Consultation on the future of council housing in Southwark

[LBS RI coordinator]

Orginally posted in the Lounge, I'm reposting this is the general ED issue board in the hope of catching more views...

Good morning,

My name is Alice Orr-Ewing and I am organising Southwark Council?s consultation on the future of council housing the borough. I am hoping East Dulwich forum members may have views on this subject they would be happy to share.

As London?s largest council landlord, social housing is central to Southwark and as such we are seeking the views of all residents of the borough.

By way of some background... in 2011, the council appointed an independent housing commission to:

* explore options for the future financing, ownership and operation of Southwark?s council housing stock beyond 2015/16.

* examine proposals and make recommendations for an investment strategy for up to 30 years

In October 2012, this independent housing commission published a report entitled ?The future of council housing in Southwark?( http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s32592/Appendix%201%20Investing%20in%20Council%20Housing.pdf ). The report outlined 3 investment scenarios as well as 3 options for how council housing could be managed in the future.

At this early stage, we are not consulting on a preferred option or proposal; rather we are presenting the findings of the independent housing commission and asking for residents? views on the following broad questions.

* Who should council housing be for, and for how long?

* How much council housing should we have?

* How should our council housing be managed?

More information about the housing commission (including a video presentation by the commission?s chair) and its report can be found here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200463/community_conversations/2999/lets_talk_about_the_future_of_housing/2

An online survey which asks the three broad questions above is available here https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=897 alternatively you can come along and complete the survey in person at one of these events - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200463/community_conversations/2999/lets_talk_about_the_future_of_housing

I?ll keep an eye on this thread and endeavour to respond to any enquiries as they come up, alternatively, please contact me on the details below.

Many thanks,

Alice

Alice Orr-Ewing| Resident Involvement Coordinator

Community Participation | Housing and Community Services Department | Southwark Council

Location: 2/4 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH

Tel: 020 7525 7791| [email protected]

[Too Good To Be True]

Thanks for highlighting this survey. I've replied using the Southwark Council portal.

Will you be sharing the findings with Family Mosaic and other publicly-funded housing providers? Seems important for at least the third question (and probably all three).

[LBS RI coordinator]

Thank you Too Good To Be True, yes we will be sharing the findings publically. Additional consultation is being undertaken with other groups such as housing associations who operate in the borough, as as you highlight it is not just residents who will have a view and interest in these questions.

Alice

[Earl Aelfheah]

"half the households in the borough live in a property owned by the council"..wow, that's incredible.

[Too Good To Be True]

I assume that figure doesn't include housing association, but does include private leaseholders where the council owns the freehold.

I was initially surprised, but then remembered every street I've lived on has had some council residences.

[DaveR]

I had a quick skip through the report. I have to say that my impression was that the authors (a seemingly impressive bunch) have not really addressed the key issue in the terms of reference i.e. ownership. They recognise that for the last 20+ years most of what has been happening in the area of social housing has been through independent organisations, not local authorities at all, but then never ask themselves the key question i.e. why should Southwark be in the business of owning and operating social housing at all? I note that the Peabody Trust came close to suggesting that but they obviously realised that it was outside the true terms of reference for this exercise.

[Pugwash]

Bromley Council many years ago decided that it would not operate any council social housing and hived all their housing stock off to Broomleigh Housing - a Housing Association. I think Broomleigh has now dissolved. Housing Associations rents are far higher that council rents.

With the 'bedroom tax' looming for those council tenants under pension age, plus the changes in Housing Benefit (being paid monthly directly to tenant via bank account), and getting rid of council tax benefit as we now know it, we need to have a variety of rented accommodation options that offer alternatives to private highly priced homes.

Southwark is the largest ( or one of the largest) social housing providers in the country.

[DJKillaQueen]

For me the issue is a simple one. Do we believe that affordable homes should exist for those on low or no incomes, or don't we? Common sense tells us that there are always going to be people with low income, irregardless of how successful an economy is or isn't. So why do we not care more than we do about where they are housed?

The second issue is that of who should manage and own social housing. Council tenants have far more protection under housing law than HA tenants and for that reason alone, councils should be allowed to continue to provide housing. The alternative is to create instability for millions of vulnerable and poor people on something as basic as housing.

The thing that continues to astound me is why government, knowing full well the problems and crisis looming, are not doing more to help social landlords provide those homes. Why they pursue with this ridiculous idea that house prices can just keep going up and up, as though a never ending supply of first time buyers exists - which of course they don't - which is why we see a continous stream of new incentives dreamt up, like part buy part rent, or the latest being government grants to help first time buyers and a stupidly huge increase in discount for right to buy council tenants.

The bottom line is that this government wants no councils owning any housing. They want it all in the private sector or under HA's (both far more expensive rental options), whilst reducing the amount of help given through benefits for those on low or no income.

Most people I think would rank a place to live as being as important as healthcare, food, and education. So why some people think it's ok to squeeze the poorest out of decent affordable housing is a mystery to me. Do we really want a return to overcrowded slum dwellings? (and all the consequences of that?). Beveridge would be turning in his grave.

[DaveR]

I would put the questions slightly differently

1. do we want there to be social housing? answer, yes

2. on what terms should it be offered i.e. how cheap, what sort of tenure, and how allocated? This is a political decision, whether local or national, and there is obviously no single, simple answer. In particular, you ideally want a system that does not incentivise dependence, but recognises the reality that some people may need social housing for life.

3. Who should own and run it? This is an entirely separate question from 2. My reason for preferring independent bodies over local authorities is a simple one - all other things being equal, specialists do a better job than generalists. There are also some more particular reasons, e.g. local authority boundaries are pretty arbitrary (particularly in London) from a housing perspective, and that makes the system needlessly complicated.

[Too Good To Be True]

Does it make sense to have social housing disproportionately concentrated in expensive central London boroughs?

Hypothetical example:

If Southwark is 50% social housing and Bromley 20%, over the long term it might make sense to shift council housing to Bromley to the point at which the proportions are equal (say 35% - avoiding either becoming disproporionately middle class/council house).

The money saved could be spent on reducing the chance of future generations needing social housing, say by spending more on schools.

[LondonMix]

I agree that how socially housing is allocated geographically is important. The demand for social housing (due to internal migration from elsewhere in the UK) is virtually limitless. How concentrated social housing is in any given borough and how of London?s overall housing stock should be allocated to social housing are tough questions. If you think the answer is anything between 100% or 0% how you come up with a figure is difficult.

Every house that is developed for social housing that could be developed for private ownership, exacerbates the shortage of private housing in London and vis-a-versa. Whatever is developed it helps one segment of the community at the expense of the other. As long as more people want to live in London than can afford to (private and social) these decision will remain zero-sum. London is turning into a city of extremes with a smaller and smaller middle income population.

I say this not knowing what the answer is?

[Too Good To Be True]

I think any answer should involve:

1. Building up - there's no reason why we can't have high quality high rise of the sort you see in Singapore (large communal gardens, swimming pool, well sound-proofed, decent-sized rooms etc). I don't think the younger generation are as rigidly anti-flat as their suburban-utopia parents.

2. Encouraging the expansion of a second UK metropolis. Building radially from London just encourages inequality. e.g. HS2/cross-rail will just encourage more people to commute into London, making London property more valuable and increasing the benefits bill for those in social housing. Why not start building radially from, say, Manchester, until it reaches the population density required to sustain all the great amenities London has?

[DaveR]

I agree with the first, and the aspiration of the second, but encouraging economic development in cities outside London will not be achieved by building houses there (or by shifting public sector jobs there - that's been tried already).

[Too Good To Be True]

Perhaps devolution and tax breaks for point 2 (like the old special enterprise zones in China). It is a tough one.

I meant radial infrastructure rather than house-building.

[LBS RI coordinator]

Thank you for your comments so far, these really do reflect the huges challenges and questions these issues pose.

Please do vist the link above complete the survey online, however comments made on this thread will also be fed into the summary of feedback report that will be drafted this summer.

Regards,

Alice

[LondonMix]

I definitely agree with point 2 but also recognise that this will be a challenge. The real pull would have to be jobs I think. Incentives for businesses to locate in major cities outside of London would definitely help. The stuff people value about London won't develop unless people who like to buzz of London and will patronise those types of activities can find work in industries that inspire them elsewhere. Infrastructure etc matters but jobs really are the biggest factor I think. London creates a lot of employment which is why its such a mecca for talented people.

Point 1 is harder. Dense residential developments work well in newly developing areas. However, its difficult to plop a massive high rise in an area full of low rise structures. I think because London is so green (parks everywhere), living in apartments is actually easier here than in lots of cities. However, so much of London has already been developed as low rise homes its hard to know if there are enough suitable areas to make this a real solution.

Too Good To Be True Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think any answer should involve:

>

> 1. Building up - there's no reason why we can't

> have high quality high rise of the sort you see in

> Singapore (large communal gardens, swimming pool,

> well sound-proofed, decent-sized rooms etc). I

> don't think the younger generation are as rigidly

> anti-flat as their suburban-utopia parents.

>

> 2. Encouraging the expansion of a second UK

> metropolis. Building radially from London just

> encourages inequality. e.g. HS2/cross-rail will

> just encourage more people to commute into London,

> making London property more valuable and

> increasing the benefits bill for those in social

> housing. Why not start building radially from,

> say, Manchester, until it reaches the population

> density required to sustain all the great

> amenities London has?

[uncleglen]

Friends of the earth have estimated that this country can sustain 30 million people. Why is it that politicians (apart from Chinese ones) never mention population control? (Because they are happy for us all to live in misery so long as they get their votes methinks)

The world population is increasing at an unsustainable rate and nothing is being done.

This is because politics works in the short term and they just have their eye on the next election and will say and do whatever it takes to manipulate the ballot box.

You may say I am a cynic but I have been involved in all hues of politics and they all want one thing- power- and are therefore not to be trusted

[DJKillaQueen]

'encouraging economic development in cities outside London will not be achieved by building houses there (or by shifting public sector jobs there - that's been tried already)'

And cities in the north have been demolishing housing because there's no-one to live in them. The exodus to the South East has been a long one, over decades. That's what happens when one government destroys the last industry of an area and successive government also fail to regenerate.

It's because of that fact that criticism of migration irritates me. people will go where they have the best chance of finding work. That hasn't been anywhere outside the South East in 30 years.

I also am vehemently against the idea that poorer communities should be farmed out to the suburbs (as though they have no right to be part of a capital inner city). Paris did that....and the consequences are there for all to see.

I like the suggestion of well designed, and practical high rise tenament blocks, but think LMs point about fitting that into the current London landscape is a valid one. We have to accept that London is becoming a mega city, and that means we need to house a lot of people, irregardless of income or wealth. On the downside though, London has historically suffered from poor planning, too many authorities and too much red tape. Getting anything done takes forever by which time the original problem has morphed into something else. That's not going to change anytime soon either.

Just also to take issue with someone's point that councils are somehow not as adept as managing housing as say an HA. Creaming off council tenants rents (which government does) has been one major reason why councils have found themselves struggling to maintain the condition of their stock in the past. Why councils can not keep all of the rent they collect has always baffled me. To add insult to that, the government then gave some of that rent they creamed, back, and called it a subsidy - thereby leading the majority of people who know nothing about the inner financing of social housing to believe that council tenants rents are subsidised by central government.

My view is that councils are perfectly capable of managing social housing, if left to do it on the same level playing field as HAs. At present though, all government capital funding and incentives for social housing strongly favour HAs.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree uncleglen. There is no long term planning on social issues anymore.....just meandering policies designed to gain the short term vote.

[LondonMix]

Agree totally that the inner London should definitely include poorer members of the community in the overall socio-economic mix. However, with housing a scare resource, what do you think DJ is the right percentage of London's housing stock that should be allocated to social housing. It can't be everything and for proper planning, there needs to be some target in mind. That's what I am struggling with. I think higher than the national average is okay as London offers more opportunities but I don't know what the right number is given the impact it has on the cost of private housing.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I also am vehemently against the idea that poorer

> communities should be farmed out to the suburbs

> (as though they have no right to be part of a

> capital inner city). Paris did that....and the

> consequences are there for all to see.

>

[DJKillaQueen]

I think the moment we apply percentages is a bad moment....because there already exists an historically established quota, based on need. Any tinkering with it, draconian or otherwise is social engineering at it's worst. The political pressure is downward...on further reducing the available social housing in the capital.....but no-one has given any decent reason why that should be.

I am firmly of the view that housing policy should reflect need (as it has before).....because history has shown us the consequences of a policy not driven by need...and until the day we are all born economically equal (amongst other things) I think no pseu do intellectual or lesser intellectual economist can argue for anything based on anything other than need, if he/she wants to affect the impact of inequality at birth bears on some members of our society.

I care about those who are poor and disconnected, through no fault of their own. It's what makes me selfless and civilised. It's a real shame more people don't feel the same way.

[LondonMix]

That's pretty self-righteous. Its a question in the survey and acknowledging that there is a trade off involved in these decisions doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about the poor, aren't civilised etc...

[DJKillaQueen]

It's not self righteous at all. It's the difference between seeing 'need' as opposed to the self interested policy that seems to emanate from the political parties these days. My point is that the trade off is the result of selfish posturing by government, policy to pit the majority over the minority, deflecting away from the politicians who make policy and making scapegoats of the poorest and most vulnerable (and local authorities too). It is the job of government to provide for all within society - to strike a reasonable balance. If society needs more affordable housing then policy should be conductive towards that. Instead we have policy that is moving away from social housing as an option altogether, where the poorest are shoved into overcrowded living conditions, or worse still made homeless altogether. Local authorities should be standing up to government on this, not caving in and asking constituents to help them come up with the best structure within government dictate. NO PARTY WON AN OVERALL MAJORITY...yet we have a Tory party acting as though it did. Shameful.....

Here's a parrallel...do we start turning children away from schools because the need for places is ignored over what we want to afford? Do we start turning people away from hospitals because their need is less important than what we want to afford? A place to live is as essential as healthcare and education.....any idea that can be dealt with by quota is as ridiculous as suggesting education and healthcare should be under the same consultation.

And just to add regarding this survey (and I attended a CC meeting with a workshop around this survey)...like many surveys, the people most likely to imput into it and shape the findings are not going to be those most affected by it's conclusions. Those people really are without a voice in all aspects of consultation. We live in a culture where those who are best educated, most informed, most articulate and shout loudest, get heard. The people most affected by any decisions this consultation may take will not have had the largest input into that decision making. I could already see that impact at play at my CC meeting. No amount of consultation, changing goalposts, management etc is going to change the level of basic need for affordable housing......and to pretend otherwise is delusional.

[mynamehere]

Southwark just lost a one billion pound investment by UCL in Bermondsey. It seems it was theirs to lose and they lost it. UCL and their money for housing and jobs and education have gone to Stratford

[kr1st3l]

"Building up" is spatially beneficial, but also councils should consider a buy back scheme aimed at buying back right to buy properties. This could be offered to anyone wishing to sell their ex-council property; i.e. couples with children who no longer live at home wishing to downsize & older citizens wishing to move into residential accommodation or who wish to retire somewhere peaceful'n'sunny!! There are so many under-occupied homes in Southwark & the new 'extra bedroom' tax is ridiculously unfair & greedy, whilst not actually solving or easing the strain on our housing problems. Councils could offer ex-council property owners a fairer deal than they could achieve selling privately; whereby they achieve the full value of their home but without any agency fees & a tax/stamp duty relief. Also, rather than raising rent/service charges on under-occupied council properties, actually offering alternative options would be far more acceptable to council tenants. Those with extra rooms could be offered an exchange or to downsize; with the option of being able to select viable properties & location of their choice (without having to use the bidding system). This would be a much better approach to tackling our boroughs housing deficiency. Householders and tenants alike, should not & would not, feel they are being deliberately forced into poverty/financial burden, and so forcing them out of their family home that they may have lived in for years! This is heartbreaking for most people, so offering other housing options -less aggressive actions on behalf of councils would be far more agreeable to our community.....