Current policy and delivery priorities and challenges for

SW London LAs.

Simon Latham, Executive Head of Community Living and Strategic Commissioning

LB Sutton and SWLHP Lead Director

Focus on 5 big priorities and challenges:

• Homelessness and welfare reform• Supply of affordable homes• Allocation of housing and pan-London mobility• Private rented sector supply and quality• FundingMany are not new issues – some chronic challenges but

the impact has worsened and created new challenges of their own.

But first – a bit of context……. House prices across the sub-region

LA Area Average house prices at May 2014 (Land Registry)

Property typeAvg price May 2014

Croydon £287,277 Detached £ 329,367Flat £ 208,057

Kingston £391,671 Detached £ 799,869Flat £ 312,592

Lambeth £489,836 Detached £ 892,088Flat £ 449,262

Merton £426,432 Detached £1,481,808Flat £ 335,290

Richmond £570,966 Detached £ 1,093,934Flat £ 415,981

Sutton £283,523 Detached £ 600,354Flat £ 202,847

Wandsworth £536,333 Detached £1,522,079Flat £ 449,610

House price spread across boroughs in the sub-region

Proportions of stock in LA, RP and Private Sector

(Figures from SWLHP SHMA 2010)

11%9%

0%

80%

Stock by sector

LOCAL AUTHORITY

RSL

OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE

  NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

Local authority 76,978

RSL 62,630

Other Public Sector 726

Private sector 569,369

TOTAL 709,703

Social Rented Stock as a Proportion of all dwellings by Ward (SW London SHMA 2010)

Priority and Challenge 1: Homelessness and Welfare reform

• Meeting our statutory duty to house homeless households is becoming increasing difficult.

• Ability to house non-priority cases diminishing further

• Homelessness presentations are increasing in all boroughs and on an upward trend. The ending of private rented sector (PRS) tenancies is now the biggest cause of homelessness presentations for boroughs.

• Increasing difficulty for councils in sourcing sufficient quantities of accommodation, temporary and permanent, in order to house families in need.

• Greater use of interim accommodation now to discharge our duty to house homeless households, councils are increasingly having to source temporary accommodation at much higher cost than Registered Provider rents.

• Discharges into the PRS are possible and happening but limited - length of tenancy an issue

Use of Temporary Accommodation

• Overall, boroughs mainly placing in borough

• But emergency accommodation placements out of borough and out of London increasing

• Need to keep costs from escalating, especially for emergency nightly –paid accommodation

• Difficulty in accessing sufficient supply

• Boroughs looking at innovative ways of dealing:

– Conversion of properties designated for alternative use (e.g. commercial) into temporary accommodation

– Use of empty homes money– Using own stock where possible and necessary

Priority and challenge 2: housing supply• Support GLA priority to deliver 420,000 homes over ten years (150,000

affordable).

• London Councils is concerned that the Mayor’s overall new housing supply aspiration of 42,000 new homes a year will not fully address current and future housing need but LC work estimated a new build requirement of 52,600 new homes a year

• As a sub-region on balance we supported this lower target rather than push for one that was immediately seen as unachievable.

• However:– The tenure mix of 150,000 affordable homes within the LHS : 40% LCHO and 60% affordable

rent is not in line with the policies of all of all of our boroughs

– Whilst the ‘capped’ rent strand of the affordable housing programme is welcomed the 4,500 homes annually at capped rent levels will only provide enough homes to meet the needs of only 30% of newly accepted homeless households in London (LC)

– Concern about the lack of local priorities being upheld when LCHO units are cascaded out pan-London

• Support accelerated delivery – but funding approaches must stop being restricted and tied up in unnecessary rules – a real barrier (e.g. empty homes)

Annual average housing supply monitoring targets 2015 – 2025 (FALP 2014)

BoroughMinimum ten year target

2015-2025

Annual monitoring target

2015-2025Barking and Dagenham 12,355 1,236Barnet 23,489 2,349Bexley 4,457 446Brent 15,253 1,525Bromley 6,413 641Camden 8,892 889City of London 1,408 141Croydon 14,348 1,435Ealing 12,972 1,297Enfield 7,976 798Greenwich 26,850 2,685Hackney 15,988 1,599Hammersmith and Fulham 10,312 1,031Haringey 15,019 1,502Harrow 5,927 593Havering 11,701 1,170Hillingdon 5,593 559Hounslow 8,222 822Islington 12,641 1,264Kensington and Chelsea 7,330 733Kingston upon Thames 6,434 643Lambeth 15,594 1,559Lewisham 13,847 1,385LLDC 14,711 1,471Merton 4,107 411Newham 19,945 1,994Redbridge 11,232 1,123Richmond upon Thames 3,150 315Southwark 27,362 2,736Sutton 3,626 363Tower Hamlets 39,314 3,931Waltham Forest 8,620 862Wandsworth 18,123 1,812Westminster 10,677 1,068London total 423,887 42,389

1

Annual average housing supply monitoring targets 2015 – 2025 (FALP 2014)

BoroughMinimum ten year target

2015-2025

Annual monitoring target

2015-2025

Croydon14,348

1,435

Kingston upon Thames6,434

643

Lambeth15,594

1,559

Merton4,107

411

Richmond upon Thames3,150

315

Sutton3,626

363

Wandsworth18,123

1,812

Sub-regional total 65,328 6,538

London total 423,887 42,389

1

Increasing supply “The London Housing Challenge”

London Councils 10 policy propositions to boost supply:One: Bringing small scale builders back into the market by increasing flexibility

Two: Provide greater financial stability for large scale builders

Three: End land banking

Four: Speeding up the system - full cost recovery

Five: Speeding up the system - statutory timeframes

Six: Free-up housing association equity

Seven: Remove the Housing Revenue Account cap

Eight: Promoting sustainable suburban development

Nine: Bringing public sector land on stream for housing

Ten: Increase institutional investment in private rented sector

Improving delivery – ideas worth exploring collectively

• Developing and packaging land: possible economies of scale and an ability to attract providers by working collaboratively. Could help smaller boroughs attract developers and registered providers to produce affordable housing. Sub-regional development structures could help to overcome this and attempt to offer the longer term volume contracts that house builders require.

•  Expertise and resources for housing delivery could also be pooled across boroughs. We already have a sub-regional housing development sub-group which could work on these issues.

• There is potential to streamline and unify planning and delivery approaches which could make working across a number of boroughs easier but would need political consensus – not in the gift of officers.

• A unified approach to scheme affordability and scheme viability could provide strength to boroughs in the negotiations.

Priority and challenge 3: Allocation of housing and pan-London mobility

• Concern over the diminishing supply of affordable homes available to boroughs

• Reduced further by GLA requirements in relation to the 2015-18 programme:

– 10% share of nominations for RPs on new developments

– 5 to 10% of new properties (for rent) should be for pan London nominations via the Housing Moves scheme.  

• 10% nominations to RPs cuts across existing agreements between providers and boroughs. It would mean a loss of nominations to boroughs. We will still try and negotiate better deals with RPs

• Pan-London nominations – need to ensure this supply meets needs and is allocated on this basis.

Priority and challenge 4 - Private rented sector supply and quality

• Access:– maintaining access to the PRS properties we

currently use

– extending access where possible

– keeping costs down

– Out of Borough and Out of London Placements

– Rents and LHA levels – Affordability Fund welcome but gap growing

Priority and challenge 4 - Private rented sector supply and quality

• Quality:– Use of tools to define what is acceptable

– Embracing London Rental Standard and accreditation but beware mixed messages

– Some looking at selective licensing

– Fine balance – quality is critical but access desperately needed. Can be a fine balance.

Priority and challenge 5 - Funding

– Capital funding:

– GLA Housing Zones prospectus £400m (£200m from HM Treasury as loan to private providers including RPs)

– GLA 2015-18 programme

RTB receipts

– Growth Deal – Additional HRA borrowing above caps

– Revenue resources for skills and employment

– Infrastructure funding: schools, health services, amenities

Expectations for working with RP partners

1. “Partners in meeting housing need”LAs need commitment from RPs to focus on the core responsibility for LAs - meeting their statutory duties.

2. Responsive locally tailored services as landlords and as delivery partners

3. Community services reflecting community needs •Debt advice•Skills development and employment

Opportunities

– Policy climate ripe for change in approach to delivery (Housing Zones, Opportunity areas, Growth Deal)

– Increased supply must be addressed in a coordinated way, linking infrastructure requirements and implications for local services

– SW London boroughs have a history of working together and of delivery that can be built on.

– Boroughs’ statutory duties to meet need must be at the centre of relationships and ideas – think Care Act as well as Housing Act.