Memorandum from Stoke-on-Trent City Council
(BDH 06)
SUMMARY
— As a stock retaining authority with
over 19,000 properties in the city we very much welcome the opportunity
to be involved in the future planning for Decent Homes.
— We would highlight that, in its current
form, the Decent Homes Standard is difficult to define clearly
for tenants.
— The Decent Homes Standard as it stands
does not fully meet the expectations of tenants who would prefer
to see significant investment into their local environment. Further
work would have to be undertaken however to fully understand the
financial implications in relation to expanding the standard.
— We believe there are efficiencies
to be achieved in aligning the investment into Decent Homes to
targets in relation to carbon reduction and the review of the
Housing Revenue Account.
— We would welcome further clarification
on the expectations for housing providers to maintain Decent Homes
Standard in the future and the available resources to achieve
this.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Stoke-on-Trent is situated midway between
Birmingham and Manchester. The city has a long industrial heritage
associated with coal mining, steel works and ceramics. As a result
the land across the city is blighted with low level landfill,
marl pits and mining shafts.
1.2 The housing stock in the city is dominated
by pre-1944 terrace properties in the private sector and two or
three bed semi detached properties in the social sector, largely
situated or monolithic social estates on the periphery of the
city.
1.3 Levels of non-Decency in the private
sector are very high wigh as many as 60% of private sector properties
failing to meet the standard (based on the 2007 update of the
Private Sector Stock Condition Survey incorporating the HHSRS).
1.4 The city council are a stock retaining
authority, with a Joint Venture arrangement with Keir to provide
maintenance to over 19,000 properties in the city. We remain on
track to meet the 2010 targets in relation to Decent Homes Standard
in the social sector.
2. LESSONS LEARNT
2.1 The Decent Homes Standard provides a
minimum standard of property for tenants, however the standard
is difficult to explain to tenants and fails to take accounts
of some of their expectations.
2.2 Particular difficulties have arisen
in trying to explain to tenants why some elements of their property
may be defective as part of the standard but overall the property
does not fail. The assessment on individual properties also means
that neighbours may not have the same works undertaken in their
properties and this has, in some instances, caused friction.
2.3 Generic definitions of what is "reasonable"
vary significantly between tenants and this has led to some difficulties
in justifying where some works have not been required.
3. FUTURES STANDARDS
3.1 Feedback from tenants highlights the
importance they place on environmental issues, including external
areas, paths and fencing. We would there for suggest that minimum
standards are closely linked to environmental issues on estates.
The approach will however have a considerable impact on affordability
of future programmes and generate a very significant amount of
work required to address the backlog of issues. Further consideration
will need to be given to meeting the costs of additional environmental
works, however we would, within this context, support their inclusion
within a minimum standard.
3.2 There is a clear need to improve the
links between Decent Homes Standards and fuel poverty targets,
specifically as the Decent Homes Standard is currently set below
the recommended levels of energy efficiency and the Government
targets in relation to CO2 reduction. In its current form the
Decent Homes Standard makes little contribution to these targets.
There is potential however to achieve significant efficiencies
by appropriately linking these two programmes.
3.3 We would advocate that any future standard
maintains a link to age and condition of key amenities. Age is
the most accessible criteria for tenants to understand as the
key to trigger replaces. Any assessment based on condition alone
will reflect usage and may work to the detriment of those tenants
who properly maintain their property. In essence an assessment
based on condition alone may act as a perverse incentive for tenants
to take appropriate care of components including kitchens and
bathrooms.
4. FUTURE FUNDING
ISSUES
4.1 Ahead of any conclusions from the current
review of the Housing Revenue Account it is difficult to assess
what funds may be available for maintaining Decent Homes Standard
in the future. A review of the current standard should more closely
be linked to the development of the Housing Revenue Account in
the future.
4.2 Assuming that no changes are made to
the Housing Revenue Account it is clear tat the Major Repairs
Allowance as it stands may not be sufficient to maintain Decent
Homes standard into the longer term.
4.3 As a stock retaining authority we will
meet the target in place to achieve Decent Homes Standard by 2010,
with additional funding afforded by Supported Borrowing. Unlike
some ALMO's, we have not been able to undertake wider investment
programmes to bring all stock up to, or over, the Decent Homes
Standard and have, as a result, had to focus investment on stock
that actually fails the Decent Homes Standard. This has meant
that we will face properties beginning to fail to meet the standard
from 2011 onwards. Therefore, post-2010 we would be unable to
maintain the current programme to deal with properties falling
into non-Decency without this funding.
4.4 We would therefore welcome further clarity
on the expectations for managing Decent Homes failures in the
future. Specifically whether landlords will be expected to undertake
repairs and renovations to individual properties as they fall
into failure or whether there will be a timeframe provided for
ongoing improvement. We would suggest that the provision of timescales
for improvements offer greater value for money by enabling a geographically
based approach for investment programmes. This approach would
also support the inclusion of environmental factors within the
standard.
5. DECENCY IN
THE PRIVATE
SECTOR
5.1 There are significant issues in relation
to reducing the numbers of vulnerable people in non-Decent accommodation
within the private sector, not least in relation to identifying
these households and monitoring the numbers of properties meeting
the minimum standard.
5.2 While local evidence, in the form of
Private Sector Stock Condition Surveys, has indicated that there
has been a reduction in the numbers of vulnerable people in poor
quality accommodation, as a result of ongoing regeneration and
investment through Kickstart, private landlord grants and Home
Repair Assistance, the issue remains considerable in the city.
5.3 We are also aware of the highly transient
nature of many vulnerable people in the city, particularly the
younger age groups and those within the private rented sector.
This poses significant problems in relation to managing and targeting
suitable investment.
5.4 Current resources in relation to private
sector decency are limited, and likely to be reduced further in
line with national spending cuts. Targets will therefore need
to be closely linked with Local Area Agreements to enable a more
targeted, local approach, through Area Based Grant.
6. FUTURE REGULATION
6.1 While current arrangements for he future
regulation of acceptable standards may be adequate there remains
an issue about defining "acceptable" standards.
6.2 Further alignments between the regulation
of the Decent Homes Standard and the emerging regulation form
the Tenants Service Authority is a key consideration. The Tenants
Services Authority have highlighted the need for housing providers
to work more effectively to meet the expectations for tenants.
The criteria and funding arrangements for the Decent Homes Standard
provides limited flexibility to enable this to be achieved.
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 In conclusion we welcome the opportunity
to submit this evidence to assist in the future planning for Decent
Homes. We would highlight the need however for this standard,
and associated programmes of work, to be more closely linked to
other national targets, specifically in relation to the Housing
Revenue Account and climate change. We believe that there significant
efficiencies to be achieved through the alignment of investment
in social housing.
7.2 We would also highlight the need to
take further account of tenants expectations in planning future
standards. Ensuring that they understand the standards they can
expect is a key consideration. Funding to meet these expectations
will however prove to be a significant challenge.
September 2009
| 
