Posted: August 18, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Homelessness, Housing benefit, Local government, Private renting, Social housing, Wales | Tags: Communities and Local Government committee, Homelessness Reduction Bill |
Originally published on August 18 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
Today’s report by the all-party Communities and Local Government Committee recommending significant improvements to the homelessness safety net is getting a warm welcome – and no wonder.
The first select committee inquiry on homelessness since 2005 uncovers evidence of a system at breaking point as social housing provision declines, insecure private renting expands and welfare is ‘reformed’.
The report aims to help families falling through the gaps in the existing legislation as well as single people not covered by it, calls for a cross-government approach to homelessness and also makes specific recommendations to help vulnerable groups such as people with mental health problems, care leavers and ex-prisoners.
And in case you’re thinking this is just another select committee report whose recommendations will be ignored by the government, this one comes complete with legislation attached: a private members’ bill promoted by one of its members.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: July 15, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Home ownership, Housebuilding, Tax | Tags: House of Lords |
Originally published on July 15 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
Take your pick: targets for new homes are much too low; the private sector cannot deliver them; and policy is too focussed on home ownership.
A report published on Friday by the all-party economic affairs select committee of the House of Lords does not so much criticise the government’s approach to building more homes as skewer it.
And one of the clearest explanations I’ve yet read of why current policy cannot, and will not, work does not come from just any old committee. The group of Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Crossbench peers includes two former chancellors of the exchequer (Lords Lamont and Darling) and two former permanent secretaries of the Treasury (Lord Burns and Lord Turnbull) with more cabinet ministers, senior mandarins, special advisors and business people also in the mix. They are drawing on decades of experience of previous failures in housing policy.
The report is also brilliantly timed, just at the point when Theresa May’s new government is getting down to work and preparing for life after the referendum and George Osborne’s budget surplus targets.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: June 27, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Housing associations, Housing benefit, Right to buy, Social housing | Tags: File on 4 |
How can people who can’t afford the rent suddenly afford to buy?
To recap in case you missed it, a joint investigation by Inside Housing and BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 found that 16% of Right to Buy sales by 10 councils were to tenants on housing benefit.
This is not in itself evidence of fraud: the 721 tenants concerned could have got money from their family or from a third party. But it is seen as a ‘red flag’ of potential fraudulent activity and a particular cause for concern in the councils with the highest levels of sales to tenants on benefit: Dudley (37%) and Westminster (29%) and Croydon and Birmingham (who each estimate around half).
And it’s one aspect of a fraud problem that should also set the alarm bells ringing about the 1.2m tenants who are about to get a form of Right to Buy from housing associations that will not have the same expertise as local authorities in detecting fraud and money laundering.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: May 11, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Right to buy, Social housing | Tags: Brandon Lewis, Housing and Planning Bill |
Originally posted on May 11 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
The end of resistance to the Housing and Planning Bill leaves one big question hanging: why was the government so completely determined to undo an amendment that delivered its manifesto commitment on higher-value sales?
On the face of it, the amendment by Lord Kerslake that ping-ponged back between the Commons and the Lords should not have been such an issue. It would have put on the face of the bill the funding of replacements for ‘higher-value’ homes where local authorities sign an agreement with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). It also gave them the chance to make the case for social rented replacements, though the DCLG would not be required to accept this.
But ministers treated this as a wrecking amendment and claimed financial privilege on the grounds that it would fatally undermine their plans to pay for Right to Buy discounts for housing association tenants. Their determination was reflected in a piece in Wednesday’s Sun that included a threat to make the Commons sit all night and a personal attack on Lord Kerslake by Brandon Lewis.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: May 9, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Affordable housing, Cornwall, Local government, London, Planning, Right to buy, Scotland, Second homes, Wales | Tags: Bristol, Marvin Rees, Sadiq Khan |
Originally posted on May 9 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
The May elections have a common theme when it comes to housing: can the winners really do what they say?
From Sadiq Khan to Marvin Rees, from Nicola Sturgeon to Carwyn Jones and from council leaders all over England to the voters of St Ives, winning the elections last week was the easy bit. The hard work starts now.
I’ll start with the poll closest to me: the referendum in St Ives on a Neighbourhood Plan that will ban the building of new second homes that has brought national attention.
More than 80% of residents supported the plan last Thursday and it’s impossible not to sympathise. Around a quarter of the homes in St Ives are either second homes or holiday lets and the problem is even worse in other Cornish communities. That does not just price out locals it also means a lack of year-round residents that makes it hard to sustain vital services and infrastructure.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: May 5, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Pay to stay, Social housing | Tags: Housing and Planning Bill |
Originally published on May 5 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
On Tuesday Brandon Lewis told the press that there would be no further concessions on the Housing Bill. A little over 24 hours later there were…further concessions.
On a day of five more defeats in the House of Lords, which will now ping pong back to the Commons, the biggest surprise for me was the last-minute changes to Pay to Stay announced by communities minister Baroness Williams.
The House of Commons overturned three previous Lords defeats on the controversial policy on Tuesday. To recap, the Lords had increased the thresholds to £40,000 and £50,000 in London, called for the thresholds to be increased in line with inflation every three years and reduced the taper rate from 20p to 10p. On all three the government claimed ‘financial privilege’, a strong message to the Lords to back off.
The stage was set for a new battle on Wednesday over slightly watered down Lords amendments but (probably fearing defeat) the minister announced a compromise – a taper rate of 15p and annual uprating of the thresholds in line with CPI inflation – that was accepted by peers.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: May 4, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Right to buy, Social housing | Tags: Housing and Planning Bill |
Originally posted on May 4 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
What is the difference between ‘high’ and ‘higher’ value when it comes to the forced sale of council homes?
The two letters were added to the Housing and Planning Bill in a government amendment in the House of Lords last month. The government argued that the switch would help areas facing the highest housing pressure – inner London boroughs plus places like Harrogate, Oxford and Cambridge – that would all have ‘a high proportion of their stock defined as “high value”. The minister, Baroness Williams, said she could ‘confirm absolutely’ that it would not be used to raise more money.
But new analysis by Shelter suggests that the shift in the Bill to a levy on ‘higher value’ sales could mean councils having to sell 23,500 homes a year, six times more than under the previous ‘high value’ thresholds.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: April 29, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Legal, Pay to stay, Right to buy, Starter homes, Tenants | Tags: House of Lords, Housing and Planning Bill, Public accounts committee |
Originally published on April 29 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
The worst excuse for a Bill that I can remember in 25 years of writing about housing limps back to the House of Commons next week.
The Housing and Planning Bill’s tail is not quite between its legs as all the key elements are still there and the Commons will reverse some changes. But it’s been gutted in the Lords, with two more defeats for the government on Wednesday, and this morning (Friday) it’s the subject of withering criticism by the all-party Public Accounts Committee.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: April 19, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Legal, Pay to stay, Social housing, Tenants | Tags: Housing and Planning Bill |
Originally posted on April 19 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
It was another day, another session of watering down the Housing and Planning Bill in the Lords. Peers reached sections of the Bill including Pay to Stay and security of tenure in the latest Report stage debate on Monday.
On Pay to Stay for ‘high income’ council tenants, they inflicted three more defeats on the government and they also forced some interesting clarifications of the detail out of ministers. As the Bill now stands, local authorities will have discretion about whether to apply Pay to Stay, the thresholds will be increased to £40,000 outside London and £50,000 in London, and the taper for higher rents will be 10p.
Obviously it remains to be seen how much of this the government will look to reverse in the Commons, perhaps citing financial privilege because the money raised by the policy goes back to the Treasury.
The government version of the policy – set out in an email to peers an hour before the debate – is that it will be compulsory for councils, the thresholds will be £31,000 and £40,000 and the taper will be 20p. That means tenants would pay an extra £200 a year in rent for each £1,000 they earn above the thresholds. (It’s not clear to me why the out-of-London threshold has been increased from the previous £30,000).
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: April 14, 2016 | Author: julesbirch | Filed under: Council housing, Local government, Rural housing | Tags: Housing and Planning Bill |
Originally published on April 14 on Inside Edge 2, my blog for Inside Housing
Day two of the Lords report stage on the Housing Bill brought concessions on forced sales but there were inevitably more questions too.
Peers reached Part 4 of the Bill covering social housing in England and the main business of the day was the first two chapters: implementation of the voluntary right to buy and the levy on sales of high value council houses to pay for it.
This has always been one of the elements of the legislation that most resembled the back of a fag packet. The only figures ever published on how forced sales would work came in a Conservative party press release during the election campaign. This suggested that the most valuable third of council homes would be sold as they fall vacant, with values assessed against regional thresholds by bedroom size.
That raised many problems but two that stood out in particular. First, setting the values like that would mean local authorities in areas with high house prices would lose virtually all of their stock.
Second, it didn’t stack up: receipts would simply not be enough to cover right to buy discounts, the promised replacement homes and a proposed brownfield regeneration fund. That was clear right at the start and the CIH estimated the shortfall at £2.2bn.
Read the rest of this entry »
Jules Birch 