Planning system reforms
Permitted development rules have led to local authorities and residents being unable to oppose or alter proposals from developers, with no power to insist on adequate room sizes, daylight or influence the look of a building. Contributions from developers towards affordable housing or improving the pavements and landscaping around a property have also been lost under the rules, with the LGA estimating that 13,500 potential affordable homes have been lost in this way. Separately, LGA housing spokesman Cllr David Renard is due to take part in a debate on Times Radio at 1pm today about the ending of the eviction ban and protection to renters during the pandemic.
Observer – Sunday 27 September 2020
Tag Archives: social housing
Top Tory leaders admit doubts over right-to-buy extension
For all those people who think we dance to the Party’s tune on every issue, below is an article that tells a different story.
I echo Gary’s concerns and fear that the ordinary working class people, that the cities depend on to run it’s services and pander to the needs of the rich and powerful who can afford to buy a home, no matter the price, will soon be banished to locations, not even classed as the suburbs, by this sort of policy. London will undoubtedly lead the way, with social housing within the M25, often falling foul of the ‘most expensive on the books’ category.
Without stringent controls on these proposed sales, such as a profit claw-back clause, if the house is sold into the private sector with a certain number of years, or changes to the capital gains taxation rules, the only social housing available, will be on remote sink estates, in the back of beyond and populated by people that have no other choice available to them. Underlying all of this, is the implausible suggestion that the sales will fund their replacement with modern, cheaper housing. The numbers don’t add up, especially as the proposal is for the government to manage the redistribution.
Copied from Local Government Chronicle online article of 21 April, 2015
Two senior Conservative politicians have expressed doubts about their party’s proposal to extend the right-to-buy, as it emerged housing minister Kris Hopkins had previously warned the policy could mean a huge cost to the public purse. The Conservative manifesto, published last week, said the party would force councils to sell off their most valuable homes to pay for a new right-to-buy for housing association tenants.
However, the proposal was met with widespread opposition with the National Housing Federation claiming it would make it more difficult for housing associations to borrow to build more homes. These concerns appeared to be shared by Mr Hopkins in a letter he sent to Tessa Munt, Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Wells, in October 2013.
In it he said if housing associations were “obliged to consistently sell off their stock at less than market value they might find it difficult to borrow” and added that could “impact adversely” on investment in existing properties and “affect the future provision of affordable housing”. Mr Hopkins’ letter added the government at the time did not “consider that it would be reasonable to require housing associations to sell these properties at a discount” as extending the scheme could result in “a high liability for the public purse”.
In response, Mr Hopkins said his letter showed “we would look at expanding home ownership through extending right-to-buy” and added his party’s “sensible, affordable” proposal would “ensure that housing associations are compensated”. The maximum discount under right-to-buy on council properties is £77,900 across England, except in London boroughs where it’s £103,900.
Leader of the Local Government Association Conservative group Gary Porter told LGC he had “not fully bought in to the party’s position” while Kent CC’s leader Paul Carter told LGC he had “some empathy” with housing associations that face losing homes. Cllr Carter said he was “a great believer in home ownership” but thought the way to “encourage more housing to be built” was to invest in infrastructure, especially transport.
Cllr Porter, leader of South Holland DC, said the right-to-buy was a “great idea and long overdue for homes that were built with public money” but added: “If they weren’t built with public money then they shouldn’t be touched, it shouldn’t apply.” Catherine Ryder, head of policy at the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, told LGC legislation would almost certainly have to be amended or introduced as housing associations are currently exempt from right-to-buy due to their charitable status.
Ms Ryder said extending the right-to-buy could impact on housing associations’ ability to borrow “even if the discounts are funded”. She said: “If you’re selling off your assets the certainty of your income is more difficult to predict so it’s going to be more difficult to borrow money to build new affordable homes.” She also questioned how quickly high-value properties sold off by councils to fund the scheme would be replaced and where they would be built.
A recent survey by the Local Government Association, Chartered Institute of Housing, and the National Federation of ALMOs found only half or fewer of homes sold under the existing right-to-buy for council homes had been replaced.
6 Million Stuck in Rent Hell
The LGA said four in five councils are unable to replace Right to Buy homes because they can only use 30 per cent of sales to build new ones.
It comes as six million people are found to be stuck in rented homes because they cannot afford a mortgage, according to a survey by Generation Rent reveals.
On the face of it, it seems like a no-brainier to suggest that the government should be allowing councils to keep 100% of the money received when a council house is sold. Unfortunately, this would not achieve the desired result, unless it was also possible to find further funding, to build a replacement.
The generous discounts, of between 35 and 60%, with a maximum of £75,000, now offered to those using the right to buy system, means that councils are only getting 30% of an already reduced house purchase price.
It’s unlikely the government will do anything to redress this, given their (currently) covert dislike for social housing.
Treasury rent control threatens house building
Yet another way for this government to milk the local government cash cow.
Copied from LGC online
22 August 2013 | By Keith Cooper
Some of the most ambitious council housing building programmes for decades have been put into jeopardy by the surprise Treasury plan to seize control of local authority rent levels.
Officials have been warned by the Chartered Institute of Housing that the shake-up of ‘social rent’ policy unveiled during the spending period announcement will pull £1.2bn out of council housing budgets over the next decade.
The policy will cut short an arrangement that allowed councils to align rents with those charged by housing associations and undermines key assumptions in their 30-year housing budget plans.
LGC understands ministers are preparing to take a hard line on enforcing the rent policy as the Treasury is concerned that councils will refuse to comply. This includes the option of central regulation of council rents for the refuseniks.
CIH analysis predicts that the authority hardest hit by the policy will see £300m stripped out of its housing revenue account, a budget councils have only controlled since April last year. Until then the HRA had been in the Treasury’s hands.
Croydon LBC, which is hoping to build almost 2,000 homes a year, has calculated that the changes could suck £254.8m out of its HRA. Such a loss would force it to “fundamentally review” its business plan, according to Richard Simpson, its director of finance and assets.
Camden LBC has warned that the new policy could substantially heighten the risk of its 1,100 house building programme. Its £400m plan to refurbish existing stock might also have to be put back, a spokeswoman said. Investment decisions would become “more difficult and risky”, she added. “The potential loss of revenue has been estimated at £75m over a 10 year period.”
The threat of centrally imposed rent controls comes at time when councils have just begun gearing up for large-scale house building schemes.
Camden and Croydon’s house building plans would dwarf the tiny numbers of new local authority homes built during the past two decades.
Reliable evidence of the new rent policy’s impact has only just emerged, following detailed analysis of the proposals by the Chartered Institute of Housing and consultancy Sector.
Abigail Davies, assistant director of policy and practice at the institute, said the changes would over 10 years cost around 125 authorities £1.2bn in ‘net present value’.
This takes into account economic projections and is understood to be the most accurate representation of the impact to date.
The hardest hit authorities are in London and the southeast, with around 24 authorities losing more than £10m each, according to the CIH. “There are some councils which will be very severely affected,” Ms Davies said.
Sector’s analysis of the government’s new ‘rent guarantee’ suggests that it could see £250m pulled out of many councils’ housing budgets.
The guarantee expects all social landlords to increase rents by the consumer price index +1% for 10 years from 2015-16. Until now, councils assumed rents would rise by the retail price index +0.5% for three decades, as government policy papers had indicated.
Ian Green, a manager at Sector, said it was acting for several concerned councils.
“The worry for local authorities is that at the end of 10 years, the government will change it to CPI only,” he added. “If they do that, it will have a substantial impact.”
Ms Davies urged ministers not to undermine council housing investment so soon after local authorities had regained control of their budgets.
A spokeswoman for the DCLG described the new rent policy as a “fair deal for tenants and landlords”.
Explainer
The Treasury’s new social rent policy has two key elements. The first cuts short ‘rent convergence policy’ one year early. Introduced by the previous Labour administration, this had allowed councils to bring their rent levels into line with those of highercost housing associations. Without the extra year, most authorities will be left out of pocket.
The second change is a new ‘rent formula’ which states that social rents should increase by CPI +1% for 10 years from 2015-16. Both policies could save the exchequer £1bn between 2015-16 and 2017-18, a sum which depends on whether councils will toe the policy line.
“The main uncertainty [about the savings] is the behavioural response from local authority landlords,” Treasury documents say. The DCLG is therefore considering rent regulation.
Rioters to be evicted – a reality check
To quote from the Local Government Chronicle on-line:
“Tough talk from ministers and councils on evicting those found to be involved in rioting from social homes is unlikely to be realised in practice, legal experts have said.
Councils across the country have threatened to evict tenants found guilty of involvement in the rioting over the past week. However legal experts have said there remain a number of obstacles to evictions and that the tough talk from councils and ministers was unlikely to lead to a slew of evictions due to legal barriers and the cost of pursuing evictions, which can be over £20,000 per case.
Emma Salvatore, a legal executive at Trowers & Hamlin, said government proposals to allow rioters to be evicted regardless of where they committed anti-social behaviour would require statutory legislation, which will take time, and that the offence would still need to be indictable, so heard in a crown rather than magistrates court.”
The politicians need to stop sound biting and headline grabbing, figure out what they can actually do to sort things out and stop telling others – the police, the courts – how to do their job.
Eviction, that’ll work- not!
I read that a number of MPs, including David Cameron, along with local councillors, are suggesting that those convicted of rioting, may be evicted from their social housing. Assuming this is a possibility, given that I doubt any of the current tenancy agreements include a non-rioting clause, what do they propose to do with the evicted reprobates?
These people will not just evaporate more’s the pity. They will almost certainly continue to be a burden on the taxpayer and a blight on our society. Many of them will no doubt be repeat criminals, living on benefits and entitled to social housing because they have children, who may of course also be fledgling criminals!
So, using a short term, headline grabbing solution like eviction, is just pushing the problem in to somebody else’s in tray, it’s not solving a damned thing!
Roger Gambba-Jones 
