helped to contribute to carbon reduction targets.
Frontline workers in fuel poverty or living in cold homes in the
private sector were offered training and directed by the Council
towards available services such as the Warm Front programme. Stockport's
housing had high levels of insulation compared to housing in other
regions.
The Council worked with private landlords through a forum. The
private rented sector represented only 7% of stock. Most landlords
in Stockport were non-professional. The forum ran meetings to
which 30 or 40 people turned up each time, produced newsletters,
provided training and hosted a virtual forum. The Council served
few notices and preferred to work with landlords to secure improvements
to stock. The Housing Act 2004 had provided much greater scope
for enforcement action and the HHSRS was a much higher standard
than the "fitness" standard it had replaced. The Council
did not just look at Category 1 hazards when assessing private
sector homes. The number of Council interventions with landlords
had increased although numbers of notices served remained low.
Rather than re-housing those living in inadequate housing, the
Council would work with the landlord to improve the housing.
| Year | Private rented sector interventions
| Numbers of notices
|
| 2005/6 | 414
| 38 |
| 2006/7 | 450
| 20 |
| 2007/8 | 459
| 5 |
| 2008/9 | 527
| 16 |
| 2009/10 to October |
332 | |
The HHSRS was a rather low standard, as was the decent homes standard.
The Council did a lot of work to persuade landlords to raise standards
and had provided grants for such work for many years. The approach
was to encourage landlords to improve the marketability of their
stock, which worked well. The housing market in Stockport allowed
people to pick and choose between properties so the incentive
existed for improvements to be made.
GM Procure
Procurement consortia in London included LAPN (London Area Procurement
Network) based in Kensington and Chelsea and Buy4London, based
in East Thames. Some procurement consortia had not had the success
of GM Procure because no-one had taken the lead. Those organisations
had focussed instead on benchmarking products.
GM Procure was driven forward by the programme of works social
landlords were engaged in. They had been able to impose standards
on contractors and suppliers because of the large volume of work.
GM Procure had a constitution to which members had to commit.
1% of the value of the works programme was spent on work that
benefited the community, such as training, community enterprises,
house clearances and work with the unemployed.
There was £120 million of work on the order book for the
year and £190,000 was being spent on community work in Stockport
Homes alone. For example, unemployed people were improving parts
of estates. GM Procure had focussed on decent homes work but was
now able to influence other markets. They were moving to a materials
framework rather than leaving contractors to buy the materials
themselves.
GMP was a company limited by guarantee, not-for-profit and owned
by its members. Private landlords could not join the consortium
under its current rules.
All contractors were subject to financial checks as part of the
framework agreement and GMP was able to receive information on
their financial viability direct from their banks. They employed
a traffic light system to monitor which businesses were in trouble.
GMP had assisted a company which went bankrupt to be purchased
by another member company of GMP.
| 
