Thursday 25 August 2016

On Dinner Parties and Housing

At a recent dinner party I was asked by someone I had just met – who are all these people that need houses anyway?  The conversation went downhill from there, as it happened he was a Local Councillor (not in Berkshire I am happy to report).  In the end I pointed out that I was at a social event and had no desire to discuss work matters, end of conversation. I realise I took the cowards way out.

Today I read that the most recent DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) household projections’ forecasts indicate that the number of households in England will increase by an average rate of 210,000 each year between 2014 and 2039.  This is largely attributed to the impact of our ageing society – we are living longer, surely this is undisputable.  Those households headed by someone over age 75 are set to make-up over half of the growth in household numbers[i]

So there is your answer Mr Councillor, stop living so long, or downsize and make some room for a younger generation that is currently barred from access to the housing ladder due to salaries that have not kept pace with house price increases. 
Obviously the reality is much more complex, but surely by now the message has gotten across that we have a real housing shortage?

When I started this job 11 years ago, a young couple on a low wages living with mum and dad could reasonably expect to get a home allocated on a rural exception site in their village if there was one.  There were big arguments over whether they should qualify for a 2 bedroom house, and that argument continues today.  The argument being a young couple today will be a family tomorrow.  However, who can say that a couple will decide to have a child? They may not, just as a family of four may or may not become a family of five. They do not get allocated a three or four bedroom house on that basis. The argument applies equally today to older couples seeking to downsize, they may still have aspirations of wanting a spare bedroom, but in affordable housing terms, sorry, there simply isn’t enough to go around to provide a spare bedroom for the dog, or the grandchildren to visit, or even to allow for snoring habits.

These arguments become redundant, because there aren’t enough houses to allow for an allocation for these examples, they all have a roof over their heads after all. In rare cases, for example, our downsize couple may well transfer into a two bedroom property from a three bedroom property because while they still have a spare room, it does free-up a larger family size house for someone else.

For those without a roof over their head, there is a different headline.  Homelessness is on the increase.  There was a 9% rise in homelessness acceptances in the first quarter of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015[ii].

It certainly hit the headlines last week that Local Authorities admit to being dismissive of homeless singles.  They are not deemed vulnerable and there is no statutory responsibility to house them. They are simply handed information about renting in the private sector and sent on their way.  

Crisis[iii] research has found:
“If you are a single homeless person (i.e. with no dependent children) it is unlikely that you will be judged to be in 'priority need', unless you are deemed particularly vulnerable. Local authorities should still provide you with advice and information on homelessness and homelessness prevention.
Research for Crisis however, found that in practice this too often doesn't happen. Single homeless people who may be entitled to accommodation are not always given the opportunity to make a homelessness application. Many are also not provided with any meaningful advice or assistance and are misinformed about their entitlements.”

The Homelessness Reduction Bill has been proposed by Conservative MP Bob Blackman to impose tougher requirements on councils to help all people in danger of becoming homeless, but Local Authorities, however well meaning, will need financial support to provide any meaningful assistance. 

Predictably, the tax burden for Housing Benefit has risen astronomically since Welfare Reform. The government chose to cut welfare payments and funding for social rented properties and put the onus on the private sector to make up the shortfall in rented properties. With private rents on a steady incline, and affordable rents tied to 80% of open market rents, it is not surprising that people on modest incomes are struggling to pay local rents.  The Fabian Society predicts a £100-a-month shortfall between rents and housing benefit payments by 2020.[iv]

In this day and age, with limited funding available for affordable housing, and a culture that encourages home ownership, we may need to view affordable rented property in entirely different terms, after all we are now calling Starter homes to buy at 80% of market value ‘affordable’ housing.  A short term solution that allows people time to save money towards purchase of a home of their own by granting them a limited tenancy that either allocates a proportion of rent paid into a dedicated savings pot, or charges a reduced rent on condition that the tenant undertakes to save towards a deposit may be a useful vehicle.  

This solution will not work for everyone.  There are and always will be MANY people who are simply too low paid to ever expect to purchase their own home.  For these people public sector rented accommodation is a must.  Government must accept that the private sector is profit driven and will not ever pick up the shortage in supply of affordable accommodation required to meet burgeoning need.

I am on leave until the 8th of September.  May I wish you all a very pleasant Bank Holiday.






[i] Planning (magazine), 12 August 2016, p 26, New Household projections forecast continued growth
[ii]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37110607
[iv] http://The Guardian.com/society/2016/aug/24/poor-uk-private-rent-homelessness-risk-housing –benefit-shortfall-2020

1 comment:

  1. Well done Arlene, keep on telling it like it is. Perhaps someone will listen...

    ReplyDelete