Written evidence submitted by Place for
People (LOCO 094)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Places for People is one of the largest property
management, development and regeneration companies in the UK.
We own and manage more than 62,000 homes and have assets of £3.1
billion.
1.2 Our vision is to create and manage places
where people want to live and our approach looks at all aspects
of communities rather than focusing solely on the bricks and mortar
provision of homes. Places for People's innovative approach to
place management and placemaking allows us to regenerate existing
places, create new ones and focus on long-term management.
1.3 Our response to the CLG Committee's inquiry
into Localism is put in the context of our recent submission to
the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), in which we outline our
proposals for redefining social housing grant as well as putting
forward our ideas for a Decent Neighbourhoods Standard. This standard
would provide an effective framework for linking outcomes relating
to themes that underpin the sustainable communities concept, such
as housing, environment, health etc. Further details of our proposals
for redefining social housing grant, as set out in our CSR submission,
are attached as Appendix 1 and details of the Decent Neighbourhoods
Standard are attached as Appendix 2.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 In this response, Places for People puts
forward the following views:
¾ We support
the Government's localism and decentralisation agenda and feel
that it can bring tangible benefits for local communities.
¾ In our
view, the Government can play a crucial role in providing incentives
for homes to be built locally by reviewing the way social housing
is funded in the UK. By redefining social housing grant as equity,
Registered Providers would be able to deliver additional housing,
which in turn would stimulate house building in other tenures.
¾ We also
feel that the application of a Decent Neighbourhoods Standard
would provide a framework for putting the localism agenda into
practice and deliver real outcomes to support local communities.
The way in which we envisage this would be coordination of investment
across a range of themes such as housing, health, policing, education
etc in order to combat deprivation and raise people's aspirations
at a neighbourhood level.
¾ Whitehall
has a vital role to play in ensuring the success of the localism
agenda in providing the right incentives for local outcomes to
be delivered.
¾ Local
Authorities will play an increasingly crucial role as localism
is put into practice. We are in favour of receiving housing benefit
payments direct from a single national benefits agency, to free
up local authorities to focus on local service delivery and protect
tenants from rental arrears and eviction which can result from
delays in claims processing.
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
3.1 Places for People supports the Coalition
Government's drive to decentralise services and give more power
to local communities. We also strongly support the emphasis in
its housing policy on the development and delivery of sustainable
communities, stimulating choice and working to help people fulfil
their aspirations. Generally, we therefore believe that decentralisation
does lead to more effective public service delivery.
3.2 Housing demand in the UK will continue to
grow, and affordability will continue to be squeezed in coming
years. A growing number of people will need access to some form
of affordable or intermediate market housing. We have set out
a proposal in our Comprehensive Spending Review submission for
Government to redefine social housing grant as equity and allow
rents to rise over a period of time, in order for Registered Providers
to restructure and take advantage of the remaining equity on their
balance sheets to build a range of tenures in mixed-income communities.
Initial modelling we have undertaken estimates that redefinition
of social housing grant as equity would release sufficient funding
to build 214,000 affordable homes, as well as levering in house
building in other tenures. Details of our proposal are attached
as Appendix 1.
3.3 We feel that these proposals would help to
underpin the localism agenda in providing an important incentive
for Registered Providers to build new homes where they are badly
needed.
4.0 LOCALISM
AND PUBLIC
SERVICE DELIVERY
4.1 The inquiry's terms of reference ask about
the extent to which localism leads to more effective public service
delivery and what the limits are, or should be, of localism. As
we set out in section 3 above, we support the principles of localism
and we believe that Whitehall has an important role to play in
ensuring incentives are in place to deliver the right outcomes.
4.2 In our recent response to the Department
of Work and Pensions' "21st-Century Welfare" consultation,
we refer to a 2006 study into the decentralised delivery of unemployment
benefits in the Netherlands.[39]
The Netherlands has taken a decentralised approach to public service
delivery longer than most other European countries. In 2004, local
authorities received additional financial responsibility to manage
benefit claims and payments locally, as the proportion of their
unemployment benefit budgets funded by central Government was
reduced. The Dutch Government's aim was to make overall budget
savings by encouraging local authorities to take a more active
approach to reducing benefit dependency.
4.3 Whilst the new policy did spur local authorities
to action, there were unintended consequences in that resources
were diverted away from more vulnerable and long-term unemployed
people to newly unemployed claimants and younger people, who were
closest to the labour market. People were also pressured to take
up jobs below their skills and experience levels, rather than
look for more sustainable, long-term employment, and there were
some inconsistencies in performance and other local variations,
for instance in the work obligation placed on single parents with
children aged over five.
4.4 In our view, similar issues can be avoided
in the UK. In the case of unemployment benefits, for instance,
Registered Providers and other agencies could be given financial
incentives based on their success in helping different categories
of unemployed people (eg young people, long-time unemployed claimants,
etc) back to work. This approach would support effective local
delivery and achieve real outcomes in line with the Government's
policy on sustainable communities.
5.0 LESSONS FROM
TOTAL PLACE
5.1 We welcomed the previous Government's Total
Place initiative and were interested to read the final report
in March this year. We agree with the Total Place assertion that
centralised solutions often do not reach the most disadvantaged
in society and that local context needs to be taken into account
in order to tackle deprivation and boost economic growth.
5.2 We also agree that there are potential savings
to be made by linking different types of investment. The savings
identified in the report are initial estimates, however, and we
agree with the report's recommendation that further work needs
to be done on the development of full business cases. The implications
in terms of workforce also need to be examined more closely, as
bringing together staff employed by different public bodies and
on different terms and conditions could lead to confusion and
further inefficiencies in service delivery.
5.3 Places for People supports the principles
underlying Total Place. In particular, we feel that investment
needs to be linked up better to deliver outcomes across a range
of themes. We have long advocated the introduction of a Decent
Neighbourhoods Standard (see Appendix 2), which fits closely with
the aims of Total Place.
5.4 Based on our considerable experience of working
in neighbourhoods, it is clear that there is a real need for local
communities to be given a framework to develop area-wide business
plans that break up spatial concentrations of deprivation and
provide a broader range of tenures and tenancy types.
5.5 The way in which we envisage a Decent Neighbourhoods
approach would work, would be to bring together all investment
into a neighbourhood, including rent, benefits such as housing
benefit and Job Seeker's Allowance, council tax, economic development
interventions, community funds, as well as coordinating other
funding such as policing, health, education, transport, etc. Indeed,
pooled or coordinated Government budgets focused on ensuring money
was spent more effectively was a feature of the Localis study
into the success of localism in Manchester.[40]
5.6 The Decent Neighbourhoods Standard would
create clarity of responsibility and avoid waste and duplication.
In particular, it can be used to encourage and incentivise active
asset management strategies to break up existing concentrated
areas of poverty and deprivation, including the potential radical
restructuring of an area. It could also deliver a significant
change in the way we engage with local people within the context
of a set of nationally agreed standards. Finally, it would create
the linkage between local involvement and policy outcomes.
6.0 THE ROLE
OF WHITEHALL
6.1 Whitehall has a crucial role to play in ensuring
that localism and decentralisation lead to effective service delivery
and budget savings. As the example from the Netherlands shows,
even when there is strong direction from central Government, unintended
consequences are possible and service delivery can be inconsistent.
6.2 In our view, the Government needs to put
in place clear incentives for local authorities, Registered Providers
and other agencies to deliver the right outcomes to support Whitehall
policy.
7.0 THE ROLE
OF THE
LOCAL AUTHORITY
7.1 Local authorities play an important role
in delivering services to communities, and their roles will expand
as the localism agenda is put into practice more extensively.
We feel it is important for the Government to define more precisely
whether "local areas" will be delineated by local authority
boundaries, or whether economic areas will be used to target investment.
We welcome the announcements on local economic partnerships and
would be keen to work with these new bodies in delivering services
to local communities.
7.2 As the Total Place pilots have demonstrated,
partnership working can deliver better policy outcomes as well
as efficiency savings. In our view, Local Authorities should have
a statutory responsibility to deliver the Decent Neighbourhoods
Standard set out above, and will have a key role in ensuring that
investments are coordinated and outcomes delivered. As mentioned
in section 6, the relevant Whitehall departments would then be
responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring consistency.
7.3 As we have set out in our response to the
DWP's "21st-Century Welfare" consultation, Places for
People is strongly in favour of receiving housing benefit payments
direct from a single national agency, rather than individual local
authorities. In our view, this would free up local authorities
to deliver essential services as well as helping to protect our
tenants from arrears levels and the risk of losing their home
as a result of delays in processing payments.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Places for People welcomes the Coalition
Government's move towards decentralisation and localism and believes
that this approach can bring real benefits to local communities.
8.2 A crucial way in which the Government can
help deliver affordable homes in local communities, is to review
the way social housing is funded. By redefining social housing
grant as equity, funds could be released to enable Registered
Providers to build a significant number of new affordable homes,
which would boost house building in other tenures as well as the
wider economy both at a local and national level. Details of the
proposals, as outlined in Places for People's Comprehensive Spending
Review submission, are attached as Appendix 1.
8.3 We welcomed the Total Place initiative and
have developed proposals for a Decent Neighbourhoods Standard
which is in line with Total Place principles. Under the Standard,
investment into a local area would be coordinated in order to
deliver outcomes across a range of themes such as housing, health,
education, etc. This would be an effective way to deliver the
localism agenda and tackle deprivation at a local neighbourhood
level.
8.4 In our view, Whitehall has an important role
to play in ensuring the success of the localism agenda in putting
in place clear incentives to ensure the right outcomes are delivered
and unintended consequences are guarded against.
8.5 We feel that housing benefit should be paid
direct to Registered Providers by a single national agency. This
would free up the local authorities to deliver important services
locally and help protect tenants against rental arrears and eviction
which can be a result of claims processing delays.
October 2010
39 Rik van Berkel, 2006, "The
decentralisation of social assistance in The Netherlands",
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , Volume
26 (1/2): 12 Back
40
"Can Localism Deliver?" Lessons from Manchester. Susana
Forjan and Tom Shakespeare with Foreword by Lord Heseltine Back
| 
