REPORT OF LIVING IN HACKNEY SCRUTINY COMMISSION
REVIEW OF OVERCROWDING IN HACKNEY
Classification
Enclosures
Decision
Appendices 1-7
AGENDA ITEM No
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY BOARD
23 SEPTEMBER 2009
8
1.
CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD
1.1
Overcrowding is one of the most significant housing problems to face families in
modern times, with East London more adversely impacted than any other part of the
country. The social and health detriments are clearly evidenced, but the solutions
are far from straightforward.
1.2
The Commission originally planned to review how the Council improved the
provision of Affordable Housing, but quickly realised this topic was too large for the
Commission to meaningfully engage in. It was decided instead to focus solely on
one aspect of the Terms of Reference- which referred to housing overcrowding.
1.3
We learned that although Hackney suffers from some of the highest overcrowding
figures nationwide, recent initiatives have helped to alleviate severe overcrowding
(where families require two or more extra bedrooms), though noted that ‘slight’
overcrowding continued to rise. The Commission also supported the original
‘Hackney Standard’ relating to defining overcrowding, but were disappointed not to
be informed when the standard was lowered to be brought in line with other local
authorities.
1.4
To gauge the level of support given to residents when approaching the Council for
housing advice and options, we commissioned a mystery shopping exercise to get a
feel for this service. The exercise provided evidence that the Council was strong at
providing advice and options when residents visited or called, but were not as
effective if contact was made by letter or email.
1.5
The Commission also received a draft copy of the Overcrowding Strategy, which
(when agreed) will draw together all relevant initiatives currently used to tackle
overcrowding, outline new approaches the Council may choose to take, and
highlight the links to other key areas where bad housing has an effect. We made
several suggestions about the direction and content of the document, which I
believe will help to get the best results from the document.
1.6
We also heard evidence about how the Choice Based Letting housing bidding
system was used to getting severely overcrowded families into appropriate
p.1
accommodation. Members were aware of the difficulties some residents have in
using the system (and the figures received suggested some communities were
more adept at bidding than others), and following this review all Members will now
be offered tailored training to help them help their residents.
1.7
This review helped to provide the impetus for the new protocol to improve
communications between the Council and Shelter when providing housing advice or
referrals, and recognition that this needs to be rolled out to all our partners who
have contact with residents over housing issues. Our work, together with other
scrutiny projects, has also helped to strengthen ties between council housing
officers and children’s centres, where many families go to get information about a
broad range of public services.
1.8
This has been an informative and challenging review, and I hope that our input into
the Council’s work will in some way alleviate the poor housing conditions faced by
some of Hackney’s residents.
Cllr Harvey Odze
Chairman- Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Why
Overcrowded housing conditions add significant pressure to the lives of residents.
Certain health issues are intensified by cramped living, children’s development and
life opportunities are blighted, and the ability to maintain healthy relationships is
stifled. East London is more affected by overcrowding than any other part of the
country, with Hackney suffering from the third highest incidence nationwide. At the
same time the social housing stock’s potential is being limited by residents who
under-occupy their properties, which could be freed up to provide some of the
scarce family-sized properties to families on the housing register.
Overcrowding has become a focal topic in national housing discussions, following
years of priority being given to other crucial issues such as homelessness and the
use of temporary accommodation.
The Council is employing innovative approaches to address both overcrowded and
under-occupying families, but the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission was
eager to find out how effective these are, and how partnership working has
supported these initiatives to date.
To some extent, a lack of decent affordable housing is seen as having an impact on
wider issues relating to overcrowding and high-density living, so the Commission
was keen to understand what the Council was doing to improve the supply of
affordable homes during difficult economic times.
p.2
2.2
Terms of Reference
The proposal to review the Council’s approach to alleviating overcrowding was put
forward by the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission. The terms of reference
were agreed at a Commission meeting in October 2008, and the scope included the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
To enable Members to gain an understanding of issues related to overcrowding,
the provision of affordable homes, and local housing needs;
To consider the extent to which overcrowding is linked to affordability of private
housing, and to understand the health and wider social impacts of residential
overcrowding;
To consider approaches taken both locally and nationally to the issue of underoccupancy, and policies about supporting residents to move;
To research examples of good practice from comparable boroughs and consider
the feasibility of introducing similar measures; and
To review the working relationship between the London Borough of Hackney
(LBH), the Better Homes Partnership (BHP), Housing Associations, private
landlords and other relevant local partners, to ensure suitable arrangements are
in place to achieve necessary collaboration and improvements in the alleviation
of overcrowding and united approach to under-occupancy
The full Terms of Reference is included as Appendix 1.
The aims and objectives were achieved through a series of evidence gathering
sessions at which Commission Members were joined by relevant Council Officers,
Cabinet Members, and voluntary organisations. All 70 Registered Social Landlords
(RSLs) who operate in the borough were surveyed to gauge their priorities and
suggestions of how to alleviate overcrowding. In addition a piece of work was
commissioned to understand the experience of residents who contact the Council
for housing advice and options. Details of this mystery shopping exercise are
outlined in section 6.3.25.
A list of the organisations and individuals involved in the evidence gathering are
listed in section 8.
3
Summary & Recommendations
Using the Private Rented Sector
In the course of the review the Commission recognised the need to work closely
with private landlords to ease pressure on local Housing Registers, but also
understood why many residents did not want to move into private rented
accommodation. The draft Overcrowding Strategy notes the positive work to date,
but the Commission felt that more could be done to ensure that private landlords
behave appropriately, whilst residents are given the best-possible information
relating to their options and dispelling myths about the vast majority of private sector
properties.
p.3
Recommendation 1
(i) The Commission recommends that in finalising the Overcrowding strategy,
further consideration is given to how best to utilise the private rented sector to help
alleviate the pressure on local housing registers. The Commission anticipates that
this would include wider publicity and use of the Londonwide voluntary accreditation
scheme for landlords, East London partnership work with larger private landlords,
evidence of the strongest action taken against rogue landlords and formalised
support for individuals or families moved into private rented accommodation. The
Commission would also like the Council to provide feedback on the innovative
approaches used in other London Boroughs (such as Kingston’s “Breathing Space”
initiative), and how they may be utilised in Hackney.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate Director should provide the Commission
with a report detailing options and decisions by July 2010.
Alleviating the Impact of Overcrowding
The Commission noted that, despite severely overcrowded families being prioritised
in the Council’s Housing Register, families can expect to wait at least six months
and very usually longer to move into suitable accommodation (for those described
as slightly overcrowded the average wait is considerably more than this). The
Commission received evidence of other authorities who had found ways to diminish
the impact of overcrowding on families, and whilst this is referred to in the draft
Overcrowding Strategy it was felt that more could be done.
Recommendation 2
(i) The Commission recommends that in finalising the Overcrowding strategy,
further consideration is given to how best to support families in overcrowded
conditions who are waiting to find new housing through the Choice Based Letting
system. The Space Management pilot should take account of all examples of similar
projects completed across London.
(ii) The Commission recommends that in preparing the final Overcrowding
strategy, an Equalities Impact Assessment is completed as a priority, to consider all
aspects of the service but focused on: how ethnicity data is collated and used
across relevant services, how different initiatives may serve one community better
than others, and the support given to individuals moving into the private rented
sector.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate Director should provide the Commission
with a report detailing how best the Council can mitigate the impact of overcrowding
by July 2010.
Approach to receiving referrals & providing Information
An outcome of the review was that the Council and the charity Shelter (who provide
housing advice and guidance to local residents) now have a formal referral system
to ensure that the Council is made aware of any overcrowded households who
present to Shelter. This could be extended to include a variety of local advisors and
practitioners, such as schools, Children’s Centres, social services, Citizens Advice
Bureaux, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), estates managers and GPs.
p.4
The Commission also supported the recommendation from the recent Children &
Young People Scrutiny Commission review (0-5 Services in Hackney) that housing
advice surgeries should be offered to parents in Children’s Centres. Progress has
been made in this, and the Commission is eager that information relating to
overcrowding is included in any of the relevant future projects.
Finally, in relation to the Council’s provision of housing advice and options, the
Commission hopes that the results of the mystery shopping it commissioned are
taken into consideration in future service planning.
Recommendation 3
(i) The Commission recommends that the formal referral system now used with
Shelter be revised accordingly to be agreed with all relevant local housing advice
providers.
(ii) The Commission recommends that as part of the work to link Children’s and
Housing services following the Children & Young People Scrutiny Commission’s
review of 0-5 Services, efforts should be undertaken to educate staff from Children’s
Centres on the impact of overcrowding and options available to families, whilst
ensuring that housing officers who attend surgeries are providing the latest
information relating to overcrowding initiatives.
(iii) The Commission recommends that the Mystery Shopping be repeated by
May 2010 (using the completed survey's questions to provide comparable data),
and that the results of both the latest report and the repeated exercise be fed into
the Council’s service planning.
(iv) The Commission recommends that recognition of overcrowding together with
wider issues relating to the impact of bad housing is incorporated more explicitly in
the strategies that make up the local Strategic Policy Framework, including (though
not exclusively) the Children & Young People’s Plan, Joint Strategic Needs
Assessment, Community Cohesion strategy, and the Local Development
Framework core strategy. These references should be captured in the
Overcrowding Strategy to ensure shared approaches are maximised.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate Director should provide the Commission
with a report detailing progress by July 2010.
Approach to Partnership working
The Commission received evidence from the Better Homes Partnership about their
work with RSLs, and heard from Council officers about the important work being
completed through the East London Housing Partnership (ELHP). The Commission
recognised that genuine success in addressing the housing imbalances would need
to be supported by all local social housing organisations. In surveying all RSLs in
the Borough the Commission gained an interesting insight into their approaches to
tackling overcrowding, but encountered some difficulties with outdated contacted
details.
Recommendation 4
(i) The Commission recommends that the Council begins consultation with RSLs
operating in the Borough to gauge interest in creating shared lettings policies and
(in the longer term) a common housing register. The Council should also consider
the best way to ensure contact details for RSLs operating in the borough are kept
updated.
p.5
(ii) The Commission recommends that the Council works to promote the
importance of completing CORE data responses to all RSLs and the need to gather
wider information about overcrowding, leading by example with their own
submissions to central government.
(iii) The Commission recommends that the Better Homes Partnership continues
its important work in agreeing shared standards across RSLs relating to housing
management, and consider including shared definitions of overcrowding and
approaches to supporting overcrowded residents during a future review of these
standards.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate Director should provide the Commission
with a report detailing options and decisions by July 2010.
Approaches to Planning & Design
The Commission learned that, despite LBH proposing to build more family-sized
properties than any other London Borough over the coming years, there is still an
exceptional shortage of the homes needed to alleviate the overcrowding problem.
The Commission heard excellent evidence relating to some of the initiatives in place
to ensure the highest level of design is utilised, and were eager to ensure that this
was continually reviewed to ensure properties are both attractive to those moving
out of under-occupied homes, and offer maximum support to larger families who
may find themselves in cramped conditions.
Recommendation 5
(i) The Commission recommends that the Commission pursues any activity that
will continue to protect family-sized accommodation. This may include any possible
intervention through the anticipated Supplementary Planning Document relating to
Residential Conversions (subject to their evidence gathering), and priorities within
the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. The Council should identify any
other areas where family-sized properties can be protected (through initiatives like
the Empty Homes scheme), or converted to provide homes for larger groups.
(ii) The Commission recommends that the impact of overcrowding and the
expectations of residents moving out of under-occupied properties are included in
the design guidance and best practice used locally, most probably through the
Housing Strategy and the anticipated Housing Design Supplementary Planning
Document. These should draw on the examples shared with the Commission, such
as the Holly Street development, and could benefit from regular liaisons with the
officers who work closely with families impacted by overcrowding.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate Director should provide the Commission
with a report detailing options and decisions by July 2010.
p.6
4
LEGAL COMMENTS
4.1
In recommendation 4, the Commission recommends the Council consults with RSLs
operating in the borough to gauge interest in creating shared lettings policies and (in
the longer term) a common housing register. Section 167 (Part 6 – Allocations of
Housing Accommodation) of the Housing Act 1996 (the ‘Act’) obliges the Council to
have a lettings scheme (also known as an allocation scheme) and it provides that:
“Every local housing authority shall have a scheme (their “allocation scheme”) for
determining priorities, and as to the procedure to be followed, in allocating housing
accommodation. For this purpose “procedure” includes all aspects of the allocation
process, including the persons or descriptions of persons by whom decisions are to
be taken”.
4.2
The Council must comply with section 167 of the Act in formualting its lettings
scheme. Section 167 of the Act does not apply to RSLs. RSLs are currently subject
to the former Housing Corporation’s Regulatory Code and Guidance. Although Part
6 of the Act was enacted specifically for housing authorities it is of direct relevance
to RSLs in so far as they have a duty under Part 6 to co-operate with housing
authorities to such extent as is reasonable. Further, the Secretary of State regards it
as essential that housing authorities work closely with RSLs, other housing
providers and voluntary agencies to meet the housing needs in its area. However, if
and until there is change in the law, that permits housing authorities and RSLs to
have a shared lettings scheme, it would appear to be unlawful for the Council to
enter into a shared lettings policy with an RSL. Incidentally, the obligations in
Section 167 of the Act are more onerous than the Housing Corporation’s Regulatory
Code and Guidance on lettings schemes so there is the risk that RSLs will not want
to be part of a shared lettings scheme with a housing authority while Section 167 is
in force.
4.3
Sections 161 to 165 of the Act, which relate to housing registers, was repealed by
the Homelessness Act 2002 and the requirement to keep a register ceased.
However there is nothing to prevent a housing authority from continuing to maintain
a register of applicants, if it so wishes. As the keeping of the Council’s Housing
Register is not a statutory obligation it would appear that a common housing register
with other RSLs may be lawful so long as allocations are made in accordance with
the Council’s prevailing lettings scheme.
5
FINANCIAL COMMENTS
5.1
There is a government revenue grant of £130k to tackle overcrowding. The amount
has increased from previous years bidding by £10k as a result of recognition
towards Council’s improvement and to further establish new initiatives with
additional financial incentives on overcrowding.
5.2
Included in the Housing Revenue Account Capital programme is £1.23m to enhance
properties and provide incentives for tenants to move to appropriate size properties,
freeing up larger, family size properties to reduce over crowding.
5.3
Included in the General Fund Capital programme is £300k incentive payments to
families to move outside the borough or to appropriate size accommodation.
p.7
6
FINDINGS
6.1
A Background to Considering Overcrowding- Impact of Overcrowding,
Definitions and Causes
Impact of Overcrowding
6.1.1 Overcrowding is the situation families and large households find themselves in
when the number of bedrooms they need (according to a set definition, which is
outlined in section 6.1.12 below) is not met by the property they own or rent. It is
widely recognised as significantly damaging to families, often giving children a
disadvantaged start to life in their development, whilst giving adults unnecessary
stress and hardship. Shelter, the nationwide Housing charity, has compiled some of
the most comprehensive research in recent years. They note that “children need
space to play, develop, and do their homework. They also need privacy, especially
when they are going through puberty and studying for exams. Adults need space
too, to foster healthy relationships with their partners and enable them to care for
their families” 1. In a recent action plan, the Department for Communities & Local
Government (DCLG) recognised that “living in overcrowded accommodation can,
both directly and indirectly, have a devastating effect on families” 2.
6.1.2 Due to the combination of negative impacts faced by many families living in
overcrowded accommodation (including overall housing conditions, deprivation and
wider health impacts), it is difficult to produce evidence-based research directly
linking overcrowding to its detrimental impact. This is not to say it hasn’t been
attempted, and Appendix 2 provides an outline of the most comprehensive
research. This can be broadly separated into the following categories:
Physical Health
In both adults and children research has found links to Meningitis, Tuberculosis
(TB), Respiratory Conditions and (to a lesser extent) mortality. Adults were also
likely to experience lower self-rated health.
Mental Health
Some links were found for those living in overcrowded conditions and the mental
health of children, women and individuals from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
Communities.
Childhood Development, Safety, Growth and Education
The social and emotional development, educational attainment, physical stature and
treatment of children by their parents were all directly impacted by living in
overcrowded homes.
6.1.3 Tuberculosis
Perhaps the strongest link was that between overcrowding and Tuberculosis. TB is
an illness that has impacted East London significantly over the past few years, and
the quality of housing is seen by many as the primary contributor to this. In early
October 2004, the Government released the national tuberculosis action plan
1
2
‘Full house?: How overcrowded housing affects families’ Shelter (2005) p.7
‘Tackling overcrowding in England: An action plan’ Department for Communities and Local Government
(December 2007) p.5
p.8
Stopping Tuberculosis in England. It stated that the rise in tuberculosis infections
since the early 1990s was “mainly as a result of increased migration from areas of
the world where tuberculosis is more prevalent” 3. However, academic research has
consistently found that compared to migration or ethnicity, overcrowding plays as
large if not a larger role. For example, one study found “no evidence of a positive
relationship with ethnicity was found, once overcrowding had been accounted for” 4.
In 2004, research by London Housing- the specialist housing service for the
Association of London Government (ALG, now London Councils)- established a
strong correlation between overcrowding and tuberculosis 5. In 2001, all but three of
the 15 London boroughs with above average overcrowding also had above average
tuberculosis infection rates. Outside London, overcrowding and tuberculosis rates
have both fallen since the early 1980s.
This may well be true of the latest figures relating to TB in Hackney. The Health in
Hackney Scrutiny Commission received a copy of the Tuberculosis Patient Record
Audit in July 2009, which did recognise homelessness and overcrowding to be
specific causes of TB (together with migration, incidence of HIV, alcohol & drug
misuse, and lifestyles). The audit also suggested that links might be found to
average deprivation, income support and unemployment. The average demographic
characteristics information refers to age, employment, gender and ethnicity, but not
housing situation.
The Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission was encouraged to learn that “the TB
team… has a relationship with Housing for the ability if necessary to request for a
patient (family) be re-housed. If the family cannot be re-housed they may request
for the individual patient to be re housed for the duration of treatment, especially if
sharing with children” 6. The PCT and the London Borough of Hackney have also
signed a service level agreement for a new service to provide housing for homeless
people with TB during their treatment, and the PCT will pay for families to be moved
who do not qualify for housing support under prevention of disease legislation.
6.1.4 Shelter also looked at the impact overcrowding had on living arrangements. Their
report ‘Full House’ charted the experiences of 505 overcrowded families (according
to the Bedroom Standard)- including 152 classed as severely overcrowded
according to Government standards. It found that 92% of overcrowded families felt
negatively impacted by a lack of privacy, with 86% believing it directly led to
depression, anxiety or stress. 71% of families strongly agreed that overcrowding
was a damaging influence on their children’s education and development, and that a
further 71% of respondents strongly agreed that overcrowding harmed the health of
family members 7.
6.1.5 As part of the review the Commission was eager to hear from local residents who
faced the problem of overcrowded accommodation, but recognised the difficulty in
identifying and approaching families. It was therefore grateful to the London
Coalition Against Poverty (LCAP), which had been working with families living in
3
‘Stopping Tuberculosis in England: An action plan from the Chief Medical Officer’ Department of Health
(October 2004), p.8
4
‘Tuberculosis mortality in England and Wales during 1982-1992: Its association with poverty, ethnicity and
AIDS’ Soc Sci Med journal (1998) Vol. 46, No. 6
5
‘Overcrowding in London’ London Housing Briefing (March 2004)
6
Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission minutes (Feb 2009)
7
‘Full house?: How overcrowded housing affects families’ Shelter (2005)
p.9
temporary accommodation- some of whom suffer from overcrowding. A submission
provided by LCAP in April 2009 took evidence from four individuals living in
Alexandra Court and Glebelands temporary accommodation hostels, noting the
following problems faced by some of these residents:
Ms S, Glebelands
“Ms S has been living with her son in this accommodation for six months. The
impact of this is very stressful and makes her feel depressed. On a day-to-day
level, she feels awkward dressing and undressing in front of her son and has to
engineer situations to avoid this.”
“Living in one room is a problem for her son’s school work.”
“Their living situation makes her feel very depressed, but she has to hide her
feelings from her son.”
Ms H, Glebelands
“At the moment, her two eldest daughters share one room and Ms H shares the
other room with her baby. Her son is temporarily living with his grandmother,
because he has found it too disruptive to stay with her during the week when he
has to go to school.”
Mr & Mrs A, Alexandra Court
“Until recently, this family of four was living together in one room at Alexandra
Court for almost two years. They were recently moved to a one-bed flat.”
Causes of Overcrowding
6.1.6 Residential overcrowding is the product of scarce housing available to households
on low incomes in the areas that they want to live and work in. A report by the
Association for London Government note that “60% of the most severely
overcrowded households require three or more bedrooms… yet only 30% of new
homes for social renting are of this size. This highlights the need for the grant
funding models to be reviewed, since many housing associations do not provide
larger homes as they cannot make the funding stack up” 8.
6.1.7 Shelter mirrors this, noting that “the number of social-sector homes built seven
years ago, in 1996/97, was nearly double the number completed in 2003/04. In
addition, the stock of family-sized homes has been reduced under Right to Buy
policies while house price rises have excluded more and more families from
suitable, affordable housing in the private sector” 9. Some feel that the Right to Buy
scheme had in fact been too successful, with around 300,000 homes sold in London
alone. When councils sold properties they were legally obliged to use the money to
pay off debt rather than to build replacement homes. Whilst this has obviously had a
historical impact on the supply of social housing, it is worth noting that the number
of Right to Buy applications and sales has plummeted in Hackney (notably since
2004 when the maximum discount was halved to £16,000), with just 26 sales in
2008/9, compared to 709 in 2004/5.
8
‘Through the eyes of Londoners: Housing and Communities’ Association of London Government (2004)
p.10
9
‘Crowded House: Cramped living in England’s housing’ Shelter (October 2004), p.3
p.10
6.1.8 Supply issues were confirmed by LBH Housing Officers, who explained at the
Commission meeting in October 2008 that most overcrowding was caused locally
by imbalances in housing supply and demand (with London attracting more people
as the current driver of the national economy), inefficient allocation and distribution
of available stock, and housing affordability against relative levels of income earned.
6.1.9 The draft Housing Strategy for London recognises these varied causes which have
produced the stark present picture, explaining that:
“There has been significant decline in the number of social lettings, with only
40,400 in London in 2007/08 – almost 40% fewer than in 1998/99. This
decline is due not only to the net loss of social rented homes during this
period, but also the declining turnover in the sector, as tenants with an
increasingly younger profile remain longer in their homes, and rapidly rising
house prices put the transition to home ownership beyond reach. The most
extreme symptoms of this shortage are the growth in severe overcrowding,
the reliance over recent years on temporary accommodation and delayed
move on from hostels” 10.
6.1.10 Other causes that have been referred to elsewhere include ‘hidden homelessness’
(particularly among BME communities), which “arises out of a need to
accommodate family and community members coming from abroad, or because
strong cultural ties prevent the hosts from asking their guests to leave”. 11 It has
become increasingly difficult for families in London with low incomes to access the
private sector, as rents are often prohibitive. This naturally increases the pressure
on the social sector.
6.1.11 Specifically focused on the private rental sector, demand caused by erratic labour
markets and transient populations creates an environment where overcrowding can
develop (occasionally through the choice of the inhabitants). As the recent Rugg
Review notes:
“For many local authorities, migrant worker overcrowding has become a
problematic feature of the local private rental sector. This is particularly the
case when increased and intensive demand for rental property has become
evident over a very short period of time. Overcrowding can lead to public
health issues. Problems in framing appropriate policy solutions are
compounded by the fact that the housing and labour market linkages can be
closely intertwined. For example, migrant workers might be living in tied
accommodation; their presence might be very necessary to a seasonal
economy; and the workers themselves might be choosing to over-occupy so
as to minimise their housing costs. Best practice guidance appears to be
lacking for local authorities dealing with the problem” 12.
10
‘The Housing Strategy for London’ Mayor of London (draft May 2009), p.46
‘The Black and Minority Ethnic Housing Crisis’ Shelter (September 2004), p4
12
‘The Private Rented Sector: its potential and contribution’ Julie Rugg and David Rhodes, Centre for Public
Housing University of York (2008), p.xii
11
p.11
Definitions
6.1.12 When reviewing housing overcrowding, the first issue faced is how to assess
overcrowded properties. Put simply, “a household is defined as overcrowded if it
does not have enough bedrooms for its members, bearing in mind their ages,
gender and relationship to each other” 13. However the calculation of overcrowding
by age and gender differs across boroughs and from national legislation, making
comparisons and cross-boundary initiatives more complicated. There is also a
recognised difference between severely and slightly overcrowded homes.
6.1.13 Statutory Standards. The legal definition of overcrowding was laid out in the
Housing Act 1985 (Part X), and is based on original standards agreed in 1935. This
takes into account the number of bedrooms and the total floor area of a room. For
the purpose of calculating overcrowding, the legislation counts living rooms, studies
and ‘common rooms’ as acceptable sleeping space. By this standard, DCLG’s
discussion paper ‘Tackling Overcrowding in England’ calculated that just 20,000
households in the country could be deemed to be overcrowded. It notes that
“although the intention of the legislators in 1935 was that the standards should be
regularly updated, they have in practice been carried over unchanged into the 1985
Housing Act. They are as a result now well out of line with contemporary
expectations” 14.
6.1.14 Bedroom Standard. Far more widely used by local authorities is the Bedroom
Standard, which is a simplified and more generous way of assessing households.
This has been used by Government for national surveys since the 1960s to
calculate national levels of overcrowding. The Survey of English Housing has
adopted this definition, effectively offering the nationally-accepted definition. This
approach notes that separate rooms should be offered to each of the following:
• Married or cohabiting couple;
• Adult aged 21 years or more;
• Pair of adolescents aged 10-20 years of the same sex;
• Pair of children aged under 10 years regardless of sex.
6.1.15 ‘Hackney Standard’. Until recently LBH differed from the proposed national
standard in two ways- firstly it felt that children of opposite gender should be allowed
their own room, regardless of age. Secondly it felt that children and people of the
same sex and generation should share, where the age difference is 16 years or
less. This has since been tightened as part of a recent Lettings Policy review, to
bring it closer in line with the national Bedroom Standard. The only difference to the
approach outlined in 6.1.14 is that the acceptable age for young children of opposite
sexes to share a room should be 8 and not 10.
An analysis of the various differences is included as Appendix 3.
13
14
‘Hackney Borough Profile’ Team Hackney (April 2006) section 5.7, p.89
‘Tackling Overcrowding in England: A discussion paper’ Department for Communities & Local Government
(July 2006), p.5
p.12
6.2
Overcrowding Trends- National & Local
Overcrowding in England
6.2.1 The National Housing Federation notes that there are “currently 2.3 million people
living in properties officially classed as overcrowded in England, and new research
by the Federation predicts that figure will soar to 2.65 million within two years – as a
lack of mortgages and rising unemployment forces families to stay in properties that
are far too small for them” 15.
6.2.2 The Survey of English Housing provides the most comprehensive and recent data
relating to national overcrowding figures. The preliminary 2007-8 report published in
January 2009 combined data from the three most recent survey years (2005-06 to
2007-08), noting that each year the average figure was 565,000 homes- about 2.7%
of all households. This found that 5.9% of social rented properties across the whole
of England were affected, compared to 4.9% in the private rented sector and 1.4%
of owner occupied households. London had the highest overcrowding rate of all the
regions, both overall (6.8%) and by tenure, using the Bedroom standard. There
were around 200,000 overcrowded households in London, with 12.7% of the social
rented sector and 9.8% of private renters 16. The full report ‘Housing in England
2007/08’, containing more detailed analysis across a wide range of topics, will be
published in autumn 2009.
Graph 1: Trend in overcrowding rates by tenure, England, 1995/96 to 2007/08
(three year moving average)
6.2.3 It is perhaps unsurprising that the reverse is true of under-occupancy by tenure. The
figures were highest in the owner occupied sector (46.8%), and particularly amongst
15
16
‘More than 2.6m people to live in overcrowded housing by 2011, as recession bites – warns Federation’
National Housing Federation (15 April 2009) http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/housing-andplanning/nhf-more-than-2-6m-people-to-live-in-overcrowded-housing-by-2011-as-recession-bites-%E2%80%93-warns-federation$1288032$364344.htm
‘Survey of English Housing Preliminary Report: 2007-08’ Department of Communities & Local Government
(Housing Statistics Summary Number 28, 2009) p.22
p.13
those who owned outright (57.8%), compared to 11.6% of social renters and 17.1%
of private renters nationwide.
6.2.4 The latest analysis of figures produced by the Greater London Authority (GLA)
found that there were around 27,000 households in London which were severely
overcrowded, of which 11,000 were social renters.
6.2.5 Shelter’s ‘Full House’ report found that, of the 505 families surveyed, the following
housing arrangements applied:
• 74% of the overcrowded families had children sharing a bedroom with a parent or
parents
• 27% had children sleeping in living or dining rooms – and this rose to 52% among
severely overcrowded families
• 19% of severely overcrowded families were forced to pair teenagers of opposite
sexes in the same bedroom
• 84% noted there was not enough space in the family home for children to play 17
6.2.6 ALG (now known as London Councils) confirmed in their 2004 report that BME
communities were most likely to be affected by overcrowding. It found that
Bangladeshi (62%), Black African (53%) and Pakistani (38%) households are most
likely to live in overcrowded homes 18. In the same year, Shelter found that BME
households were at least seven times more likely to live in overcrowded conditions
than white households, with families of Bangladeshi origin particularly likely to suffer
from overcrowding (over half of their children living in officially overcrowded
conditions) 19.
Overcrowding In Hackney
6.2.7 Overcrowding is recognised in the Borough Profile as a significant local problem,
noting that figures show Hackney as having the third highest level of overcrowding
in England and Wales after Newham and Tower Hamlets (based on the statutory
room standard, not the updated bedroom standard) 20. The London Poverty Profile
uses the bedroom standard, and from the same data found that Hackney was the
fifth most overcrowded, with Camden this time being the worst affected 21. These
draw on information drawn from the 2001 Census, but the assessments are not
disputed.
6.2.8 The most recent source of information about the levels of overcrowding in the
borough comes from the Housing Needs Survey 2008, which is in its final stages of
drafting. The survey was conducted from July to September 2008, drawing on
primary data from 2,358 personal interviews from randomly-selected addresses
across Hackney’s four neighbourhoods. The survey mirrors a similar exercise
conducted in 2003, which allows comparisons to be analysed.
17
‘Full house?: How overcrowded housing affects families’ Shelter (2005)
‘Through the eyes of Londoners: Housing and Communities’ Association of London Government (2004)
p.10
19
‘The black and minority ethnic housing crisis’ Shelter (September 2004)
20
‘Hackney Borough Profile’ Team Hackney (April 2006) section 5.7, p.89
21
‘London’s Poverty Profile’ Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway (2009) p.92
18
p.14
6.2.9 The Housing Needs Survey 2008 found:
• Overcrowding in Hackney affects 9.6% of households (8,899), significantly greater
than both the national (2.5%) and London (6.6%) averages. Under-occupation
affects 11.0% of households
• The overall level of overcrowding in Hackney has increased since 2003 by nearly
3,000 households, when it stood at 7.2% of all households. At least 889
households living in one and two bedroom properties are lacking two or more
bedrooms (the comparable figure for 2003 was 2,835, which suggests that whilst
overcrowding as a whole has increased, severe overcrowding has declined in the
past five years)
• Nearly two-thirds (65.4%) of all overcrowded households are found in subsidised
housing, either in social housing or in that part of the private rented sector with
residents receiving Local Housing Allowance. In both the RSL and Council rented
sectors, about 12% of households are overcrowded (up from 9.7% in 2003) and
about 11% in the private rented sector, up from 6.1% in 2003
• In terms of under-occupation, like national figures, the reverse is true- well over
half (58.2%) of under-occupied households are found in the owner-occupied
sector, including more than a third of all households living in their own home
without a mortgage. Although only 7% of social rented homes are under-occupied,
the large size of the stock means it accounts for nearly a third (29.8%) of all underoccupation
• At its most extreme, there are 22 families in the borough living in one-bedroom
accommodation where the number of bedrooms required (according to the
Bedroom standard) is 4 or more
• 63% of overcrowded households in the borough contain children. Multiple adult
households also show a high level of overcrowding, accounting for almost all of
the remainder. Pensioner households are rarely overcrowded, but very often
under-occupied, with more than half of multiple pensioner households falling into
this category. Couples without children also show a high level of underoccupation, at 28.4%.
6.2.10 The following table was received at a Commission meeting in June 2009, and uses
the Housing Needs Survey data to identify which areas in the borough were worst
affected:
Table 1: Overcrowding and under-occupation by sub-area
UnderOvercrowded Neither
Total
occupied*
Stoke
7.5%
84.1%
8.4%
Newington
24,775
11.4%
73.6%
14.9%
North East
22,217
9.9%
77.6%
12.5%
Homerton
24,332
Shoreditch
8.0%
82.8%
9.3%
(not NDC**)
13,355
Shoreditch
12.2%
80.7%
7.1%
(NDC)
9,562
9.6%
79.4%
11.0%
Total
94,240
Source: Fordham Research Hackney household survey (2008)
*Under-occupied refers to households two or more bedrooms above the bedroom standard
**New Deals for Communities (NDC) was a regeneration project to address deprivation
p.15
6.2.11 The draft Overcrowding Strategy recognises that overcrowding “tends to be
concentrated in particular neighbourhoods, (and) is more likely among minority
communities” 22. Indeed using the information received by the Commission in
January 2009 it is possible to map the incidence of overcrowding by postcode.
These are included as Appendix 4.
6.2.12 Latest figures from the CLG Submission
LBH provide quarterly updates to CLG on their overcrowding monitoring data, which
includes baseline figures together with more detailed focus on those joining the
housing registers (both Council and RSL), the number of families re-housed and
other relevant information. The Commission received the latest copy (submitted in
late July 2009), and excerpts are included below:
Table 2: CLG Submission (1st April 2009)- Overcrowded households from all
tenures on both LBH and RSL waiting lists wanting to be re-housed
Severely
Total
Overcrowded
1 Bed
317
3670
2 Bed
185
1837
3 Bed
79
440
4+ Bed
37
86
All Properties
618
6033
Table 3: CLG Submission (1st April 2009): Under-occupied social renters on
both LBH and RSL waiting lists wanting to be re-housed
LBH Waiting List
Total
3 Bed
265
275
4 Bed
53
62
5+ Bed
12
12
All Properties
330
349
It should be noted that in LBH’s own assessments 2-bedroom properties are
included in under-occupying figures
The total number of overcrowded social households re-housed into the social rented
sector for this period was 139, of which 40 were severely overcrowded. By contrast,
the total number of overcrowded social households re-housed into the private
rented sector for this period was 4, none of whom were severely overcrowded.
However these figures should be treated with some caution- as referred to in
section 6.2.18, the Council has struggled to receive comprehensive data from all
RSLs operating in the borough.
The figures submitted to CLG suggest that the number of under-occupied
households applying to downsize for this period was 12. During this year 21 underoccupied households were re-housed into suitable accommodation.
The draft Overcrowding Strategy notes that for the year 2008/09 the overall number
of overcrowded households on the LBH Housing Register alone fell by 10% from
22
‘Making Room: Draft Overcrowding Strategy 2009-12’ London Borough of Hackney (draft unpublished) p.6
p.16
6157 to 5579, but more significantly the number of households defined via the
Bedroom Standard as severely overcrowded fell by 42% from 790 in April 2008 to
462 a year later. The Commission welcomed this achievement.
6.2.13 Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)
The local JSNA provides a section relating to housing, and notes that “Hackney is
the third most densely populated borough in Britain – around 10,897 people live in
each of the nineteen square kilometres of the borough (the average for London is
4,800 per square kilometre). This is reflected in a relatively high level of
overcrowding in homes. In 2001, 4% of households in Hackney supported more
than 1.5 people per room (including kitchens and living rooms but not bathrooms
and halls). This compares to 2% of households in London as a whole” 23. The report
also considers the average number of people living in each household. Whilst
housing density and household figures do not always lead to overcrowding, the
maps show significant similarities:
Map 1: Average Number of People per Household- Hackney and the City
6.2.14 Hackney Homes Delivery Plan
The Hackney Homes Delivery Plan also recognises some of the local issues
associated with overcrowding. The Delivery Plan sets out the key challenges and
priorities for Hackney Homes, together with the relationship and expectations
between the Council. This is due to be updated over the coming months, but the
current version includes this helpful summary:
“Over 50% of Hackney residents live in social housing, with around twothirds of these homes being below the decent homes standard…
Overcrowding and lack of space continues to be an issue for our tenants.
23
‘City and Hackney Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2008’ City & Hackney Teaching PCT, London
Borough of Hackney and the City of London (Oct 2008), p.39
p.17
According to our STATUS survey in 2007, 36% of our BME residents
responding stated that they needed more space and 40% amongst all 16-34
year olds stated the same. Across the broader population, the Census 2001
revealed that Hackney remains the sixth most overcrowded community in
Britain. 3,000 tenants live in homes with over one person per room and
1,400 are in accommodation with over 1.5 people per room. This level of
overcrowding contributes to dissatisfaction, particularly among tenants
needing to transfer, and resultant high child densities have an adverse
impact on educational outcomes, anti social behaviour and health
inequalities” 24.
6.2.15 Demographics Data & Issues
The following data was received during the course of the review, providing the latest
figures relating to the ethnicity of households on the LBH Housing Register. The
Commission also received historical data, which showed a steady increase over
time for most of the groups in relation to overcrowding (with the exception of the
Asian ethnicity), and notable increases in White and Black/Black British Groups for
households on the Housing Register. The information also noted that prior to the
financial year 2007/08, the Orthodox Jewish category had at times been underrepresented in lettings. Officers explained that this was largely due to their
preference for a specific, popular locality, certain dwelling types and above average
size homes were usually required. Agudas Israel Housing Association, the largest
provider of new rented homes for Orthodox Jewish applicants, offered more new
homes in the last few years and the under-representation is therefore much less
marked than previously.
Table 4: Housing Waiting List Ethincity Data- Sept 2008
Borough
Total on Percentage
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Overcrowded
Waiting
of Waiting
List
Profile*
List
White
1,197
5,595
21.39%
131,105
Orthodox
135
273
49.45%
15,409**
Jewish
Asian/Asian
298
1,042
28.60%
23,863
British
Black/Black
1,691
6,172
27.40%
58,577
British
Mixed
31
170
18.24%
Other
469
1,874
25.03%
9,820
Total
3,821
15,126
100%
223,365**
Percentage
of Borough
Population
58.7%
6.9%
10.7%
26.2%
4.4%
100%
*As taken from the GLA 2008 Round Ethnic Group Projections
**It should be noted that the GLA projections do not include an assessment of Charedi
Jewish populations, which were calculated by the Mayhew study to be 15,409 in March
2008. This may cause some overlap in the other figures stated, and as such the Charedi
population is not explicitly included in the total figure
The draft Overcrowding Strategy also includes useful data about the variance in
impact overcrowding has on different communities in the borough. The following
24
‘Hackney Homes Delivery Plan 2007-09’ Hackney Homes (December 2008), p.2
p.18
graph shows how local ethnicities’ households compare when assessed by the
bedroom standard:
Graph 2: Overcrowding by Ethnicity
Difference from bedroom standard by ethnic group
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Bl
hi
n
es
e
an
C
fri
c
-A
ac
k
be
a
hi
Bl
ac
k
-C
ar
ib
la
d
es
ta
n
an
g
ia
n
-B
ia
n
As
n
i
n
-P
ak
is
-I
nd
ia
As
As
ia
n
As
ia
n
an
an
d
te
Af
ri c
W
hi
ac
k
Bl
te
W
hi
W
hi
te
an
d
Bl
an
d
ac
k
W
hi
C
te
ar
ib
-O
-I
te
be
an
h
ris
h
ri t
is
W
hi
-B
te
W
hi
th
er
0%
Above standard
Equal to standard
Below standard
6.2.16 Concerns were raised by the Commission at their meeting in November about the
collection and analysis of demographic data. It was noted that two different Housing
Management IT Systems were being used to collate ethnicity information, which
appeared to use different terms for the many communities living in Hackney. This
would likely cause difficulties in targeting future initiatives.
6.2.17 Information received from Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)
The data received from RSLs is less clear in providing the true picture of
overcrowding and under-occupancy in the borough. Following the meeting in
December 2008 the Commission received a snapshot of the latest Overcrowding
Data Monitoring Report, but with the caveat that many RSLs did not have a system
in place to assess overcrowding so could not provide the data. Others had a
different standard in measuring overcrowding in their stock and would need to
change their policy and adopt the Government standard. The following table
provides the best attempt to collate the data, but is clearly under-representing the
figures:
p.19
Table 5: Overcrowded households from all tenures on RSL waiting lists
wanting to be re-housed as on 01/04/08
Size of Current
Severely
Total
Property
Overcrowded Overcrowded
1 Bed
21
211
2 Bed
83
322
3 Bed
28
71
4+ Bed
21
43
Total
153
647
According to the figures provided to the Commission, only 4 overcrowded and 5
under-occupying social households were re-housed in the first 6 months of 2008
from RSL waiting lists, which underlines the problems associated with data
reporting.
6.2.18 Performance Monitoring and CORE data
CORE (COntinuous REcording) is a national approach to collating information on
the characteristics of both housing association and local authority new social
housing tenants and the homes they rent or buy. It is funded jointly by the Tenant
Services Authority (formerly the Housing Corporation) and DCLG.
The data collected covers new lets and sales, together with demographic
information about the buyer/tenant (ethnicity, primary reason for housing, source of
referral and previous tenure). As the data includes the number of occupants and the
number of bedrooms, assessments can be made about people moving into and out
of overcrowded conditions.
Until recently LBH had not formalised their commitment to providing CORE returns,
but work has now been completed to support future submissions. At the time of
producing this report, 18 London Boroughs were participating, 11 (including LBH)
were working towards participation and just one had not formalised its participation
(though for some reason the London Boroughs of Richmond, Bromley and Bexley
are not included in any of these three lists) 25.
The Commission heard of problems with recording data on several occasions.
Issues with the CORE Return also affected the Council’s ability to comprehensively
review the impact of Low Cost Home Ownership (LCHO, outlined in more detail in
section 6.6.2) and unit sales by size, though officers were confident that the data
received did allow them to draw out meaningful trends.
Whilst this data by no means provides the complete picture of overcrowding, underoccupancy or other housing issues, it is of significant importance as it supports
other information to provide the clearest possible understanding. LBH and the Better
Homes Partnership should work with RSLs to help overcome some of the issues
they face, and lead by example in producing their own CORE returns to the highest
possible standard.
25
‘Countrywide Participation by Local Authorities’ Centre for Housing Research, St Andrews University (last
checked August 2009) https://core.tenantservicesauthority.org/la-regional/participation-la-all.cfm#London
p.20
Recommendation 4 (ii): The Commission recommends that the Council works to
promote the importance of completing CORE data responses to all RSLs and the
need to gather wider information about overcrowding, leading by example with their
own submissions to central government.
6.3
Initiatives to Alleviate Overcrowding- Local
The Overcrowding Strategy & Effective Interventions
6.3.1 The Council has been involved in helping to guide national policy for some years.
Hackney was one of the five pathfinder local authorities that were funded by the
government to pilot some of the initiatives to tackle overcrowding which helped to
form the pilot ‘lessons’ offered to all local authorities, together with the CLG
overcrowding self-assessment toolkit. There have been significant successes in the
past few years following Council initiatives to alleviate severe overcrowding, but the
figures for households in slightly overcrowded conditions continues to rise. Clearly if
this is not addressed then as families continue to grow the severely overcrowded
figures will begin to rise again.
6.3.2 As part of the Commission’s review a draft copy of the LBH Overcrowding Strategy
was received, and suggestions were made ahead of it being considered by Cabinet.
Originally due to be received in January 2009, the draft document was discussed at
the Commission meeting in June. The strategy, entitled ‘Making Room: Tackling
Overcrowding Strategy 2009-12’ outlines the Council’s vision for this issue, which is
“to significantly reduce all forms of overcrowding through effective, targeted and
financially viable solutions, achieved in partnership with a range of stakeholders”. To
achieve this, the strategy sets Five Key Objectives:
1- Achieve a better balance of occupation of households by size in accordance with
need by giving people the opportunity to move into better homes of their choice
2- Ensure that there continues to be a supply of new affordable housing in Hackney
in accordance with the principles of Hackney's Local Development Framework
(LDF) Core Strategy
3- Maximise the use of existing housing stock in the borough including the private
rented sector, through adaptations and utilising all partnership activities
4- Prevent Overcrowding in the first place by proactively managing the factors which
are known to contribute to overcrowding
5- Monitor, evaluate and review the effectiveness of the initiatives in place and build
in a continuous improvement loop.
6.3.3 The draft strategy notes that these objectives will be overseen by an Overcrowding
Board, consisting of senior personnel from the local authority, Hackney Homes and
local RSLs, who will report annually on the progress achieved to all stakeholders.
The Commission supported the approach, and were keen to receive this progress
information as part of the feedback on the report’s recommendations.
6.3.4 The strategy goes on to outline some of the existing initiatives, which have been
used to tackle overcrowding to date.
p.21
6.3.5 Overcrowding Initiatives
Choose and Move
The scheme provides private rented sector opportunities for overcrowded families,
offering both financial incentives and a personal assistance package delivered by a
dedicated support officer. This intensive support service includes home visits,
assistance with viewings, vacation notices, removals, utility connections and benefit
advice. 26 moves were achieved under this initiative in 2008/09.
Fresh Start Scheme
The current scheme provides both private rental and social housing opportunities in
England and Wales. It is similar to the Country and Sea Side homes initiative except
that it targets overcrowded rather than under-occupying households. The scheme
provides financial incentives such as travel, removal expenses etc and also a
personal assistance package delivered by a dedicated support officer. The scheme
has released a number of properties in the borough whilst satisfying households in
moving to an area of their choice and into a size of property which meets their
needs.
Non-financial support is also provided to families, including links into support
networks and statutory agencies. Officers also make contact after 6 months to
ensure that the family have made a successful transition to their new property and
area.
De-conversions and Extension Scheme
This scheme looks to reverse works that turned houses into flats, or provides
extensions where appropriate. The Council had received CLG funding to identify
vacant street properties where two or more were sited adjacently. 8 such sites had
been found, but due to planning issues only four had been completed. Some delays
meant that some funding had passed. The Commission learned that further
properties had been identified, but that there were questions about whether it would
be cheaper to build than to convert.
LBH, together with Hackney Homes, is seeking to submit a bid to the East London
Housing Partnership (ELHP) Board for de-conversion costs on these 4 properties at
£47,000 per unit. This is on the basis that it will be match funded by the other
participating boroughs.
Under-occupying Initiatives
LBH’s approach to under-occupancy is nationally recognised, with the CLG Tackling
Overcrowding in England Action Plan referring to the pilot work completed. It notes
that “In Hackney greater priority has been given to under-occupiers in their
allocations framework. Financial support is offered to cover the costs of moving,
whilst amenities in the new home are upgraded. An additional bedroom is also on
offer, if required. A bespoke ‘handholding’ service is provided for elderly tenants
throughout the move process. The number of transfers for under-occupiers has
increased by 50% in a year as a result, with the family homes freed-up through this
process ring-fenced for overcrowded families” 26.
26
‘Tackling overcrowding in England: An action plan’ Department for Communities and Local Government
(December 2007) p.9
p.22
The Commission learned that under-occupying tenants are offered an additional
bedroom in their new home where this is needed for reasons of support or family
cohesiveness, and where they are releasing a property with more than one
bedroom greater than their assessed need, so that the move offers a ’net gain’ in
rooms for the council to provide to overcrowded families.
One issue relating to under occupiers was how to inform them of the initiatives
being used to attract them to seek smaller properties. The Commission learned that
rent statements include a mail shot to advise tenants of the scheme and the
incentives offered. Hackney Homes estate managers also alert the Housing Needs
service of a household’s change of circumstances.
The Commission learned at its meeting in November 2008 that a snapshot of the
Council’s Housing Management ICT system at the end of September showed that it
has “live” enquiries from over 450 households who are seeking smaller
accommodation. The explanation given to why these households had not been
moved was that the Housing Needs service had completed a survey of under
occupiers who had decided not to move, and that one of the key issues related to a
lack of storage space in the new properties offered. To this end an exercise was
completed with a new development where storage space was maximised, and every
under occupier offered a property accepted. The Commission was encouraged by
this approach, though noted that storage and property design were not mentioned in
the draft overcrowding strategy received.
The survey of under occupiers also highlighted an issue with the quality of void
property, and works undertaken by the Council to make these more attractive. Oneoff funding of £860,000 was received to address this, through the Council’s annual
budget 200/10.
The two initiatives offered to under-occupying households are as follows:
Under Occupation Cash Incentive Scheme for Tenants (“Is Your Home Too Big?”)
This supports under-occupying tenants to move to a council or housing association
property that has fewer bedrooms than their current home. The scheme provides a
financial incentive for each bedroom released and also refurbishment works to the
new property to ensure it is equipped to modern standards to encourage the under
occupier to move. The estimated average cost of this scheme is £1,500 per
household, although for properties which require extensive work, the threshold is
£6,000. There were 168 moves in 2008/09 under this initiative at a cost of £250k.
Sea-Side and Country Homes Scheme
This is aimed at older people who wish to downsize and move to the countryside or
by the sea, often to be closer to friends and family. The scheme carries the same
financial incentives in terms of release of bedrooms but also assistance with travel
expenses, removal costs and rent advances to private landlords. The average cost
for this initiative is £3,000 per household and during 2008/09 17 under occupiers
were helped to move to a property out of London.
p.23
6.3.6 Future Initiatives
Home-Swapper mutual exchange scheme
This approach increases tenants’ options by enabling them to register for a
nationwide mutual exchange. Overcrowded households and under-occupiers can
search for homes suitable for their needs. Hackney Homes and RSLs in the
borough will be more able to establish the scale of overcrowding and match overcrowded households with under-occupied ones.
Perfect Fit scheme - East London Housing Partnership
This scheme will assist tenants across East London by enabling under occupying
tenants to move to suitable smaller properties, matching overcrowded households to
the vacated larger homes and releasing one and two bedroom homes for housing
register applicants. The scheme provides payment for each bedroom given up,
together with funding and assistance for removal costs.
Private Sector Leasing Scheme
This includes the acquisition of properties through the leasing of private sector
family-sized accommodation. The Council can take advantage of regulations that
permit it to lease accommodation outside the homelessness duties. The Local
Housing Allowance provides more generous rates for larger households. The
scheme includes a personal assistance package delivered by a dedicated support
officer.
Assist adult family members to find accommodation in the private sector
This is a new scheme being piloted in other boroughs which identifies adult family
members in overcrowded households and assists them to secure a home in either
the private or social sector thus easing the overcrowding of the host family. The
scheme is designed to provide both financial incentives and a personal assistance
package delivered by a dedicated support officer. The draft strategy notes that the
Council will look at the viability of this scheme for Hackney residents as part of
developing the strategy, though it appears that this has already been accepted
through the recent review of the Lettings Policy.
Space Management: a package of tailored interventions to improve the quality of life
for overcrowded families
This helps households make better use of their existing home through initiatives
linked to space management, health, education, play and parenting. Supporting an
overcrowded household to stay in the same property whilst they wait to move by
making modifications to property and engaging family members with relevant
support services can reduce the adverse impacts of overcrowding.
Create a common housing register and lettings policy
This is a long term strategic measure to ensure a common approach to tackling
overcrowding in partnership with RSLs in the borough. Having a set of agreed
standards in respect of registration, assessment, bidding and allocations, would
ensure a level playing field for all applicants and social tenants in Hackney.
As well as giving all participants greater flexibility in meeting their obligations, a
common housing register would provide an opportunity to achieve greater
consistency in lettings policies Currently Hackney Choice applicants may bid for a
property that is one bedroom less than they have been assessed for but only if
Hackney is the landlord. RSLs in the borough will be encouraged to adopt this
p.24
practice to alleviate cases of severe overcrowding, an initiative which is supported
by CLG.
Recommendation 2 (i): The Commission recommends that in finalising the
Overcrowding strategy, further consideration is given to how best to support families
in overcrowded conditions who are waiting to find new housing through the Choice
Based Letting system. The Space Management pilot should take account of all
examples of similar projects completed across London.
6.3.7 The Commission made several suggestions relating to the content and format of the
draft strategy, focused on areas that might be improved. These included earlier
reference to the success of existing initiatives, clarification around the use of
specific ethnicity titles, less reliance on the 2001 census (and explicit recognition
where it can’t be avoided that the data for Hackney is widely held to be inaccurate),
efforts to shorten the document through removing repeated sections, introduction of
a glossary of all acronyms & abbreviations, a fuller explanation of the banding
system used in the Lettings Policy applied, and more explicit references to
community cohesion. These were all accepted by officers at the meeting.
Outcome: Following discussion of the draft Overcrowding Strategy, several changes
were suggested and accepted
6.3.8 However there were some outstanding concerns about the content of the strategy,
and requests for further information which were outstanding at the time of producing
this report. In particular Members raised concerns that both the existing approaches
and future initiatives did not give full consideration to the potential impact had the
many ethnic communities living in the Borough. This was in part linked to the
concerns outlined in section 6.2.12 about the differing IT ethnic definitions used in
various IT recording systems, and no mention of the variance found in relative
success of the different communities using the Choice Based Letting system to bid
for homes. Officers agreed to address this as a priority activity during the
consultation period of the draft strategy, but to date the Commission has not
received an update on progress.
Another outstanding exercise followed a request to produce a Cost Benefit Analysis
of each of the initiatives covered in the strategy. Members were not clear what the
‘unit cost’ of each move achieved through the varied approaches was, and as such
were unable to provide their opinions about which initiative had been most
successful.
Recommendation 2 (ii): The Commission recommends that in preparing the final
Overcrowding strategy, an Equalities Impact Assessment is completed to consider
all aspects of the service but focused on: how ethnicity data is collated and used,
how different initiatives may serve one community better than others, and the
support given to individuals moving into the private rented sector.
Recommendation 3 (iv): The Commission recommends that recognition of
overcrowding together with wider issues relating to the impact of bad housing is
incorporated more explicitly in the strategies that make up the local Strategic Policy
Framework, including (though not exclusively) the Children & Young People’s Plan,
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, Community Cohesion strategy, and the Local
Development Framework core strategy. These references should be captured in the
p.25
Overcrowding Strategy to ensure shared approaches are maximised.
6.3.9 LBH Lettings Policy
As noted above, one of the key initiatives employed by the Council was to increase
the priority of severely overcrowded households (‘A’ Overcrowding Points, attracting
100 points, are awarded where a household is assessed to need at least two
additional bedrooms) through the Lettings Policy. ‘B’ Overcrowding Points attract 10
points where a household is assessed to need an additional bedroom and therefore
slightly overcrowded.
The banding system offers five separate levels, and residents are ‘banded’
according to the number of points they accrue relevant to housing needs as
recognised by the Council (it should be noted that the points awarded because of
need do not always accumulate) 27. The bands are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Emergency Band (Fire and flood in Council homes) 250+ points
Urgent Band (Severely overcrowded households) 100-240 points
Priority (non homeless)/Homeless Band 40-90 points
General Band (Slightly overcrowded households) 10-30 points
Reserve Band (household with no significant housing need) 0 points
Table 6: Lettings 2007-08 Outturn Summary Compared to Plan (Overcrowding
& Under-Occupancy excerpts)
Total Figures
07/8
07/8
Compared
1
2
3
4+
Bedsit
Band
Bed Bed Bed Bed Plan Outturn
to Plan
0
6
3
3
3
Emergency
9
15
+6
2
132 205 121 39
-96
Urgent
595
499
Under-Occupying
2
58
56
2
0
-52
170
118
“A” Overcrowded
0
3
97
82
20
175
202
+27
35
264 258 140 27
-154
Priority
878
724
52
43
12
2
0
-37
General
146
109
“B” Overcrowded
1
2
3
0
0
-24
30
6
Other- Sheltered
2
75
1
0
0
-81
Accommodation
159
78
moves
Under-Occupying
0
15
0
0
0
-7
22
15
100
549 503 274 69 1887
-392
Total Lets
1495
6.3.10 The Council operates a Choice Based Letting (CBL) scheme, which allows those on
the Housing Register to bid for available properties. This approach is used following
legislation from the Homelessness Act 2002, which requires authorities to give
reasonable priority to certain groups. The Housing register is open to all residents,
though legislation means not everyone was eligible - individuals must not be subject
to immigration control, have a history of eviction due to Anti-Social Behaviour or
Rent Arrears. Income is taken into account when considering priority.
6.3.11 The Council is keen to ensure that expectations are managed, and offer very clear
27
‘Hackney Council Lettings Policy: How we let our homes’ London Borough of Hackney (March 2009), p.12
p.26
information on the website of the company tasked with operating Hackney Choice
(East London Lettings Company). The site includes the information that “Hackney
Council has a waiting list of over 12,000 people, and like many other London
boroughs, does not have the supply of properties to match the huge demand.
Successful bidders will be those with the greatest need and likely to be in the top
three bands.” 28, and the following table:
Table 7: Average Length of Wait for Hackney Choice customers (2008-9)
Band/Housing Need
Median wait
in week
Total no of
Lets
Emergency
Urgent band
Decants
Under-Occupying tenants
"A" Medical
"A" Social
"A" Overcrowded
Other Urgent Band
Priority band
Priority Homeless
Move On Quota
Urgent mobility
Other Priority Band
General Band
"B" Overcrowded Tenants
Economically active
Non priority homeless
General Needs
No cost management
transfers
n/a
No lets 2008-9
67.6
70.8
15.9
70.5
23.8
68.9
119
90
25
234
35
557
0.0
4.3
0.0
113.7
80
29
0
814
149.6
192.3
0.0
23.5
7
79
46
4
191.4
149
6.3.12 One way that LBH are working to shorten the time residents wait is through making
the turnaround of void properties more efficient. As mentioned in section 6.3.5, oneoff funding of £860,000 was received to address this, and would help in a variety of
ways. Tenants are also now able to view ‘pre-voids’, which was aimed at making the
system faster, with agents informing residents how long the completion works would
take, and when they could expect to move in.
6.3.13 From table 7 it can be assumed that a severely overcrowded family was still likely to
wait for at six months in 2009 to bid successfully (which in itself is a significant
improvement on the previous year), but that this was still significantly faster than
lower bandings. The waiting times however do support the arguments to complete
interim works which will mitigate the impact of overcrowding. Several Councils
(notably LB Camden) used the money they received from DCLG to address the
effects of overcrowding, recognising that this was where they could best support
residents. LB Islington also produced a report entitled ‘Space to wind down’ which
focuses on tackling the effects of overcrowding, recognising that addressing the
28
East London Lettings Company website- http://www.ellcchoicehomes.org.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/1269.aspx
p.27
cause of the issue would take much longer. The LBH draft strategy does refer to
‘Space Management’ works, and the Commission strongly supports this approach.
6.3.14 A report received in November 2008 showed overcrowded families on the waiting
list (register) against existing overcrowded tenants (transfer). The table indicated a
steady increase in the number of slightly overcrowded households, against a
significant decline in the number of severely overcrowded households. Figures have
since been updated and show that for the year 2008/09 the overall number of
overcrowded households fell by 10% from 6157 to 5579, but more significantly the
number of households defined via the Bedroom Standard as severely overcrowded
fell by 42% from 790 in April 2008 to 462 a year later.
6.3.15 There are still some issues relating to the use of the CBL system to allocate
housing, notably in the differing lettings success by ethnicity. In November 2008 the
Commission received analysis outlining the ethnicity of households who
successfully bid against all applicants on the housing register. The data received
showed variance in three of the ethnic categories- African applicants made up 16%
of all active applicants, but received 26.4% of lettings in all bed categories. By
contrast Asian applicants made up 7% of all active applicants, but received just
1.1% of lettings in all bed categories (UK Black applicants were also underrepresented in successful lettings).
Table 8: Ethnicity of Successful Bidders against those on the Housing
Register
Ethnic Origin
Lettings in all
All Active
Variance
Bed Categories
Applicants
African
395
26.4%
2028
16.0%
10.4%
Asian
17
1.1%
890
7.0%
-5.9%
Chinese
9
0.6%
53
0.4%
0.2%
Caribbean/West
130
8.7%
1143
9.0%
-0.3%
Indian
Greek Cypriot
4
0.3%
64
0.5%
-0.2%
Irish
37
2.5%
271
2.1%
0.4%
Kurdish
18
1.2%
217
1.7%
-0.5%
Orthodox Jewish
18
1.2%
214
1.7%
-0.5%
Turkish Cypriot
18
1.2%
184
1.5%
-0.3%
Turkish
119
8.0%
945
7.5%
-0.5%
U.K. Black
192
12.8%
2088
16.5%
-3.7%
Vietnamese
14
0.9%
125
1.0%
-0.1%
White
342
22.9%
2933
23.2%
-0.3%
Other (Incl.
152
10.2%
1199
9.5%
-0.7%
Somali)
Not known
30
2.0%
311
2.5%
-0.5%
100%
Total
1495
12655 100%
6.3.16 The Community Safety and Social Inclusion (formerly Regeneration and Social
Inclusion) Scrutiny Commission completed a review entitled ‘Supporting Socially
Excluded Adults’, which also considered the issue of Choice Based Lettings. They
recommended that “the Neighbourhoods and Regeneration Directorate continues to
monitor the accessibility of the Hackney Choice system to ensure that clients such
as care leavers, ex-offenders, those with mental health issues or with mild learning
p.28
disabilities are not excluded” 29. The Cabinet Member supported this
recommendation and outlined a series of initiatives to ensure CBL was reaching all
residents, including “quarterly meetings… held with Voluntary agencies as part of
the monitoring process on accessibility of the system” 30.
6.3.17 The Council now offers support to any residents who find it difficult to use the CBL
system (which encourages use of computer technology sometimes daunting to
individuals). Among other approaches, training has been completed with other
groups who could assist residents, including library staff and voluntary sector
representatives, kiosks and PCs provided in various locations across the Borough,
CBL information booklets are available in community languages and on the
Hackney website, ‘Choice Homes’ magazines is delivered across the borough,
focus groups have been set up for non-bidders, assisted bidding is offered and
automated bidding for vulnerable clients unable to complete bids themselves.
6.3.18 A positive outcome from the Commission’s review was agreement to offer all
councillors this training on how to support residents in using the CBL system. It was
recognised that councillors in their ward capacity are frequently faced with residents
who struggle to use computer technology, and whilst the Commission noted the
significant efforts made by council officers to support these individuals, it was
agreed that Members were well placed to provide some of this assistance. It is felt
that the recommendation to offer CBL training to all Members will go some way to
ensure the process remains accessible to residents, whilst supporting Members in
the ward work.
Outcome: All Members will now be offered training on how to support residents who
use the Choice Based Letting system, thus supporting their wider ward work
Partnership Approaches
6.3.19 The East London Housing Partnership
The East London Housing Partnership (ELHP) consists of eight boroughs (City of
London, Barking and Dagenham, Hackney, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower
Hamlets and Waltham Forest), with the partnership's Board including the elected
Executive Councillor with the housing portfolio for each member authority and its
Director of Housing. There is also an Overcrowding Coordination Group, which
involves officers from the seven boroughs and RSLs, to discuss shared barriers and
approaches to tackling the problem.
The partnership has produced a document setting out the vision, aims and
objectives for tackling overcrowding in the sub region. Overcrowding is a problem
prevalent across London and the most severely affected overcrowded household
are within the East London Sub Region. The focus of the project has been to
engage partners, stakeholders, users and boroughs to create tangible actions and
outputs in addition to intangible outcomes for the benefit of a creating a better, more
prosperous and sustainable community within the East London Sub region. The
29
‘Supporting Socially Excluded Adults’ Regeneration and Social Inclusion) Scrutiny Commission (March
2008) Recommendation 4, p9
30
‘Executive response to Supporting Socially Excluded Adults Scrutiny Review’ Cabinet Member for
Community Services (Sept 2008)
p.29
contents of this document have been used to inform Hackney’s strategy to tackling
overcrowding in the borough.
6.3.20 The Better Homes Partnership
The Commission received a presentation from the Better Homes Partnership (BHP),
part of the Local Strategic Partnership which offers an environment where key
housing partners come together for creative and informed discussions regarding the
long term strategic vision for Hackney, and housing’s role in its delivery. The main
strategic objectives of the Better Homes partnership are to:
•
•
•
•
Increase the numbers of decent and affordable homes
Reduce overcrowding & homelessness by securing additional affordable homes
Increase the availability of homes in Hackney that are attractive to those unable
to afford market prices
Improve the condition and management of houses and housing estates in the
borough
The Commission heard that housing partnership is a complicated task, which
involves bringing together large housing providers who work in competition with
each other. The BHP found that strategic conversations were difficult to progress
when held at an organisational level, and when re-launched in its current format the
decision was taken that representatives would attend on an individual basis. This
allowed more creative and informed discussions. The BHP is the forum where the
Council leads strategic delivery (through discussions of policies such as the
Sustainable Community Strategy, Climate Change Strategy and LBH Housing
Strategy), but did not manage relationships. This role was performed by a team in
the Neighbourhoods and Regeneration directorate.
The group had recently been through a transition period with a change of both CoChairs, but is now led by the Deputy Mayor (who has portfolio responsibility for
housing) and the Chief Executive of Hackney Homes. The BHP have commissioned
some major schemes so far, using Local Area Agreement funding to achieve
interventions in key policy areas. These included Hackney First Step (a Low Cost
Home Ownership Scheme, discussed in more detail in section 6.6.2) and the
Special Purpose Vehicle (which focused on the development of new sites of home
building, similar to a community land trust). The BHP have also completed some
technical and difficult work in producing a set of shared standards for approaches to
housing management across the borough. The draft standards are currently out to
consultation with all the RSLs operating in the borough, and at present will focus on
anti-social behaviour and ‘liveability’. The Commission feels that RSLs and the
borough as a whole would benefit from a shared approach to tackling both
overcrowding and under-occupancy, and would welcome any work to include this in
a future review of the shared standards.
It was agreed that the BHP could consider wider issues relating to overcrowding in
the near future, and offered to receive a presentation of the review’s
recommendations at a future partnership meeting.
Recommendation 4 (iii): The Commission recommends that the Better Homes
Partnership continues its important work in agreeing shared standards across RSLs
relating to housing management, and consider including shared definitions of
p.30
overcrowding and approaches to supporting overcrowded residents during a future
review of these standards.
6.3.21 The Multi Area Agreement
Hackney is also involved in the Olympics Legacy Multi Area Agreement (MAA) that
is currently being developed by the 5 Host Boroughs (with Greenwich, Newham,
Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest). This is intended to “support and bring about
our local and national ambitions for a lasting social and physical legacy from the
hosting of the 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games” 31.
An MAA is a voluntary deal between Central Government and a collection of local
authorities to achieve better outcomes for the area. Normally Central Government
will provide flexibilities on specific policies or delivery of its services, and the local
authorities will agree to work closely together and pool resources to accomplish
certain outcomes.
The Olympic Legacy Multi Area Agreement has identified three themes as key
economic drivers in this area – worklessness and skills, housing and developing
communities, and the public realm. Under these themes, the report notes that
reducing housing overcrowding, homelessness and social housing waiting lists was
a key priority, through “stimulating new housing supply through different financial
investment approaches, and reaching an understanding around other boroughs
placing their residents into our social housing supply” 32. A draft submission was
made to Central Government in April 2009, and the Host Boroughs are waiting to
find out if their bid has been successful.
6.3.22 RSL Survey
As part of the review’s evidence gathering a letter was sent to all RSLs operating in
the borough to gauge their approach to alleviating overcrowding in their properties.
The response level was somewhat disappointing, with only 12 of the 70
organisations listed sending information (though there were issues with the Council
list of RSLs actually operating in Hackney). That said, the RSLs who did respond
made up some of the more significant local operators, accounting for 61% of the
total borough’s RSL stock.
Of these 12 RSLs, 9 felt that overcrowding was an issue in their properties (those
who felt it was not a problem tended to provide a stock of much smaller properties
such as flats and bedsits). Broadly the respondees felt that focusing on underoccupiers was more effective, and that a lack of appropriate properties and funding
were the major barriers to tackling overcrowding. Only three RSLs said they were
working with the Council on overcrowding initiatives, though all were positive about
this. Analysis of the feedback in provided at Appendix 5.
In relation to initiatives currently being used and questions about what else can be
done to alleviate overcrowding, the responses received were varied and
occasionally contradictory. Those RSLs who had replied were subsequently
31
‘Olympic 5 host boroughs - Multi area agreement’ Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the 2012
Olympic & Paralympic Games (1 June 2009), p.1
32
‘Olympic 5 host boroughs - Multi area agreement’ Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the 2012 Olympic
& Paralympic Games (1 June 2009), p.5
p.31
surveyed again to prioritise the different suggestions. The response to the second
survey was far better, with 9 of the 12 original respondees completing the short
questionnaire. From this the RSLs prioritised the following (all options had been
raised by RSLs in the original survey):
• Supporting under-occupiers to move was more effective than mutual exchange
schemes or re-commissioning empty homes. One noted that “you really need a
combination of the above. None on their own are effective”, whilst another
agreed that “it’s important to offer a full range of options supported by a flexible
fund so that solutions can be tailored to the needs and aspirations of individual
families”
• Managing tenants’ expectations and inadequate funding were the two main
barriers to effectively tackling overcrowding, above quota agreements with LBH
and suitable properties. It was noted by one that “Some boroughs allow
overcrowding from start of tenancy or under occupancy which totally defeats the
object” (they did not refer to LBH), and another stated that “All the above are part
of the environment we work in. The challenge is to provide a solution and we can
make a difference to some people if we were able to pool resources better”
• In re-stating the query about whether overcrowding was a problem in their
properties, 7 said that it was an issue, one felt it wasn’t as their current initiatives
had been successful, and the final one did not comment.
LBH Approach to Housing Options & Advice
6.3.23 The Council provides a range of housing-related advice and support services to
residents as a way of ensuring individuals are aware of key changes and that they
receive the most appropriate housing option. The Housing Options & Advice service
is key to achieving national targets relating to homelessness, temporary
accommodation and severe overcrowding.
6.3.24 The service is publicised through Hackney Website, booklets at reception points,
outreach work with various partner organisations, the annual Housing Option event,
Hackney Today and the Housing Needs Staff. The Commission learned that a key
challenge for the service is managing the expectations of those approaching the
Council for housing support, as the lack of adequate family-sized housing, issues
relating to the economic downturn and increasing number of people added to the
Housing Register increased pressures.
Mystery Shopping Exercise
6.3.25 Taking this pressure into consideration, and recognising both the complex nature of
housing provision and the demographic makeup of the Borough, the Commission
agreed to arrange a mystery shopping exercise to gauge the quality and
professionalism of the advice & options offered to local residents. An expert
consultant was tasked with completing a short mystery shopping exercise to provide
an specialist assessment of how well the Council were achieving these aims.
Members were eager to understand the ‘first point of contact’ experience for the
borough’s residents who face a multitude of housing issues (in the interest of
mystery shoppers avoiding detection this could not focus solely on Overcrowding,
due to the low weekly receipt of these contacts). The main focus of the mystery
shopping exercise was on the Council’s services- whilst the project did also take
p.32
account of information provided by Neighbourhood Offices and Citizens Advice
Bureau (CAB) this was only used to offer a reflection to the Council’s performance.
The following contacts were made, which provided a clear snapshot of response
quality for council services, and a reflection of the information provided elsewhere in
the borough. The exercise took place between 15th March and 29th April 2009. The
contacts made were as follows:
Table 9: Mystery Shopping Locations
Visits
Housing Advice & Options
4
Hackney Service Centre
0
Neighbourhood Offices
5
Citizens Advice Bureau
1
Total
10
Telephone Calls
10
10
25
5
50
Emails
4
0
5
1
10
Letters
5
0
0
0
5
The following provides an outline of the performance against the different
Competency Standards, together with some pertinent quotes (further detail about
responses is included as Appendix 6):
Table 10: Competency Standards Summary- Visits
Housing Options
& Advice (4)
Neighbourhood
Offices (4)
Citizens Advice
Bureau (1)
Overall
Average (10)
Friendliness
Interest
Attentive
Efficiency
&
Effectiveness
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
100%
100%
60%
60%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
70%
Information
Full
Answer
Experiences- Visits
“I carried out the Mystery Shop on behalf of my 'nephew', so I was given info to
relay to my nephew so he could get problem solved. The person I spoke to gave me
as much info as I could have expected; telling me what the next step my nephew
should take was.” (Housing Options & Advice)
“Gave details on first point of call, neighbourhood office and domestic violence
team, kind, sympathetic and seemed to care.” (Housing Options & Advice)
“The staff member directed me to the Hackney Homeless unit and gave clear
directions on how to get there.” (CAB)
“I had a really long wait to be seen nearly 1 hour. The person at the reception desk
handing out the tickets was not friendly, grumpy. Also told me that 4 people were in
front of me in the queue which was not true as about 10 people were called.”
(Housing Options & Advice)
“On the staff member’s return I saw a customer taking a ticket themselves (I would
assume they thought it was self service as no-one was there). The staff member
said in a really loud voice "What are you doing taking a ticket, you don't do that you
queue this way round and I take the ticket and I give it to you".” (Housing Options &
Advice)
p.33
Table 11: Competency Standards Summary- Phone Calls
Friendliness
Initiative
Positive
Efficiency
&
Effectiveness
Information
Full
Answer
70%
70%
70%
78%
50%
30%
90%
80%
90%
70%
60%
50%
71%
63%
75%
74%
63%
65%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
76%
70%
79%
75%
62%
52%
Housing Options
& Advice (10)
Hackney
Service Centre
(10)
Neighbourhood
Offices (25)
Citizens Advice
Bureau (5)
Overall
Average (50)
Experiences- Phone calles
“Warm and polite feel. Clearly wanted to help. His responses covered most of the
model answer. He wished me a good weekend”
(Housing Options & Advice)
“I was passed over to the Advice & Options Team and the Operator seemed to
know what she was talking about. Excellent response!”
(Hackney Service Centre)
“I was transferred to four different departments each time I was being transferred I
was put on hold for approximately three minutes each time. On the fourth transfer
the person I was on the phone to actually cut me off”
“The officer listened to my question and interrupted me. I explained to them that
they hadn't understood what I was asking and repeated the question. They told me
that they could not help me”
“The staff member I spoke to located the Translator and as soon as he came on the
line, she hung up and was gone! The net result was that the Translator could not
answer my question as he was simply a Translator!”.
Table 12: Competency Standards Summary- Email
Housing Options
& Advice
Neighbourhood
Offices
Citizens Advice
Bureau
Overall
Average
Emails Sent
Replies Received
Response Rate
4
3
75%
5
0
0
1
0
0
10
3
30%
Experiences- Letters
Five letters were sent to Housing Options & Advice. None were sent to alternative
Council outlets or the CAB. Only one letter was replied to.
“A fast response, however very disappointing. No details or advice was provided to
me in the body of the letter no leaflets nothing. Just a letter asking for more details.
Very cold not friendly and blunt. No use of headed paper so lacked professionalism”
p.34
It was explained following the mystery shopping exercise that, despite being a
relatively small exercise, some of the experiences had been shared in other
customer services assessments (such as the Customer Services for London face to
face benchmarking exercise and quarterly customer services directorate
performance assessment, which was completed by the same consultants as the
Scrutiny mystery shopping exercise).
The Commission learned that the Housing Options & Advice team were working
closely with the Hackney Services Centre (HSC), and that there was a need for
greater clarity around the Single Front Office approach. The Community Services
directorate (of which Housing Options & Advice was a part) has responsibilities for
customer services, which offered useful linkages for future improvements. It was
also understood that the Council would work closer with Neighbourhood Offices to
agree a shared approach to dealing with residents’ enquiries.
Specific issues relating to the feedback had been raised with officers, and that an
‘Action Plan letter’ had been distributed among relevant staff. The Commission
appreciated this approach, and were told that the service tried to be proactive in
their support to residents wherever possible, but that the scale of requests for
advice sometimes hindered this. Housing officers agreed that the exercise would be
repeated in 12 months time.
Recommendation 3 (iii): The Commission recommends that the Mystery Shopping
be repeated by May 2010 (using the completed survey's questions to provide
comparable data), and that the results of both the latest report and the repeated
exercise be fed into the Council’s service planning.
The Commission also noted that the Head of the Hackney Service Centre had
received a copy of this report and had commented on the findings. He noted that
following the mystery shopping exercise the service is planning to meet with the
Citizens Advice Bureau and discuss their approach to advising residents, following
their positive feedback from the exercise.
Outcome: Council services have been improved by learning from the good practice
of other local housing information providers
Housing Advice - Other Agencies
Shelter
6.3.26 Housing advice is obviously provided by other agencies who are not connected to
the Council. As part of the review the Commission took evidence from Shelter, to
understand their views about the impact of overcrowding, but also the work they do
in Hackney to provide support to residents. They currently run 2 housing advice
surgeries in the borough (though one is presently experiencing funding issues),
including a weekly session at Woodberry Down primary school. There is a Pan
London telephone helpline and training provided to staff at Children’s Centres,
which provides the highest contact in Hackney.
6.3.27 Following a request for further information it was noted that over the past 2 years,
Shelter dealt with 589 cases from people living in Hackney. The figure includes
cases from their London housing advice service, calls to the national helpline
p.35
number and calls to their Children’s Service line (the Children’s line is a second tier
advice line for professionals working in Children’s Centres who have clients in
housing need). Of these, a minimum of 22 cases involved overcrowding as the main
presenting problem. Shelter recognised the concern that this figure only represents
the main presenting problem, but that residents often approach them with other
issues (such as homelessness, transfers or unsuitable accommodation) which will
be recorded as their main presenting problem. Overcrowding is often one of the
other problems they are experiencing.
6.3.28 During the presentation a concern was raised that some of the individuals referred
to who had contacted Shelter had not subsequently approached LBH for support.
Following the meeting a referral protocol was agreed between the two groups, to
ensure a formalised approach to sharing information and supporting residents.
Recommendation 3 (i): The Commission recommends that the formal referral
system now used with Shelter be revised accordingly to be agreed with all relevant
local housing advice providers.
6.3.29 The Commission learned during the presentation received from Shelter in February
2009 of two initiatives due to start- a photography project entitled ‘Dickensian Living’
which worked with young people from four London Boroughs (including Hackney),
and work to help overcome the barriers to delivering larger homes during the
economic downturn (linked to the ‘Building Blocks’ report received by the
Commission). Shelter explained that they had found working with housing officers
from LBH helpful and professional, comparing them favourably to neighbouring
boroughs.
Children’s Centres
6.3.30 As part of the recent Children & Young People Scrutiny Commission’s review of the
provision of services for 0-5 year olds, Members visited Children’s Centres to meet
some of the parents who attended. The overwhelming response was that those
attending surgeries at Children’s Centres wanted better access to housing advice.
They review’s final report noted that “the Commission encountered consistent
messages about the importance of practical and frequent interaction between
Children’s Centre services and Hackney Homes. At formal public meetings and
during interviews with parents the current weakness of this link were described by
partner agencies and parents alike” 33. They recommended that a representative of
Hackney Homes be invited onto each of the six Area Steering Groups for Early
Years Services in order to foster mutually beneficial working relationships, and
consideration be given to how a housing advice surgery might be offered to parents
as part of the wider information provided. The Executive agreed to these
recommendations, noting that a pilot programme was currently underway at Tyssen
Children’s Centre, providing drop-in housing advice sessions, and that analysis
would be completed to consider offering this elsewhere.
6.3.31 Since the review was completed there has been progress in offering housing advice
at Children’s Centres. A meeting was held between The Learning Trust, a
representative of Children’s Centres, a Housing Options & Advice manager, and a
representative from Shelter who works to coordinate local Housing and Children’s
33
‘Provision of 0-5 Years Services In Hackney’, Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission (February
2009), p.10
p.36
Services. They agreed:
• The Learning Trust to be invited to the regular meeting of all RSLs, to improve
signposting from RSLs to local Children’s Centres and to develop information
sharing
• The Housing Options team to be invited to the quarterly meeting of all Children’s
Centre Managers in Hackney
• The Housing Options team to be invited to Multi-Agency Team Meetings, at
which a wide range of professionals attend to discuss individual cases (which
historically have included housing concerns)
• The Housing Options team provide direct engagement in surgeries at Children’s
Centres. This would initially be on a pilot basis at a single Children’s Centre, and
will be rolled out more widely if successful.
This is significant progress against the recommendations of the Children & Young
People Scrutiny Commission, and officers from The Learning Trust and Housing
Options should be commended. The Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission would
like officers to ensure that issues relating to overcrowding are considered in all of
these new joint ventures. This should include training staff from Children’s Centres
on options available to families and raising awareness of the impact of
overcrowding, whilst ensuring that housing officers who attend surgeries are
providing the latest information relating to overcrowding initiatives.
Recommendation 3 (ii): The Commission recommends that as part of the work to
link Children’s and Housing services following the Children & Young People
Scrutiny Commission’s review of 0-5 Services, efforts should be undertaken to
educate staff from Children’s Centres on the impact of overcrowding and options
available to families, whilst ensuring that housing officers who attend surgeries are
providing the latest information relating to overcrowding initiatives.
Utilising the Private Sector
6.3.32 At the Commission meeting in February 2009, Shelter discussed working with the
private rented sector, but advised doing this with caution. Whilst it can provide
choice and a potential solution for families, there are questions around security of
tenure, rent levels, accredited landlords, and the capping of Local Housing
Allowance. Their core concern was that the private rented sector in London was
experiencing significant increases in overcrowding (with Shelter suggesting it had
doubled since 2002/03, and rising at a similar rate as it is in the social sector), with
55,000 overcrowded households in the private rented sector in London.
6.3.33 It was explained that whilst the Council can help applicants to search for local
landlords, it tends to be faster if individuals find their own rented property and the
Council then helps to negotiate with the landlord. Some individuals prefer to operate
with organisations rather than single landlords, for safety reasons.
6.3.34 The Multi Area Agreement (referred to in section 6.3.19) also recognises the
importance of engaging private sector landlords, both to alleviate pressure on social
housing but to improve the local public realm. The latest report notes that the five
Host Boroughs intend to “work with private landlords on better rental conditions and
p.37
stimulate private sector renewal for housing and frontages” 34.
6.3.35 The Commission learned at its meeting in December 2008 that during the economic
downturn the Council was increasingly receiving contact from private landlords who
were struggling to fill vacancies in their properties, or to help with conversions for
individuals with special needs. It also learned that Sheffield City Council was
opening a web-based list that helps landlords find tenants.
6.3.36 A national review entitled The Private Rented Sector: its potential and contribution
(known as the Rugg Review) was completed in 2008 and was commissioned to
address the capacity of the sector to meet a range of housing needs, whilst
recognising that the sector presents a number of policy challenges relating to such
issues as property quality, management standards and security of tenure. The
report notes that “at the heart of the Review is the desire to see private renting as a
less marginal, poorly-regarded ‘third’ option that sits behind the preferred tenures of
owner occupation and social renting” 35.
The review goes on to recognise that local and national policies “should therefore
concentrate on helping good landlords of all sizes to expand their portfolios” 36.
In relation to the quality of landlord management, the review recognises the frequent
criticisms of the private rented sector and the contradicting satisfaction levels (it
states that three quarters of private tenants were either very or fairly satisfied with
their landlord).
“Market forces do not adequately ‘police’ management quality in the private
rented sector, since there is an excess of demand for rental property at the
bottom of the sector. In general, the task of policing is spread amongst a
number of agencies including different local authority officers, other statutory
agencies including HM Revenue and Customs, the police and the industry
itself. Local authority Environmental Health Officers carry the principal
responsibility for policing the sector, but there is dissatisfaction with the level
of priority and therefore resources afforded this activity by local authorities” 37.
The review notes that accreditation carries the potential to improve better
management practice amongst landlords who are already seeking to operate in a
professional fashion. Landlords who voluntarily enter into such a scheme could
achieve a market advantage, highlighting previous success in some student rental
sub-markets. Compulsory registration of landlords has already been introduced in
Scotland, but dissatisfaction with the process has become evident amongst
landlords due to delays in the processing of applications.
6.3.37 Sheffield City Council has also led on this approach. Their Responsible Landlord
Scheme was launched in February 2003, with the aim to support and encourage
34
‘Olympic 5 host boroughs - Multi area agreement’ Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the 2012 Olympic
& Paralympic Games (1 June 2009), p.5
35
‘The Private Rented Sector: its potential and contribution’ Julie Rugg and David Rhodes, Centre for Public
Housing University of York (2008), p.iii
36
‘The Private Rented Sector: its potential and contribution’ Julie Rugg and David Rhodes, Centre for Public
Housing University of York (2008), p.vi
37
‘The Private Rented Sector: its potential and contribution’ Julie Rugg and David Rhodes, Centre for Public
Housing University of York (2008), p.xii
p.38
private landlords to improve standards in the private rented sector. The scheme is
based around standards relating to the physical condition of properties and the
standard of management. over 330 landlords have become members, covering over
900 properties.
Sheffield Council want to encourage landlords to improve their properties
voluntarily, so that they can concentrate enforcement activity on those landlords
who persist with wilful bad management and who give the private rented sector a
poor image. They hold regular Landlord Forum meetings which are free for
landlords with property in Sheffield to attend.
6.3.38 It is worth noting that the Government has recently consulted on a nationwide
accreditation scheme, and the wording of the report suggests that CLG is
particularly supportive of this. The report notes that “We do not want to go back to
the days of over-regulation which caused the sector to contract in the post war
era… but we do want to help local authorities enforce legislation designed to protect
the most vulnerable and we do want to ensure that the vast majority of good
landlords are not stigmatised by virtue of the existence of the few who are
unprofessional and, sometimes, criminal in intention” 38. It therefore recommends
that a national register of private landlords be established, which they believe will
help local authorities to target the worst-performing individuals, whilst helping to
provide landlords with the training and information. CLG feels that this approach
“provides a means by which we can drive up standards and isolate those who wish
to operate outside the law rather than penalise all by removing their ability to regain
possession of their property or imposing onerous licensing requirements on them” 39.
The consultation has now closed, and the outcome will be published in due course.
6.3.39 Another council who has used the private sector is Kingston upon Thames, whose
‘Breathing Space’ initiative involves privately leased homes owned by landlords
being leased to the Council to use as temporary accommodation. Whilst living in this
larger temporary home, residents can continue to look for council or housingassociation properties as they become available through the Choice Based Lettings
Scheme. Breathing Space homes are let at market rents, which are higher than
council rents, though residents can still claim Housing Benefit to help.
6.3.40 When discussing the draft Overcrowding Strategy in June 2009, the Commission
had a particular interest in how to make the private rented sector a more attractive
option for local residents. It recognised that it would be impossible to alleviate the
pressure on social housing without actively engaging the sector, but raised
concerns how to ensure residents were protected from malpractice and absentee
landlords. This was particularly true when considering the ‘Choose and Move’
initiative for overcrowded families, who were offered financial and organisational
support to move into the private rented sector.
6.3.41 Members showed a particular interest in how the Council monitors private sector
conditions and relations between landlords and tenants who had accepted a move
from their overcrowded social housing. Officers recognised the concerns, noting that
38
‘The private rented sector: professionalism and quality: The Government response to the Rugg Review
Consultation’ Department for Communities and Local Government (May 2009), p.17
39
‘The private rented sector: professionalism and quality: The Government response to the Rugg Review
Consultation’ Department for Communities and Local Government (May 2009), p.17
p.39
work had started to address these sorts of issues. The main issue was how to track
those who move into the private sector, and the need to avoid the vicious cycle of
moving into private rented homes and becoming homeless. The Commission
recommended that stronger emphasis be made in the draft Overcrowding strategy
on work to improve the reputation of the private rented sector, including
consideration of a voluntary accreditation scheme. This was accepted by officers.
Recommendation 1: The Commission recommends that in finalising the
Overcrowding strategy, further consideration is given to how best to utilise the
private rented sector to help alleviate the pressure on local housing registers. The
Commission anticipates that this would include wider publicity and use of the
Londonwide voluntary accreditation scheme for landlords, East London partnership
work with larger private landlords, evidence of the strongest action taken against
rogue landlords and formalised support for individuals or families moved into private
rented accommodation. The Commission would also like the Council to provide
feedback on the innovative approaches used in other London Boroughs (such as
Kingston’s “Breathing Space” initiative), and how they may be utilised in Hackney.
6.4
LBH Approach to the Provision of Family-Sized Housing and High Density
Living
The Commission was informed that the bulk of social housing in Hackney consists
of flats, set mainly on housing estates. For example, of the 23,155 Council homes
managed by Hackney Homes, 21,171 (91%) were flats. Most of these are in
medium rise blocks (12,505), although 7,823 are on the 6th floor or higher. Across
the borough more than 75% of residents live in flats. Despite LBH assurances to
build more family-sized properties the trend for flats is due to continue, with over
90% of social rented dwellings currently being constructed by housing associations
being flats. This will doubtless add pressure on those trying to house larger families,
and the families themselves.
6.4.1 The Protection and New Build of Family-Sized Housing
The draft Housing Strategy for London notes that “the failure to provide enough
larger homes over recent years has seen overcrowding grow by a third since
between 1994-97 and 2004-07” 40. This is true across the capital, but felt acutely
where overcrowding is an issue of historical significance. Of the 50,000 affordable
homes in London due to be delivered between 2008 and 2011, 30,000 will be social
rented and of these 42% will be for families.
The London Plan, produced by the previous Mayor of London in 2004, stipulates
that an additional 1,085 homes be built in Hackney each year from 2006-2016. The
Plan is currently being amended by the new Mayor and is subject to consultation.
The proposed Core Strategy of the Council’s Local Development Framework is the
highest-level local planning document, covering the whole borough. It focused on
‘future planning’, and is one of the key documents in the Strategic Policy
Framework. It states that that Hackney can more than meet these targets, but that
such a large building project would need to be carefully managed. Not only would
40
‘The Housing Strategy for London’ Mayor of London (draft May 2009), p.25
p.40
development need to reflect local desires and planning regulations but would also
recognise sustainability issues, as poor planning could “lead to flash flooding as well
as creating pollution, damaging watercourse habitat and causing bank erosion” 41.
When the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was agreed in 1995 it was
recognised that “the high rate of conversions is such that there has been a
substantial loss of accommodation suitable for households with children” 42. The
Council’s policy with regard to conversions is laid out in planning policy HO12 of the
UDP, with the policy and associated justification being carried forward to the Local
Development Framework (LDF). This does not outlaw conversions, but simply notes
that “the Council will normally permit a conversion scheme in houses of not less
than 120 square metres (300 square feet) floorspace, including internal circulation,
unless it conflicts with meeting the social and housing needs of residents of a
property or area which the Council have specified as a renewal area” 43. The
reasoning for this was that “the threshold of 120 square metres enables the
retention of houses for households with children whilst permitting houses of greater
floorspace to be converted to provide a range of dwelling sizes” 44. Further
information relating to the Council’s approach to Conversions can be found at
Appendix 7.
The Commission learned that LBH is offered first nominations on 75% of familysized homes (2 or more bedrooms) from RSL properties available to be re-let, and
50% of one bedroom properties, which provided another way of ensuring higher
numbers of family-sized properties on the Choice Based Letting (CBL) bidding
system. One of the RSLs who responded to the Commission’s questionnaire
however felt that this nomination agreement was a barrier to their own ability to
tackle overcrowding in their properties.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) produced a report entitled ‘Focus on London’,
which published a wide variety of data on various issues facing the capital 45.
Amongst other topics, it provided an overview of the number of houses lost to
conversion between 2004/5 and 2007/8. Hackney’s assessment is provided below:
Table 13: Net conversions of houses and flats by London borough, 2004/5 to
2007/8
Net Increase in Flats
Net Increase in Houses 4 Year Net Change
Year
04/5
05/6
06/7
07/8 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8
Flats
Houses
36
91
64
71
-13
-29
-24
-26
262
-92
Hackney
1,550
2,243
2,278
2,447 -570 -828 -844 -867
8,518
-3,109
London
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Residential Extensions
and Alterations was agreed by Council in April 2009, and noted that “it is intended to
bring forward a separate SPD on Residential Conversions” 46. This is due to be
agreed in 2010, and the Commission supports the strongest wording possible in
41
‘Local Development Framework: Draft Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document’ London Borough of
Hackney (June 2009), p.123
42
London Borough of Hackney’s Unitary Development Plan (June 1995), p.124
43
London Borough of Hackney’s Unitary Development Plan (June 1995), p.123
44
London Borough of Hackney’s Unitary Development Plan (June 1995), p.123
45
The Greater London Authority ‘Focus on London’ (June 2009), p.161
46
London Borough of Hackney’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extensions and Alterations
(April 2009), p.80 para 4.38
p.41
preventing any further loss of family-sized accommodation.
At its meeting in May 2009, the Overview & Scrutiny Board (OSB) considered the
draft LDF Core Strategy. Members agreed that officers should consider whether
more explicit terms could be used in relation to preventing the loss of family-sized
accommodation, but the feedback received was simply that this level of detail would
be included in a future SPD.
Recommendation 5 (i): The Commission recommends that the Commission pursues
any activity that will continue to protect family-sized accommodation. This may
include any possible intervention through the anticipated Supplementary Planning
Document relating to Residential Conversions (subject to their evidence gathering),
and priorities within the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. The Council
should identify any other areas where family-sized properties can be protected
(through initiatives like the Empty Homes scheme), or converted to provide homes
for larger groups.
The Council is also committed to building new family-sized properties, many of
which will be for the social rented sector. The table below outlines the number of
new affordable homes currently projected to be delivered in Hackney over the 20082011 period through the National Affordable Homes Programme (NAHP). It is
important to note that this represents more new-build family-sized properties than
any other London Borough.
Table 14: New Affordable Homes by Housing Tenure to be provided 2008-11
Number of New
% of 3+ Bedroom
Number of New
Homes with 3+
Housing Tenure
Homes
Affordable Homes
Bedrooms
Social Rent
1,056
628
59%
Low Cost Home
1,264
134
11%
Ownership
Intermediate Rent
288
38
13%
Total
2,608
800
31%
The Commission was informed that the initial announcement on the 2008-11
programme reported that 65% of the social rented homes due to be delivered in
Hackney would have at least 3 bedrooms (39% with 3 bedrooms and 26% with 4+
bedrooms); in addition, 14% of the homes due for delivery as intermediate homes
would have at least 3 bedrooms, which compares well against a London Plan target
of 8%.
6.4.2 Local Approach to High-Density Living
During a presentation relating to Affordable Housing, Members raised an interest in
the Council’s approach to high density living, and how both the London Plan and
Local Development Framework (LDF) handles this issue. It was noted that, locally,
quality standards and planning regulations ensured that developers followed
guidance in providing high-density housing.
Prior to the introduction of Choice Based Lettings in 2006, no family would be
placed in a flat above the 3rd floor of a block, which did not have a lift installed.
p.42
However the introduction of Choice Based Lettings meant that families now select
their own accommodation that they feel best suits their needs. Families can visit
and view the outside of prospective properties, prior to putting in a bid.
In June 2006, the Planning and Spatial Development Committee of the London
Assembly investigated the need for more family homes in London. Its report ‘Size
Matters’ debates the suitability of high density housing for families. Evidence from
organisations such as London Borough of Camden suggested that, if designed
correctly with adequate play spaces and local amenities, high density housing can
be a suitable option for families. Others such as East Thames Housing felt that it
was only a viable option for higher income families, who could choose where they
lived.
The draft LDF Core Strategy explains that “excellent design and infrastructure
planning are vital when intensifying land use and increasing density to ensure that
growth contributes positively to community wellbeing. A past tendency to accept
mediocre development in the interest of attracting investment is unacceptable in this
context” 47.
The following measures are used in Hackney to ensure the highest possible
standards in the design of new residential development in Hackney:
Planning regulations and quality standards- London Plan Supplementary Planning
Guidance
Standards in relation to the number of properties and habitable rooms per hectare
are contained within the London Plan’s Supplementary Planning Guidance. The
guidance contains a matrix, specifying densities that can be permitted within areas
in either central, urban or suburban settings, against their proximity to town centres
and transport corridors – the more urban the setting and the closer its proximity to
transport and town centre amenities, the higher the densities permitted.
The guidance states that “lower density developments lend themselves more,
though not exclusively, to family housing. The London Plan density matrix assumes
a much higher number of habitable rooms per dwelling for lower density
development. This generally makes them more appropriate for higher proportions of
social rented affordable housing, given the need for predominantly family social
housing provision, which in turn will require a higher level of provision of open areas
and play space” 48.
Most of Hackney falls within the Urban setting of the above London Plan Matrix,
which for flatted development means a range of 450 – 700 habitable rooms per
hectare is generally allowed. The range for areas designated as falling in a Central
setting (Old Street currently but also Dalston and Hackney Central Town Centres,
as transport connections are improved), has a higher range of 650 – 1,100 habitable
rooms per hectare.
However, decisions in relation to admissible densities in Hackney are made on a
47
‘Local Development Framework: Draft Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document’ London Borough of
Hackney (June 2009), p.21
48
‘Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing’ Mayor of London (Nov 2005), p.10
p.43
site by site basis, and as well as the London Plan SPG also depend on factors such
as the suitability of the proposed layout, context of the surrounding area, including
infrastructure, and play/open space provision. Where tall buildings are involved,
these will (under the proposed LDF Core Strategy) be permissible in 15 defined
locations in the Borough, and the Council takes the guidance on tall buildings
produced by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) into
consideration.
LBH Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) – New Residential Development
The Council also has its own set of standards in relation to new residential
developments, which were adopted in 1988. These specify minimum standards in
relation to a whole range of factors such as street layout, landscaping, room size,
sunlight and play areas. Minimum sizes for kitchens, dining rooms, living rooms,
bedrooms and storage areas are stipulated. For example, a main bedroom in
properties built for two or more people, must be at least 11m2 and 8.5m2 for a
property designed for one person.
Homes & Communities Agency – Housing Quality Indicators
In order to qualify for funding under the Homes & Communities Agency’s National
Affordable Homes Programme (the main source of funding for developing socially
rented and intermediate housing) RSLs and other bidding bodies must complete a
detailed questionnaire, to prove that their developments meet minimum standards in
ten categories, including proximity to amenities, open spaces and accessibility, as
well as unit size and layout.
Space standards are stipulated in terms of overall dwelling size (as opposed to
minimum room size), so are not directly comparable to the above Hackney SPG–
however the minimum space standard for a dwelling with one bedspace is 30–35m2,
roughly on a par with the Council’s standards for single person accommodation.
The Homes & Communities Agency’s minimum standards for accommodation for
two or more people are more generous than minimum standards for Hackney, with a
minimum of 45–50m2 required for a two bedspace property. However, as noted
above, local space standards are due to reviewed through the LDF.
The Hackney Design Panel
The Neighbourhoods and Regeneration Directorate has recently established the
Hackney Design Panel. The panel currently consists of 42 locally based
development professionals such as architects, surveyors and urban designers.
The Panel meets regularly with developers and Planners from the Council to
critically appraise proposals for new housing developments over ten units. The aim
is to engender best practice through peer review and negotiation, rather than
coercion and enforcement.
Hackney Design Awards
Since 2004 the Council has organised a bi-annual awards scheme, to celebrate and
incentivise high quality design within the borough. Anyone can nominate a building
p.44
within Hackney. The entries are judged by a panel of experts. In 2008, 36
nominations were received, 20 were shortlisted and the results were 4 winners, 2
commendations and 4 mentions. Nominations came from all areas – the architects
who designed the scheme, the residents who now inhabit the homes, people
inspired by the look of a building, or pupils of schools. The brochure produced
following this award round noted that “the Hackney Design Awards, among other
projects, will continue to highlight Council’s commitment to ensuring development in
the borough is of the highest quality and that the efforts of all involved are
celebrated” 49.
The following schemes are both examples of good practice in high quality, high
density residential living. They have been designed for a wide range of residents,
including families, incorporating social, intermediate and homes for sale. Both are
on brown field sites in central locations:
1 Dunn Street (Network Housing/Proctor and Mathews Architects): This is a
mixed use redevelopment, comprising 170m2 of office/workshop space and
27 residential units consisting of 1-3 bed flats, 3-4 bed maisonettes. 52% of
the houses are affordable. The design maximises internal and external
useable space and is informed by an effective landscaping approach.
Holly Street (Modern City Living/Levitt Bernstein Architects): This scheme
won a Housing Design Award in 2007. This in part reflected the inclusion of a
significant element of family housing in a higher density development. A third
of the 151 units are family units, including 48 houses, 21 of which will be for
social rent, 27 for sale. The scheme is part of the wider redevelopment of the
Holly Street Estate, which has also included the development of a leisure
centre and is in close proximity to the planned East London line tube station
in Dalston.
Recommendation 5 (ii): The Commission recommends that the impact of
overcrowding and the expectations of residents moving out of under-occupied
properties are included in the design guidance and best practice used locally, most
probably through the Housing Strategy and the anticipated Housing Design SPD.
These should draw on the examples shared with the Commission, such as the Holly
Street development, and could benefit from regular liaisons with the officers who
work closely with families impacted by overcrowding.
6.5
Initiatives to Alleviate Overcrowding- National
Effective Interventions
6.5.1 The Action Plan built on the work of the five pilot authorities (including Hackney),
and set out to provide guidance for all local authorities who experienced
overcrowding. In order to progress the action plan the Government allocated £15m
towards tackling overcrowding over the period 2008-11, together with the award of
Pathfinder status to 38 local authorities (all London authorities, Birmingham,
Bradford, Leicester, Liverpool and Manchester), building on the good practice work
of five overcrowding pilots in London. CLG estimated that 60% of all overcrowded
49
‘Hackney Design Awards 2008’ London Borough of Hackney (January 2009), p.1
p.45
households in the social rented sector lived in these areas.
6.5.2 The Action Plan explained that Central Government were committed to evaluating
the overcrowding pathfinders (and using the outcomes of the pathfinder evaluation
to take forward a national approach to tackling overcrowding), working to spread
best practice nationally, underpinning the work on overcrowding by updating the
overcrowding standards, and increasing the amount of family-sized social housing.
6.5.3 In July 2008 CLG produced a self-assessment for local authorities, which drew on
the experiences of the pilot authorities and the 38 pathfinders. The self-assessment
asks 59 questions across the following 15 themes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Corporate and member commitment
Adopting an overcrowding strategy and action plan
Setting up a team
Establishing baseline position on levels and severity of overcrowding and under
occupation
Accessing and using financial resources
Joint working and partnerships
Reviewing allocations policies to aid tackling overcrowding
Allocations schemes and under occupation
Developing options interviews
Making best use of existing occupied property
Private rented sector options
Dealing with under occupation
Mobility options, including moving out of the area and help to find Private Rented
Sector (PRS) property elsewhere in the region or beyond
Cash incentive schemes to assist home purchase through low cost market
housing
Overcrowding and chain lettings
6.5.4 There is no requirement to complete the self-assessment or submit it to CLG, but
Hackney has recognised the value in doing so. In June 2009 officers explained to
the Commission that LBH could provide evidence of work in all 13 of the areas, with
the draft Overcrowding Strategy providing further detail:
• There is evidence of political commitment to tackling overcrowding supported by
availability of Capital and Revenue funding for initiatives;
• Overcrowding is a key project for the relevant Directorate and measurable
targets have been set;
• A plan is in place to have a Tackling Overcrowding strategy in place during
2009/10;
• There is a dedicated team, including an officer with overall responsibility for
overcrowding issues;
• A baseline for overcrowding has been established and the level of overcrowding
in the borough is known;
• The budget is clearly allocated;
• There are good arrangements in place for joint working with Hackney Homes
and RSLs operating in the borough;
• There are Allocations Schemes and Under Occupation initiatives;
• LBH is making best use of existing properties;
p.46
•
•
LBH is dealing effectively with under occupied households; and
Making good use of the private rented option.
There were some areas which Hackney has yet to progress fully and these include:
• Considering cash incentive schemes to assist in low cost house purchasing –
this has not been adopted in Hackney as it was deemed not cost-effective.
• Pursuing Chain Lettings initiative – the purpose of this initiative has been
achieved by the change in policy for severely overcrowded households.
Changes to the Bedroom Standard and Potential Legislation
6.5.5 The central national paper relating to this issue, DCLG’s Tackling Overcrowding:
Action Plan recognises the problems associated with a variance between the
statutory definition and the updated bedroom version. The 2007 reports notes that
the Government will “underpin the work on overcrowding by updating the
overcrowding standards” 50, but despite more recent assurances that this would
happen (the latest suggesting it would happen in 2009) sadly nothing since then has
been confirmed.
6.5.6 A Housing (Overcrowding) Bill 2003 was introduced that attempted to bring into
legislation the bedroom standard as the national statutory definition. Unfortunately
this was not included in the Housing Act 2004.
London Commitments
6.5.7 For the first time, the Mayor of London is due to introduce targets to reduce the
amount of severe overcrowding and under-occupancy in the capital. To this end, the
draft Housing Strategy for London states that the level of severe overcrowding in the
social rented sector should be halved, and the number of social rented households
under-occupying by two or more bedrooms reduced by two thirds, by 2016. The
detail of how this will be achieved has not yet been agreed.
6.5.8 In relation to housing design, the Mayor also published a draft London Housing
Design Guide, which is still open for consultation. It aims to “encourage
development which combines efficiency in land use with the environmental benefits
of well-designed, well-managed housing built to higher densities. Cities which fail to
balance these forces and enable ‘city-living’ to be attractive for the widest range of
populations throughout their lives, are unbalanced and likely to become socially and
spatially segregated” 51. In specific relation to overcrowding, the report notes that
“Every home needs to provide spaces to gather in – indoors and outdoors – as well
as space for solitary activities, privacy and quiet. Homes should have sufficient
storage, space for work and study, and circulation spaces that provide for the needs
of all potential occupants and their visitors” 52. The Guide brings together existing
guidelines into a single document, whilst incorporating some new ideas. Although
proposed standards are high, the Mayor of London has the authority to make these
a reality for new affordable housing by making them a condition of future public
funding.
50
‘Tackling overcrowding in England: An action plan’ Department for Communities and Local Government
(December 2007) p.12
51
‘London Housing Design Guide’ Mayor of London (draft for consultation, July 2009), p.7
52
‘London Housing Design Guide’ Mayor of London (draft for consultation, July 2009), p.38
p.47
6.6
Wider Housing Initiatives in Hackney
6.6.1 As previously noted, this review began with a primary focus on the Council’s
approach to providing affordable housing (with consideration of overcrowding), but
that Members agreed to focus more tightly on the issue of overcrowding. It was
agreed however to receive evidence on some of the peripheral aspects that provide
a wider picture of the medium and long-term exercises that can assist in the
providing more family-sized social homes and alleviating the pressure on the
Council’s housing register.
Affordable Housing
6.6.2 The provision of affordable housing to residents in the borough was originally the
focus of this review, but Members agreed that it would be difficult for the
Commission to make a genuine contribution, particularly during an economic
downturn. The phrase ‘affordable housing’ generally includes both social rented and
intermediate housing (such as low-cost home ownership schemes and ‘key worker’
housing), provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the
market. Members were still keen, however, to understand what approach was being
taken locally, and a presentation on intermediate housing interventions was
received in December 2008.
The Commission was informed that intermediate housing has two broad elements –
Low Cost Home Ownership (LCHO) and homes for rent. In March 2006 the LBH
Cabinet agreed a major shift in its policy stance in relation to intermediate housing
provision, noting that whilst the market for these homes was growing in Hackney,
the “eligibility frameworks, and income levels in Hackney, could mean that the bulk
of these new homes are likely to continue to by-pass local residents on moderate to
average incomes… too much of what has been produced in the last five years has
by-passed local residents on moderate incomes looking to get a foot on housing
ladder” 53. Increasing access to LCHO for local residents was made one of the top
five local priorities in the Local Area Agreement (LAA).
In April 2008 there were an estimated 2,850 intermediate homes in the Borough,
about 3% of the housing stock. Of these, around 1,850 were for LCHO (almost all
provided by RSLs) and nearly 1,000 were for intermediate rent, also provided by
RSLs. The latter figure includes around 700 studios/bedsits provided by London
Strategic Housing for nurses and other health workers.
6.6.3 RSL-operated schemes
The bulk of the LCHO programme locally is for shared ownership through the New
Build HomeBuy programme. New variants of HomeBuy products have been
introduced since 2006 to improve marketability and, more recently, to address the
growing impact of the recession. The National Affordable Homes Programme
(NAHP) is the Homes and Communities Agency investment programme over the
next 3 years, providing £8.4bn in affordable housing to deliver (through
development partners) 155,000 new homes nationally each year. NAHP supports
53
‘Affordable Housing Strategy 2006-2010’ Report of Cabinet Member for Housing (27th March 2006)
p.48
most of the schemes on offer, with an average 271 LCHO and 43 intermediate
rented homes built locally each year between 2006/7 and 2007/8.
Schemes broadly fall into three groups: shared ownership, shared equity and
intermediate renting. Shared Ownership (like the New Build HomeBuy programme)
is a part-buy, part-rent approach and is the dominant nationally-funded LCHO
model. Shared equity is currently small scale, but offers an equity loan to assist the
applicant in purchasing a home. No rent is paid on the outstanding equity, providing
the applicant an opportunity to enter ownership at a higher equity level. Several
RSLs have worked with the Council to develop shared equity products (though not
recently), including Peabody, Metropolitan and Southern. Family Mosaic have
developed a small ‘sweat equity scheme’ (where individuals are supported to build
their own homes).
Finally, intermediate renting has historically been targeted solely at key workers with
rent levels set at a maximum of 80% of local market rents. 87 units have been
completed locally in 2006/7 and 2007/8, with a further 57 intermediate renting units
due to be completed before the end of 2010/11. The 2008-11 NAHP retains key
workers as the main priority group for intermediate renting, but recognises other
priority groups will be eligible if there are no interested key workers. The
Commission was informed that the Regeneration Delivery Framework (RDF), which
was agreed by Cabinet in December 2008, would work to improve the level of
intermediate renting.
6.6.4 Council-operated/planned schemes
Hackney First Step
In July 2007 the LBH Cabinet endorsed an equity loan pilot, Hackney First Step
(HFS). This was launched in March 2008, following considerable work with partners
(notably the Shoreditch Trust) to secure government buy-in, which ultimately
resulted in CLG according it national pilot status.
This was designed to enable target group households to purchase 50% of a
property through a combination of their own mortgage and an LBH interest-free
loan. The remaining 50% of unpurchased equity is rented from the RSL. The
Cabinet report noted that “BME residents are much more likely to be overcrowded
and homeless in Hackney, and HomeBuy Agent data for 2005 indicated that
Hackney White British residents were nearly twice as likely to successfully convert
an LCHO application into actual purchase than Hackney BME residents. An
Equalities Impact Assessment suggests that this scheme is likely to increase rehousing opportunities and choices for the Borough’s BME communities” 54.
Hackney First Step was introduced through Team Hackney, and was designed to
make home ownership more affordable for Hackney residents on low and average
incomes. However the recession meant that despite 100 residents initially showing
interest, only one actually completed. This is likely to impact on the LAA target- NI
155 measures total supply of social rent housing and intermediate housing, and
Hackney’s annual target is 643 per year. Whilst this is not currently being met,
recent Quarterly Performance data received by OSB for the fourth quarter of
54
‘Affordability Framework for Low Cost Home Ownership and Pilot Schemes for 2007/8’ Report of the
Deputy Mayor (23rd July 2007)
p.49
2008/09 suggests that performance remains on target for building 2,000 new
affordable homes in Hackney by end of March 2010. Over 1,800 new affordable
homes have been completed since April 2006, through the National Affordable
Housing Programme (NAHP). The 2,000 figure should be reached by the summer of
2010.
Graph 3: Quarterly Performance in the gross provision of affordable housing
It should be noted that this target is accumulative, so the target was easily
achieved in the year 2008/9, with 809 properties built
Housing Delivery Vehicle Options Appraisal (HDVO)
In July 2007 DCLG produced their Housing Green Paper entitled ‘Homes for the
future: more affordable, more sustainable’. This provided councils with the
opportunity to investigate the scope to use its land to boost affordable homes
supply. LBH is currently evaluating the different types of vehicle that could provide
extra affordable homes on Council-owned land, with particular emphasis on their
ability to deliver low cost home ownership, where LBH always retained at least 20%
of the property’s equity. The HDVO appraisal focuses primarily on the feasibility of
developing options such as local housing companies, community land trusts and
working with local RSLs on delivering intermediate housing in perpetuity.
Community Land Trusts are community-led organisations that receive gifted land
and hold it in perpetuity on behalf of the local community. The Shoreditch Trust
considered the viability of such a venture, but found difficulties relating to high
required densities and equity share percentages needed to make the project work.
The model has not yet been fully explored, but evidence suggests that this works
best in rural areas with very strong local communities.
Linked to this options appraisal, there was a Team Hackney–funded feasibility study
for developing (on a pilot basis) six relatively small sites in LBH ownership with a
view to maximising intermediate housing provision. The sites include Great Eastern
Buildings behind the Town Hall, the undeveloped New Kingshold plot on Kings
p.50
Edwards Road, and Fairbank Garages in Shoreditch. The brief for this work
includes looking at the scope (within the constraints of each site) for also including
large social homes for rent as well as high specification one and two bed social
rented homes, which are designed to attract moves by social tenants underoccupying existing large family homes.
Council-Led Development
The local Cabinet recently received a report that outlined new opportunities for local
authorities to lead the development of new housing. It noted that with the current
challenges in the housing market there is even less scope for the Council to realise
its objectives through private sector-led development proposals, but that Council-led
development could ensure continued work. This can either be indirect (setting up a
new Special Purpose Vehicle and/or using its existing ALMO, Hackney Homes) or
directly by way of ‘Council Housing’.
The report notes that “Council-led development could be used for estate renewal,
redundant, under utilised Council owned sites and for privately owned sites that
present a strategic regeneration opportunity… It can therefore put the Council in a
stronger position to deliver housing as part of mixed use development in the
Borough’s growth areas and Town Centres as identified in the Local Development
Framework” 55.
Cabinet agreed the report, allowing direct development by LBH of ‘Council Housing’,
and to develop proposals for a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), where land would be
invested for development in a subsidiary company that owns and manages the
affordable housing. This option may have several variations, from 100% Council
owned through to the introduction of an investment partner who could take a
shareholding in exchange for a return on equity invested. This form of development
could also be undertaken in partnership with Hackney Homes.
6.6.5 Impact of Intermediate Housing Schemes
The Commission considered the Housing Corporation’s national guidance on
affordability, which recommended that housing costs (mortgage, rent and service
charges) generally should not exceed 50% of net earnings and suggested a range
of 45% to 50% as reasonable. Local data indicated that two adult households
buying LCHO homes locally tend to easily comply with the general advisory limit but
that this is notably less true for single adults, with 45 out of 86 (52%) paying in
excess of 50% of these ten were paying between 60% and 70%, and three over
70%.
The main characteristics of residents who purchased local LCHO products in 2007/8
were provided to the Commission. Nearly 57% were previously living in Hackney,
41% were living in another London Borough and 2% were outside London. The
majority had been private renters (62.1%) followed by those living with family/friends
(22%). Social renting tenants (overwhelmingly RSL) accounted for nearly 14%. The
household composition suggested 69% were single adults; 27.6% were two adults
and 3.5% were families with children. White British were the biggest ethnic group
for the first buyer (two adult households tend to have two earners) at 55.5%,
followed by White Other at 18.8%. Some BME communities are under-represented,
55
‘Council-Led Development’ Report of Deputy Mayor (27 July 2009), p.2
p.51
notably Black households (10.5%). The vast majority of these purchasers were
women (80%). These figures clearly do not reflect families living in overcrowded
conditions (for whom the cost of any home ownership is prohibitive) or, to a lesser
extent, the borough’s demographics.
Empty Homes
6.6.6 Another way that local authorities can increase the local housing stock (and one that
seemed relatively popular with Hackney’s RSLs following the Scrutiny Survey) is to
renovate redundant properties in the borough. Whilst this does increase the number
of properties in the borough it has only an indirect impact on alleviating
overcrowding, as the properties are normally returned to the private sector through
enforced sales. Commission Members did recognise however that derelict long-term
empty properties have a major impact on the local environment, encouraging flytipping, crime and anti-social behaviour, lowering house prices and discouraging
investment in the area.
Clearly the economic downturn has had a considerable impact on the number of
properties that are being repossessed or even abandoned by owners. The
Commission took evidence from the team who work to return empty properties to
use, who explained that the Empty Homes Agency estimate that nationwide there
are now 1,000 repossessions per month, and that whilst LBH was relatively buoyant
at present this could change in the near future (particularly in buy-to-let properties).
There are 84,000 empty homes in London, of which 67,400 are privately owned,
with the remainder in public ownership (including approximately 10,000 council
owned empty homes). A £60 million package to tackle the capital’s empty homes
problem was announced by the Mayor of London in July, focused on bringing long
term abandoned properties, derelict buildings and listed buildings at risk back into
residential use 56.
Hackney’s empty homes figures were as follows:
- Council Tax figures suggested that the number was in excess of 1,300 empty
homes prior to the sites being visited, but following a street survey it was
established that there are approximately 800 dwellings that have been vacant for
more than six months
- Approximately 440 ‘probate’ properties, which would hopefully be back on the
market soon
- Approximately 200 long term vacant street properties have been identified
- Approximately 160 were being actively marketed for letting or sale
The Council’s approach to dealing with empty homes has been judged well, notably
in comparison to neighbouring boroughs. They employ initiatives such as use of the
compulsory purchase process, which takes significant labour and resources, due to
the long timescales (some were still unresolved from 2000), but does produce
results. 7 properties had been subject to compulsory purchase in the past 10 years,
most during 2000. This has proved a costly exercise in terms of legal advice and
officer time. The Commission learned that the London Borough of Newham had a
large-scale compulsory purchase scheme, but are having difficult finding adequate
56
‘Mayor announces £60m to tackle empty homes’ Mayor of London (July 2009)
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=17756
p.52
buyers.
LBH can also help private owners return their properties into use, where match
funding for works can attract significant private investment in properties, whilst
ensuring (through their grant agreement) that properties are occupied for at least 5
years. As all LBH grants are reclaimable through the East London Housing
Partnership (ELHP), this made sound financial sense to the Council. The
Commission was told that Empty Property Grants pay half the cost of renovation up
to a maximum of £10,000 per dwelling. The owners of properties intended to be
used as single family dwellings can therefore receive up to £10,000 assuming the
cost of renovation exceeds £20,000 but owners obtaining planning permission for
the conversion of larger properties into flats can receive up to £10,000 per flat. in
2008/9, 11 applications for grant assistance were approved, providing a total of 16
flats for renting. The cost to the Council will be £158,000 but the owners’
investments amount to £664,000.
Commission Members were concerned by this approach, as it appeared to offer an
incentive to private owners to convert their home into flats, therefore losing muchneeded family-sized properties within the borough. Officers noted that noted that all
conversions were in accordance with the local planning policy, and that large family
units were retained wherever possible.
An outcome from the Commission’s work came in relation to grant aided properties
being lived in for the following five years. Members were interested to know how the
Council ensured this would happen, and officers have duly amended their
agreements to contain a statement that empty properties will be subject to spot
checks to verify occupancy.
Outcome: the guidance information given to residents applying for Empty Homes
grants was amended to explain the process of checking that homes were being
used appropriately
The Commission learned that funding had been made available from the East
London Renewal Partnership for a Private Sector Housing Officer to deal primarily
with long-term empty properties. In addition, an Empty Property Project Officer had
been appointed for the East London sub-region, to develop best practice guidance,
arrange training and provide support for borough teams in making Empty Dwelling
Management Orders and Compulsory Purchase Orders. This officer would be
based in Newham.
At the meeting in February 2009 Shelter listed several recommendations about how
best to tackle overcrowding, including making best use of existing stock. One
suggestion was to charge full council tax rates on empty properties, with any funds
raised through reducing discounts being ring-fenced and available to use in
increasing the supply of affordable housing (either through bringing empty homes
back into use or building new homes). Council officers rejected this, explaining that
LBH has a discount of 50% for empty properties, and that the Council believed
(following research by CLG, which noted that empty properties had originally fallen
but could not provide evidence that this change was sustainable) there was no
reason to suggest that a reduction in the discount would reduce the number of
empty homes across the Borough.
p.53
7.
CONCLUSIONS
7.1
The negative impact of overcrowding is undeniable, causing both social and health
deprivations, whilst childhood development is also blighted. The Council has led on
much of the pathfinder work completed nationally to address the problem (which is
more prevalent in East London than any other part of the UK), and is due to
coordinate all their local initiatives in an overarching strategy.
7.2
The Commission recognised this positive work and were eager to provide external
support and challenge during the production of the strategy. As part of the review
we considered both supply options and housing management aspects, whilst
gaining a better understanding of how the Council delivers affordable housing.
7.3
We received very helpful presentations from Shelter, and learned about the
personal impact of overcrowding on families through submissions from LCAP.
Members were also keen to understand how effectively council officers supported
residents who needed housing advice and options, so a mystery shopping exercise
was commissioned to gauge the quality of responses, and how well they met local
service standards. Following this changes have already been introduced to the way
this information is provided, and the exercise will be repeated in a year’s time to
assess progress.
7.4
Our recommendations fall into five clear areas which all address the number of
families who must suffer overcrowded conditions in the borough, and how the
Council can mitigate the impact of cramped living whilst they wait for new social
housing. The Commission recognises the need to engage the private rented sector
if real change is to be achieved, but have reservations about how well local
landlords are regulated. We would also like to see housing information provided
more widely and shared standards of housing management agreed by the Council
and local RSLs. Finally it is the aspiration of this review that the causes and impact
of overcrowding are given greater consideration during the planning and design of
new developments across the borough.
Councillor Harvey Odze
Chairman of the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission
Scrutiny Officer:
Matt Clack, Overview and Scrutiny Officer.
Financial considerations:
James Newman, Head of Finance, Community
Services
Legal considerations:
Stephen Rix, Principal Lawyer - Housing
p.54
8.
CONTRIBUTORS
The following people attended the Scrutiny Commission’s meetings and gave
evidence or spoke with Members of the Commission in ways that helped shape the
review. The Scrutiny Commission owes a great deal to them not only for what they
contributed to the investigation but also for the enthusiasm and commitment they
brought to the task.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9.
Alan Sutton- London Play
Bashir Uddin- Director, Bangla Housing Association
Brendan Sarsfield- Chief Executive, Family Mosaic
Brian Clark- Voids & Rehousing Manager, North East & Shoreditch Neighbourhoods
Carol Carter- Managing Director, Circle 33 Housing Trust
Cherie Lee-Hemley- Group Allocations Manager, One Housing Group
Chris Church- Housing Association Monitoring and Liaison Officer
Chris Smith- Senior Strategy Officer (Housing and Regeneration Policy & Strategy)
Councillor Louisa Thomson- Stoke Newington Ward Member
Danny Fridd- Business Analyst, Peabody Trust
Darren Lightfoot- LA CORE Project Manager
David Saltson- Area Manager, Shelter
Duncan Howard- Regional Director, Southern Housing Group
Ellen Hughes- Customer Care Manager
Funmi Adeleye- Housing Options &Advice Manager
Helen Wipperman- Lettings Manager, London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Isabel De la Cour- London regional campaigns officer, Shelter
James Palmer- Head of Strategic Partnership
James Simpson- Housing Delivery Team
Jean-Marie Fagon- Assistant Director, One Housing Group
John Hall- Policy & Strategy Manager (Housing & Regulatory)
John Hook- Head of Private Sector Housing
John Knight- Interim Head of Housing Needs
Kim Wright- Corporate Director of Community Services
Lane Laporte- London Coalition Against Poverty
Leigh Clements- Lettings & Marketing Supervisor, Sanctuary-Hereward
Molly Wallis- Interim Assistant Director of Housing Needs
Paul Westbrook- Chief Executive, Industrial Dwellings Society
Peta Cubberley- Shelter
Randal Smith- Head of Strategic Policy & Research
Ray Agar- Head of Hackney Service Centre
Remi Osadiya- Head of Support Services, Housing Needs
Rose Collin and colleagues- C&R Associates
Stephen Rix- Principal Lawyer, Housing
Stuart Kirby- Council Tax Manager
Sunita Parbhakar- Assistant Director Housing Services, Newlon Housing
Association
MEMBERSHIP OF THE SCRUTINY COMMISSION
Cllr Harvey Odze - Chairman
p.55
Cllr Clayeon McKenzie - Vice Chair (replaced in May 2009 as Vice Chair, when he
became the Council’s Deputy Speaker)
Cllr Mischa Borris
Cllr Philip Glanville (replaced in May 2009 by Cllr Geoff Taylor)
Cllr Gulay Icoz (replaced in May 2009 by Cllr Carole Williams, who became Vice
Chair)
Cllr Daniel Kemp
Cllr Darren Parker
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The following documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report or
were presented to the Scrutiny Commission as part of the investigation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘Affordability Framework for Low Cost Home Ownership and Pilot Schemes for
2007/8’ Report of the Deputy Mayor (23rd July 2007)
‘Affordable Housing Strategy 2006-2010’ Report of Cabinet Member for Housing
(27th March 2006)
‘Council-Led Development’ Report of Deputy Mayor (27 July 2009)
‘Hackney Borough Profile’ Team Hackney (April 2006)
‘Hackney Council Lettings Policy: How we let our homes’ London Borough of
Hackney (March 2009)
‘Hackney Design Awards 2008’ London Borough of Hackney (January 2009)
‘Hackney Homes Delivery Plan 2007-09’ Hackney Homes (December 2008)
‘Making Room: Draft Overcrowding Strategy 2009-12’ London Borough of Hackney
(draft unpublished)
‘Olympic 5 host boroughs - Multi area agreement’ Cabinet Member for Regeneration
and the 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games (1 June 2009)
‘Provision of 0-5 Years Services In Hackney’, Children and Young People Scrutiny
Commission (February 2009)
‘Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing’ Mayor of London (Nov 2005)
‘Supporting Socially Excluded Adults’ Regeneration and Social Inclusion) Scrutiny
Commission (March 2008)
‘Through the eyes of Londoners: Housing and Communities’ Association of London
Government (2004)
‘London’s Poverty Profile’ Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway (2009)
‘City and Hackney Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2008’ City & Hackney
Teaching PCT, London Borough of Hackney and the City of London (Oct 2008)
‘The Housing Strategy for London’ Mayor of London (draft May 2009)
‘London Housing Design Guide’ Mayor of London (draft for consultation, July 2009)
‘Countrywide Participation by Local Authorities’ Centre for Housing Research, St
Andrews University
‘Crowded House: Cramped living in England’s housing’ Shelter (October 2004)
‘Full house?: How overcrowded housing affects families’ Shelter (2005)
‘Overcrowding in London’ London Housing Briefing (March 2004)
‘Stopping Tuberculosis in England: An action plan from the Chief Medical Officer’
Department of Health (October 2004)
p.56
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘Survey of English Housing Preliminary Report: 2007-08’ Department of
Communities & Local Government (Housing Statistics Summary Number 28, 2009)
‘Tackling Overcrowding in England: A discussion paper’ Department for
Communities & Local Government (July 2006)
‘Tackling overcrowding in England: An action plan’ Department for Communities
and Local Government (December 2007)
‘The Black and Minority Ethnic Housing Crisis’ Shelter (September 2004)
‘The Private Rented Sector: its potential and contribution’ Julie Rugg and David
Rhodes, Centre for Public Housing University of York (2008)
‘Tuberculosis mortality in England and Wales during 1982-1992: Its association with
poverty, ethnicity and AIDS’ Soc Sci Med journal (1998) Vol. 46, No. 6
‘Mayor announces £60m to tackle empty homes’ Mayor of London (July 2009)
‘More than 2.6m people to live in overcrowded housing by 2011, as recession biteswarns Federation’ National Housing Federation (15 April 2009)
p.57
GLOSSARY
ALG
ALMO
BHP
BME/BAME
CAB
CABE
CBL
CLG/DCLG
CORE
CYPP
ELHP
GLA
HCA
HDVO
HFS
HSC
IT/ICT
JSNA
LAA
LBH
LCAP
LCHO
LDF
MAA
NAHP
NDC
ODPM
OSB
PCT
PRS
RDF
RSL
SPD
SPG
SPV
TB
UDP
Association of London Government (now London Councils)
Arms Length Management Organisation
Better Homes Partnership
Black & Minority Ethnic / Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic
Citizens Advice Bureau
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Choice Based Letting
Department for Communities & Local Government
Continuous Recording
Children & Young Peoples Plan
East London Housing Partnership
Greater London Authority
Homes & Communities Agency
Housing Delivery Vehicle Options
Hackney First Step
Hackney Service Centre
Information & Communication Technology
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
Local Area Agreement
London Borough of Hackney
London Coalition Against Poverty
Low Cost Home Ownership
Local Development Framework
Multi-Area Agreement
National Affordable Housing Programme
New Deal for Communities
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now the Department for
Communities & Local Government)
Overview & Scrutiny Board
Primary Care Trust
Private Rented Sector
Regeneration Development Framework
Registered Social Landlord
Supplementary Planning Document
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Special Purpose Vehicle
Tuberculosis
Unitary Development Plan (now the Local Development Framework)
p.58
APPENDIX 1
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission Review Proposal
1.
Proposed review
Overcrowding (and the Impact of Housing Affordability)
2.
Origin of proposal
The proposal to review Overcrowding (with consideration of relevant information relating to
Housing Affordability) was put forward by the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission. It is
welcomed as a timely opportunity to consider the various impacts on local residents that
overcrowding causes, and to understand some of the wider causes. A lack of decent
affordable housing is seen as a significant basis for this, and there the Commission aim to
consider areas ranging from current credit concerns and housing market issues, the
Olympics and broader regeneration, improved transport links, to wider issues of pricing.
It is intended to include a clear distinction between the issues of affordable ownership and
affordable renting.
3. Scope and terms of reference
•
To enable Members to gain an understanding of issues related to Overcrowding, the
provision of affordable, and local housing needs;
•
To consider the extent to which overcrowding is linked to affordability of housing, and to
understand the health and wider social impacts of residential overcrowding;
•
To consider approaches taken both locally and nationally to the issue of underoccupancy, and policies about asking residents to move;
•
To contribute to the implementation and scope of initiatives used to achieve affordable
housing targets agreed as part of the new Local Area Agreement;
•
To research examples of good practice from comparable boroughs and consider the
feasibility of introducing similar measures;
•
To review the working relationship between LBH, the Better Homes Partnership,
Housing Associations, private landlords and other relevant local partners, to ensure
suitable arrangements are in place to achieve necessary collaboration and
improvements in the alleviation of overcrowding and united approach to underoccupancy; and
•
To consider particular topics such as LBH Lettings Plans, affordable housing eligibility
criteria (including homes for key workers), the Council’s approach to empty homes,
Tenure for Life and the ‘Sons & Daughters’ scheme.
4.
Timescales and methods (including details of formal meetings, public
engagement, site visits and other sources of evidence)
The full terms of reference are likely to be agreed at the Commission’s meeting in
September 2008, and will conclude its review by the end of the 2008/09 municipal year,
p.59
reporting shortly thereafter. The Commission will conduct its review by means of formal
evidence-gathering at public meetings, likely site visits within the borough, and
engagement with interested community groups. Desk-based research and ad hoc
meetings with Officers will also inform the Commission’s discussions.
8th September – Agree Terms of Reference
• Consider the review’s balance between ownership and renting, and agree the desired
outcomes
7th October – Local, Sub-Regional & National Context (Sue Foster to nominate lead
Officer)
• To gain an understanding of the local picture. This should include local social housing
figures, an outline of responsibilities, current local priorities (intermediate affordable
housing), average local incomes and relevant borough profile statistics such as
housing density. In relation to affordable ownership it should also consider the impact
on the borough of current credit concerns and housing market issues, the Olympics,
improved transport links, and wider issues of pricing
• Recent relevant legislation- including the anticipated Housing & Regeneration Act (with
reference to the local impact expected of the new Housing & Communities Agency),
and changes to the London Plan
12th November – Overcrowding (Molly Wallis to nominate lead Officer)
• To gain a better understanding of the existing overcrowding figures, their impacts on
different communities, and what the Council and its partners are doing to address the
problem
• To discuss the health and wider social impacts of residential overcrowding
• Case studies on local approaches to high density housing and overcrowding
3rd December – Effective Interventions & LBH Lettings Policies
• To discuss the success and viability of potential interventions related to the Local Area
Agreement, and to receive details of schemes such as Low Cost Home Ownership,
shared equity, Community Land Trust, Local Housing Companies, HomeBuy, and
examples of good practice from comparable boroughs. The Commission would also
like to understand how the Council calculates and achieves the best ratio of new build
properties according to bedrooms. (Sue Foster to nominate lead Officer)
• To discuss the various schemes and policies used to allocate social housing, assess
priorities, allow residential transfers, and the eligibility criteria used in each stage of the
processes. The Commission should focus on the issues relating to rental affordability,
instead of wider access (Molly Wallis to nominate lead Officer)
• To consider the eligibility criteria used to assess tenants, including key workers. This
should include consideration of what approach is taken if the allocation of homes for
key workers outnumbers the eligible individuals living in Hackney
• Presentation from the Housing Advice & Options team on how the various options
available to residents are publicised
13th January – Communications and Partnership Working
• Details of how LBH provides relevant information and promotes access to the most
appropriate homes. This should cover how the Council deals with residents and local
stakeholders, what formats are used to share information and equalities issues (Sue
Foster to nominate lead Officer)
p.60
•
Presentation on the local partnership framework led by the Better Homes Partnership,
including LBH and other relevant local partners (James Palmer, Team Hackney)
9th February – Empty Homes & Maximising Appropriate Space
• To gauge the number of empty properties in the borough, and consider the Council’s
approach to returning empty properties back to residential use, through their own
powers and influencing others
• To consider ways of increasing access to decent housing through the use of redundant
spaces, such as the Estates Plus strategy (Sue Foster to nominate lead Officer)
• Presentation from Shelter, outlining their research, recognised good practice, and
initiatives to address Overcrowding
12th March – Initial Findings and Recommendation Areas
6th April – Final Report
Site Visits
To be scheduled and identified throughout the review.
5.
•
•
•
•
6.
Objectives and likely outcomes
To make recommendations that reflect the evidence gathered
Contribute to the Community Strategy objective and cross-cutting reviews
Assist with the delivery of the LAA objective
Help residents to understand the related issues and highlight how best to access
affordable housing
Lead Member
The Chairman (Cllr Odze) and Vice Chairman (Cllr McKenzie) of the Living in Hackney
Commission, supported by all the Commission’s other Members.
7.
Details of how the review and its outcomes will be publicised
The final report will be presented to Cabinet and Council. It will be available on the
Hackney Council website and if appropriate through Council and local press. The review’s
conclusions will also be made available to organisations which the Commission considers
would be interested in its findings, including those who have contributed to the evidencegathering process.
p.61
8.
Key contributors to the review
Contributor
Council Lead Director
How have they been consulted on proposal
Fiona Fletcher-Smith
Council Lead Officers
Stephen Tate
Executive Member(s)
Cllr Jamie Carswell
Team Hackney Partnership
Better Homes Partnership
Partner Organisations
Housing Associations, Private Landlords
(notably through the Private Landlord Forum)
Voluntary Sector
Citizens Advice Bureaux,
Live/Pending Consultations
TBC
To be considered during the course of the review:
9.
Scale of recommendations and parties requested to implement
Service/organisation
10.
Timescales and method for response
Details of how outcomes will be monitored
The final report will detail how recommendations will be monitored. This may include
scheduled update reports back to the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission from the
parties asked to implement any recommendations.
p.62
APPENDIX 2
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission:
Impact of Overcrowding on Mental & Physical Health, Development,
Education & Relationships
Due to the combination of negative impacts faced by many families living in overcrowded
accommodation (including overall housing conditions, deprivation and wider health
impacts), it is difficult to produce evidence-based research linking overcrowding to its
detrimental impact. This is not to say it hasn’t been attempted, and the following provides
an outline of the research from a 2004 ODPM paper (which provided a literature review of
many previous studies) 57 and a large research project completed in 2004 by Shelter, which
covered the ODPM evidence and a study completed in Tower Hamlets 58. These papers
were comprehensively researched and provide as accurate an assessment of the impact
of overcrowded housing as was possible at the time:
Overcrowding and Child Health
Meningitis: Three studies have yielded good evidence of a small relationship
between meningitis and overcrowding. These suggest a relationship between
childhood overcrowding and meningitis. A study produced by Shelter found that
children who lived in overcrowded conditions were ten times more likely than
others to contract meningitis.
Tuberculosis (TB): Studies have found evidence of an independent relationship
between childhood TB infection and overcrowding in deprived areas, as well as in
adults. This is covered in greater detail in section 6.1.8.
Respiratory Conditions: Overall, the balance of the evidence from five studies
indicates a small relationship between overcrowding and respiratory conditions in
children. However, the possible relationship between deprivation and overcrowding
in the context of respiratory conditions requires further investigation, as does the
relationship between overcrowding and other housing conditions (for example,
damp and mould growth).
Child Mortality: studies suggest that there may be an independent relationship
between overcrowding and child mortality, but the evidence is limited.
Overcrowding in Childhood and Adult Health
Adult Respiratory Conditions: The evidence suggests that respiratory conditions in
adulthood arise from a range of childhood housing-related factors. Evidence from
good quality large scale studies points to a relationship between overcrowding in
childhood and respiratory conditions in adulthood, but indicates that children are
affected differently depending on age. However, the strength and independence of
the relationship is unclear, due to lack of evidence on possible confounding
variables.
57
‘The Impact of Overcrowding on Health & Education: A Review of Evidence and Literature’ Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister (May 2004) It is important to reinforce that this literature review explicitly outlines
gaps in the wider research and difficulties with proving the independent link between overcrowding and its
impact, against other issues faced by families
58
‘Crowded House: Cramped living in England’s housing’ Shelter (October 2004)
p.63
Self-Rated Health: A large-scale study showed that overcrowding in childhood
increased the likelihood of poor self-rated health in adulthood. The relationship was
weaker than that between housing tenure and poor self-rated health, but
nonetheless significant.
Adult Overcrowding and Adult Health
Tuberculosis (TB): There is strong evidence to support an independent relationship
between overcrowding and TB, though these focused on populations within a
particular area rather than groups of randomly selected individuals.
Respiratory Diseases: Studies reveal a relationship between overcrowding and
adult respiratory diseases. It is possible that other housing or deprivation factors
provide more powerful explanations.
Self-Rated Health: The limited evidence suggests there is a relationship between
overcrowding and self-rated health. The strength and independence of the
relationship is less clear.
Mortality Rates: Two studies provide some limited evidence of an independent
relationship between overcrowding and adult mortality rates, particularly for
women.
Mental Health
Women: Limited evidence suggests that there may be a relationship between
overcrowding and mental health problems among women. It is not clear from the
evidence whether this relationship is independent.
Black and Minority Ethnic Communities: Two relevant but small-scale studies on
the relationship between overcrowding and the mental health of black and minority
ethnic households were found. There is insufficient evidence however to conclude
that there is a relationship.
Child Mental Health: There is recent evidence of a relationship between
overcrowding and children’s mental health. In many of the studies however, there
was limited control of confounding variables and as a result it is not possible to
conclude the independence of this relationship.
Childhood Development, Growth and Education
Social and Emotional Development: There is some limited evidence to support a
relationship between overcrowding and social and emotional development in
children although it is not clear whether this is independent of confounding factors.
Some earlier studies from the 1970’s do not support a relationship.
Physical Stature: There is mixed evidence on the relationship between
overcrowding and physical stature and growth. However, one recent study found
household overcrowding during childhood to be significantly and independently
associated with slow growth rate. It is not possible on the basis of the available
p.64
evidence to draw conclusions about the relationship between overcrowding and
poor physical stature and growth rates.
Education: The very limited evidence available points to an independent
relationship between overcrowding and educational attainment. This conclusion is
drawn mainly from a single study in France and although it is supported by earlier
research, it does not provide definitive evidence. Shelter noted that a lack of sleep
was a particular issue facing children in overcrowded homes, as a rotation of who
gets to sleep in a bed will disturb sleeping patterns, and will affect educational
attainment
Other Impacts including Personal Safety
Child Maltreatment: A study found a significant association between overcrowding
and child maltreatment, but other factors were found to be of equal or greater
significance.
p.65
APPENDIX 3
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission:
Various Definitions of Overcrowding
Statutory
definition (The
Room & Space
Standards) Housing
Bedroom Standard
CLG Toolkit and the
Survey of English Housing
Act 1985 (Part X)
Sort of
rooms
considered
as sleeping
space:
Who should
share a
room:
Who should
get separate
bedrooms:
bedrooms, living
rooms, dining
rooms, studies
though not (contrary
to popular belief)
kitchens bathrooms
or hallways
-Two persons of the
same sex over the
age of 10
-Two persons of
opposite sexes who
are living together
as husband and
wife
‘Hackney
Standard’
‘Hackney Council
Lettings Policy:
How many
bedrooms’ (Dec
2007)
No account shall be
-Did not count
taken for the purposes of living rooms as
the bedroom standard of bedrooms
a room having a floor
area of less than 50
square feet
-Each married/cohabiting couple
-Each pair aged 10 to 20
years of the same sex
-Each pair of children
under 10 years
-An unpaired person
aged 10 to 20 years is
paired, if possible, with a
child under 10 years and
of the same sex
Two persons of
-An unpaired person
opposite sexes over aged 10 to 20 years with
the age of 10 who
a child under 10 years
are not living
and of different sex
together as husband -Any other person age
21 years or over
and wife
-Children and
young people of
the same sex and
generation (where
the age difference
is 16 years or
less)
All children of
different sexes
regardless of age
will be considered
to require
separate
bedrooms
An example (as used in the ‘Tackling Overcrowding’ discussion paper)
a couple with a boy aged 15 years and a girl aged 13 years in a one-bedroom flat
would not be statutorily overcrowded because the father and son could share one
room and the mother and daughter the sitting room. By the bedroom standard they
were be seen to be severely overcrowded.
p.66
APPENDIX 4
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission:
Overcrowding by Postal District
p.67
p.68
APPENDIX 5
Analysis of Responses from
Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)
1- Is Overcrowding an Issue?
Yes: 9
No: 3
Is Overcrowding an Issue?
3
Yes
No
9
Some examples:
Peabody Housing Association & Brent Community Housing
Mace Housing primarily provides shared accommodation to single people in Hackney
2- Initiatives being used
Homes outside LBH
Under Occupiers- general
Pay for removals
Pay per room (variation from £50-£500! Maybe a typo?)
Downsizers get priority
Loft conversions
Flat to a grown up child (some through a Sons & Daughters scheme)
Deliberately not operating sons & daughters schemes
Mutual exchange schemes
“Unlocking the Transfer Jam” scheme 59
Prioritising the provision of larger homes within our new build
development programme
Overcrowding strategy plus an under occupation policy
“Camden project” where they gave advice on storage and using the
space more effectively
Work closely with partner RSLs on reciprocal arrangements
59
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
A scheme where the Housing Association buys a new home on the behalf of an under-
occupying tenant, with the tenant picking their own home
p.69
Advise overcrowded tenants to register with the council for transfer
Consider HomeBuy if they can afford it
‘Thinking Ahead’ scheme 60
Training and employment support to help people get back into work
and into independent living
Advice and support for young adults ready to move to their own
homes
Recycled furniture projects to help declutter the home
Welfare benefits advice and tenant support advice
1
1
2
1
1
1
Some examples:
Peabody refer to taking part in the Pathfinder Overcrowding project for London where we
give quarterly updates on the amount of applicants on the Peabody waiting lists who are
looking to move home and are overcrowded
3- Working with LB Hackney?
Working with LB Hackney?
3
Yes
No
5
Some examples:
Hackney Housing Co-Operative / IDS have Hosted road shows on our estates to
encourage our tenants to apply, publicise the scheme to other Hackney Housing
Associations.
“Hackney is a far more equitable borough than many of the local authorities that we
operate in” (Hackney Housing Co-Operative / IDS)
Sanctuary Hereward request reciprocal arrangements to assist, although these are not
often successful
Peabody have moved 4 Families through the under-occupying scheme
Kush HA are not currently working with LBH, but are aware of Hackney’s under-occupation
policy and the incentives attached to it, and regularly sign-post tenants to this service
60
Visiting residents who are looking to move home because of severe Overcrowding to
discuss the many other options available
p.70
4- What can be Done to alleviate Overcrowding?
Increased letting Choice
Under occupation incentives
Private sector renting initiatives
Perfect fit schemes
Adapting current homes to lessen overcrowding
Seaside and country homes
Council can re-commission the empty homes in the Borough (via LBH
or HAs)/ repairing any dilapidated stock
Looking at introducing "Community Lettings"
Offering a Percentage of new development stock to overcrowded
households
Mutual exchange schemes
Flat to a grown up child
Under occupying by one or two bed spaces for young families at the
start of tenancies
Sons & Daughters scheme
Looking into a ‘reward’ system to encourage residents who currently
under-occupy larger homes to give them up for overcrowded families
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
5- Barriers to Alleviating Overcrowding
Suitable property
Managing tenant's expectations
Quota agreements they have with local authorities
No natural flow in the supply of appropriately occupied property
Most councils’ policies have historically ignored the needs of those in
overcrowding to prioritise the statutory homeless (though does not
name LBH)
Council’s Allocations Team is under resourced or lacking intelligent IT
support (though does not name LBH)
Finance (including funding for building new family sized units
specifically for families that are overcrowded)
Relocating tenants temporarily whilst works are underway
Desire to address the problem
Current assured tenancies allow tenants who under-occupy family
accommodation to remain in these
Wide choice made available to applicants through the choice based
lettings scheme in LBH
Additions to families in suitable accommodation
Many families (mainly of BME background) have no alternative
housing choice because they cannot afford their own home
Unwillingness to move away from Community
The relatively low take up of the under occupancy scheme
Enforcement of the Housing Act 2004, Part 1 Sect 20 which has
added an additional pressure to an already difficult position
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
p.71
Some examples:
“A lot of money has been spent on improvements in the Hackney area and we believe
work now needs to be done on changing the reputation so that home seekers are happy to
move there”- Peabody
Those who Replied:
London & Quadrant, Hackney Housing Co-Operative / IDS, Family Mosaic, Brent
Community Housing, Newlon Housing Association, Mace Housing, Kush Housing
Association / Places for People, Southern Housing Group, Sanctuary Hereward, Bangla
Housing Association, One Housing Group, Peabody
Those who did not Reply:
Agudas Israel Housing Association Limited, Anchor Trust, Bush Housing Association,
Canalside, Cara Irish Housing Association, Central and Cecil Housing Trust, Centrepoint,
Clissold Housing Co-operative Limited, Community Housing Association Limited, East
Choice Limited, Gateway HA, Griffin Housing Association Limited, Griffin Housing
Association Limited, Habinteg Housing Association Limited, Islington and Shoreditch
Housing Association Ltd, Joel Emanuel Almshouse Trust, John Grooms Housing
Association, Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited, Mitali HA, Moat Home Ownership
Limited, North British Housing Limited, North London Muslim Housing Association Limited,
Notting Hill Home Ownership Ltd, Notting Hill Housing Trust, Novas Group Limited,
Patchwork Community Housing Association Limited, Peter Bedford Housing Association
Limited, Phoenix Community Housing Co-operative Limited, Pilgrims' Lodge Charity,
Presentation Housing Association Limited, Providence Row Housing Association,
Quadrant-Brownswood Tenant Co-operative Limited, Servite Houses, Shian Housing
Association Limited, Solon Co-operative Housing Services Limited, St Martin of Tours
Housing Association Limited, St Mungo Community Housing Association Limited, Stadium
Housing Association Limited, The Guinness Trust, The West Hackney Almshouse Charity,
William Sutton Trust
Those who stated they were not operating in Hackney:
Kensington Housing Trust, Keystart Housing Association, Kurdish Housing Association,
Lien Viet Housing Association Limited, London Strategic Housing Limited, Ajex Housing
Association, Shepherds Bush Housing Group, St Pancras and Humanist Housing
Association Limited, Jewish Community Housing Association
p.72
RSL Feedback: Priorities from Survey
Other- “flats offered to adult children”
“You really need a combination of the above. None on their own are effective”
“Frees up demand for larger accommodation that will be of longer term use to young
families”
“It’s important to offer a full range of options supported by a flexible fund so that solutions
can be tailored to the needs and aspirations of individual families”
“High quality property is necessary to encourage tenants to downsize”.
p.73
“Some boroughs allow overcrowding from start of tenancy or under occupancy which
totally defeats the object”
“All the above are part of the environment we work in. The challenge is to provide a
solution and we can make a difference to some people if we were able to pool resources
better”
“Nomination agreements give most of the lettings to the Council and it chooses to prioritise
homeless families over those overcrowded. The balance needs to be readdressed”
“Much of the new stock is 100% nominations so we need to work with the local authority to
be able to offer some of our new stock to downsizers and then give the local authority the
resulting void”
p.74
Other- “This is only relevant to the Pembury estate in hackney but we felt that people were
disinclined to move there based on its reputation even though it would relieve
overcrowding. Lots of work has been done to change the image of the Pembury estate”
“We do have an overcrowding problem in our properties, therefore I am not in a position to
answer this question”
Total Sent Survey: 12
Total Completed Survey: 9
p.75
APPENDIX 6
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission:
Analysis of Mystery Shopping Feedback
The following is a brief summary of the Mystery Shopping exercise completed by C&R
Associates between 15th March and 29th April 2009.
The contacts made were as follows:
Location
Housing Advice & Options
Hackney Service Centre
Neighbourhood Offices
Citizens Advice Bureau
Total
Visits
4
0
5
1
10
Telephone Calls
10
10
25
5
50
Emails
4
0
5
1
10
Letters
5
0
0
0
5
The following provides an outline of the performance against the different Competency
Standards, together with some further detail about responses:
Visits
Competency Standards Summary- Visits
Friendliness Interest Attentive
Housing
Options &
Advice (4)
Neighbourhood
Offices (4)
Citizens Advice
Bureau (1)
Overall
Average (10)
Efficiency
Full
&
Information
Answer
Effectiveness
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
100%
100%
60%
60%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
70%
• An impressive eight out of the ten visits (80%) met the desired assessment of either
‘Very Good’ or ‘Good’.
• This included all four visits to Housing Options & Advice.
• The only visits not to meet the threshold were two to Neighbourhood Offices; one to
Stoke Newington and Shoreditch. Even these have not been described as bad, and the
evidence suggests it would not require much improvement to get all visitor experiences to
the desired standard.
• The majority of visitors felt the locations met the required standard on all of the
relevant measures. In particular, only one of the nine visitors assessed the site as not
having a clean and tidy approach.
• The CAB fell below the overall standards in terms of parking.
p.76
• All locations performed well in terms of providing suitable access to buildings.
• The provision of disabled toilets seemed more inconsistent, along with the provision of
alternative access routes.
• All sites were considered to have easily identifiable/well signed reception areas.
• The presence of a queuing system was less widespread, with only the Housing Options
& Advice site reporting high levels on this measure.
• Neighbourhood Offices appeared to be well staffed to assist visitors should they have
any difficulty on initial arrival.
• Waiting times were generally short, with seven of the ten visitors needing to wait less
than two minutes to be seen.
• This standard was achieved across all five Neighbourhood Offices.
• No visitors had to wait more than twenty minutes to be seen.
• Those visitors that did have to wait all reported that there was adequate seating to cope
with the number of visitors waiting to be seen.
• Staff were generally perceived to be welcoming and polite, offering greetings
appropriately.
• Not all staff appeared to have been wearing name badges, particularly at the
Neighbourhood Offices.
• With regard to privacy, 40% of customers stated that they could overhear other
conversations between staff and visitors.
• All queries were dealt with to some extent. Three of the ten were considered to have
been dealt with fully, based on the model answer.
• A further five were dealt with at least partially.
• Some customers of the Neighbourhood Offices were signposted to additional information
sources.
• Generally, staff listened carefully to the enquiries, spoke in clear simple language and
were friendly in their manner.
• Not all members of staff checked back with the customer that they had understood the
exact nature of the enquiry.
• Fewer than half of all visitors felt that the query had been dealt with efficiently.
• Seven of the ten visitors stated that further action was required in order to deal
completely with the issue. This included all four visitors to Housing Options & Advice.
• All ten visits met the required standard on taking an interest, friendliness and being
attentive, with the majority being described as ‘Excellent’.
• All visits have been assessed as achieving either 80% or 60% of the model answer. At
least 80% is considered to be the required standard, therefore a small number (three of
the ten) did not meet the necessary threshold.
p.77
Phone Calls
Competency Standards Summary- Phone Calls
Efficiency
Full
Friendliness Initiative Positive
&
Information
Answer
Effectiveness
Housing
Options &
Advice (10)
Hackney
Service Centre
(10)
Neighbourhood
Offices (25)
Citizens Advice
Bureau (5)
Overall
Average (50)
70%
70%
70%
78%
50%
30%
90%
80%
90%
70%
60%
50%
71%
63%
75%
74%
63%
65%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
76%
70%
79%
75%
62%
52%
• Fewer than half (46%) of all calls met the desired assessment of either ‘Very Good’
or ‘Good’.
• This fell to just 20% of calls made to Housing Options & Advice.
• Almost one quarter (22%) were graded as either ‘Bad’ or ‘Very Bad’ – these will include
the five calls that were not answered at all.
• One third have been described as ‘Neither Good nor Bad’, and an area for attention in
the future will be to push more of these calls into the ‘good’ categories.
• Around half of callers to Housing Options & Advice and Hackney Service Centre were
placed in a queue
• The majority of calls (68%) were answered within 20 seconds. This rose to 76% at
Neighbourhood Offices and 70% at Hackney Service Centre.
• A small number of calls took longer than 60 seconds to answer, thus failing the required
performance standard.
• Almost all members of staff taking calls offered a greeting (94%), the only exceptions
were three calls to Neighbourhood Offices.
• Around three quarters of staff provided their name to the customer (74%). CAB staff fell
slightly below the overall overage at 67%.
• Most staff taking calls offered the service/team name (83%). Figures ranged between
100% for Hackney Service Centre and 75% for Neighbourhood Offices.
• The vast majority of staff appeared polite and receptive (77%). However, this figure fell
to 67% for staff at Neighbourhood Offices. Specifically, figures were lowest at De
Beauvoir & Queensbridge (50%) and Stoke Newington (40%).
• Providing clear and easy to understand greetings appears to the area of weakest
performance (70%).
p.78
• There was a notable variance of performance across the Quality of Answer measure.
All three of the calls that were taken by the CAB were answered fully, compared to just
10% of calls to Housing Options & Advice.
• Overall, two thirds of customers received at least a partial answer. In some cases, this
involved a member of staff having to call the customer back with information.
• At least 17% of calls to each Council outlet were referred elsewhere.
• Between 10% and 20% of calls to each Council service outlet were not answered at all.
• Around three quarters of customers felt that the staff member had listened carefully
without interrupting (77%). All of the Council outlets performed at above 80% on this
measure.
• Fewer than half of the mystery shoppers (49%) stated that the staff member checked
that they had understood the query. None of Council channels performed above 60%
on this measure.
• Staff were generally considered to be polite and professional (74%). Housing Options &
Advice fell below the average here at just 60%.
• Although most staff taking calls avoided using jargon (60%), this might also be an area
for further investigation.
• Around three quarters of calls (76%) met the required standard of either Competent or
Excellent for being Friendly/Approachable.
• This rose to 100% for the CAB and 90% for Hackney Service Centre.
• One call to Hackney Service Centre was graded as ‘Inadequate’ on this measure, along
with one call to Neighbourhood Offices
• Seventy per cent of calls met the competency standard of Taking the Initiative, with one
third achieving an ‘Excellent’ rating.
• This rose to 100% for the CAB and 80% for Hackney Service Centre.
• A small number of calls were described as ‘Inadequate’ on this measure.
• Almost eight in ten calls met the competency standard for being positive, with 44%
achieving an ‘Excellent’ rating.
• This rose to 100% for the CAB. Again, Hackney Service Centre was the top performing
Council channel with 90%.
• Five of the 47 calls that were answered were classified as either ‘Poor’ or ‘Inadequate’
• Only 62% of calls were assessed as meeting the required standard for offering
information.
• Although the CAB achieved 100%, the highest performing Council service channel was
Neighbourhood Offices with 63%.
• Of concern will be that more than one in ten calls are graded as either ‘Poor’ or
‘Inadequate’ on this competency standard.
• Most calls were deemed to be ‘Competent’ for the Efficiency & Effectiveness measure,
with three quarters meeting the required standard.
• Performance was relatively similar across the three Council service areas, with all
achieving at least 70%.
• However, two of the nine calls made to Housing Options & Advice have been graded as
‘Inadequate’.
p.79
• As for supplying information, one third of all callers were provided with application
forms. A small number were provided with website addresses and/or brochures and
leaflets.
• Around six in ten callers were not provided with any information at all. In many cases this
will have been because their query had been dealt with sufficiently already, on other
occasions it may be that further information would have been helpful to the caller.
• Just more than half of calls met the required standard on the measure of providing either
100% or 80% of the full answer.
• This fell to just 30% of calls made to Housing Options & Advice.
• One in five queries were provided with either no portion of the model answer at all or just
20% of it.
Emails
Competency Standards Summary- Email
Housing
Options &
Advice
Neighbourhood
Offices (4)
Citizens Advice
Bureau (1)
Overall
Average (10)
Emails Sent
Replies Received
Response Rate
4
3
75%
5
0
0
1
0
0
10
3
30%
• Emails were sent between 8th and 18th April. Only three replies were received within ten
days, all from Housing Options & Advice. None of the five emails sent to Neighbourhood
Offices were replied to. Assuming no IT problems impacted on the process then this is
clearly an area for concern.
• Of those emails that were replied to, one reply was received within one day while the
others took three and four days respectively.
• Those replies that were received were generally very positive, with two achieving a
100% model answer and the third achieving 60%.
• All three mystery shoppers that received a reply assessed the overall experience as
either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Good’.
p.80
Letters
• Five letters were sent to Housing Options & Advice. None were sent to alternative
Council outlets or the CAB. Only one letter was replied to.
• The reply was personalised to the customer. The department and team address and
phone number were provided, but not the name nor number of the individual member of
staff dealing with the enquiry.
• The reply was considered to be clear and easy to understand, but was not considered
to be particularly constructive. A full model answer was not provided. Instead, the
member of staff requested further information which should not have been necessary
given the content of the customer’s letter. The response was graded as ‘Poor’, achieving
0% of the model response.
• No headed paper was used, just plain paper attached to a compliment slip.
p.81
APPENDIX 7
Borough Policies relating to Residential Conversions
From Cabinet report 22nd June 09
9.4 Providing Better Homes
The Orthodox Jewish and Muslim communities in particular presented petitions
for extending homes to accommodate growing families and for larger new units.
A new section Delivering Growth brings together an account of how and where
economic and housing growth will be directed, and identifies the main areas of
growth and change. The Council’s adoption of the Residential Conversion and
Extension Supplementary Planning document on 29/04/09 established planning
policy position in respect of conversion and extensions. Related documents such
as the Affordable Housing Supplementary Document also form part of a multi
agency approach to accommodating growth under the London Plan.
From Council Report 29th April 09
In order to mitigate any adverse impact for residents belonging to any social,
religious or racial group, including disabled residents, the Council will encourage
the provision of alternative accommodation (including housing for large families)
in the vicinity that is easily accessible and fulfils cultural or religious needs. The
Council will also explore policies to prevent the loss of existing family houses by
conversion into smaller flats.
From the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, agreed 29th April
1.5. This SPD replaces Parts 2 & 3 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance
(SPG) 2: Residential Extensions and Alterations dated February 1989. Part 1 of
the SPG relating to residential conversions will continue to be a material
consideration when determining relevant planning applications. It is expected that
these sections of the SPG will be replaced by additional guidance which will be
produced as part of the Residential Development Standards for Conversions
SPD identified in the Hackney Local Development Framework for adoption in late
2009.
Residential Conversions
4.38 Any conversion of a house presently occupied by a single household into
two or more flats constitutes a change of use and, therefore, requires planning
permission. It is intended to bring forward a separate SPD on Residential
Conversions; however, until the adoption of that document, the section relating to
Residential Conversions in the SPG2 will remain Council policy.
From Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Residential Conversions,
Extensions & Alterations 1989
“The Council’s policy, as set out in the Hackney Local Plan Deposit Draft aims to
ensure that conversions are carried out to a suitable standard” (part 1, para 2)
H9: Unacceptable Conversions
The Council will normally not permit a Conversion Scheme:
a) In houses of less than 120 sq metres floorspace: or
b) Where it conflicts with meeting the social and housing needs of residents of a
property or area which the Council regards as a priority for action.
p.82
From the Unitary Development Plan HO12 Conversions (p.123) - Policy
The Council will normally permit a conversion scheme in houses of not less than
120 sq.m.(1,300 sq. ft.) floorspace, including internal circulation, unless it
conflicts with meeting the social and housing needs of residents of a property or
area which the council have specified as a renewal area. The Council will
normally expect such schemes to provide a variety of accommodation, including
a minimum of one family unit of 3 or more bedrooms, suitable for 4 or more
persons, with access to a garden. In more substantial properties, provision
should be made for larger families.
Justification
The Council considers it essential to maintain an adequate stock of houses
suitable for occupation as ‘single family dwellings’ to meet a continuing need for
such accommodation in the Borough. The threshold of 120 sq.m. will enable the
retention of houses for households with children whilst permitting houses of
greater floorspace to be converted to provide a range of dwelling sizes. In each
conversion scheme the Council generally wishes to see at least one family unit
(minimum 3 bedrooms) provided.
The Council estimates that the minimum floor area required to provide a three
bedroom and another unit is 120 sq.m. and that the subdivision of smaller
houses would not meet the requirements of this Policy. The Council also
recognises that there are housing areas such as Renewal Areas (designated
under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) where the conversion of
properties will conflict with the Council’s objectives in meeting the needs of local
residents.
A variety of size of accommodation in the older housing stock is essential to meet
residents future needs. The high rate of conversions is such that there has been
a substantial loss of accommodation suitable for households with children. This
policy allows for use and sub-division to small units in schemes that provide a
larger dwelling.
There is an acute need to maintain accommodation for larger households (eight
or more persons) wherever possible. Large households have experienced
extreme difficulty in gaining access to accommodation. This has particularly
disadvantaged households from black and ethnic minority communities. The
larger the dwelling, the wider the range and size of households that can be
satisfactorily accommodated. The Council is obliged to plan for the needs of
larger households by taking every opportunity to create and maintain
accommodation of a suitable size.
The Council recognises that a dif f e r e n t dwelling mix may be required to
enable the refurbishment of Listed Buildings and those situated in Conservation
Areas in order to retain their distinctive townspace character. Elsewhere a very
poor external environment and inability to provide satisfactory external amenity
space may mean that conversions which do not provide a family sized unit would
be acceptable.
p.83
The Council also recognises that schemes to improve the accommodation and
amenities of existing tenants of non-self contained accommodation may also
require a diff e r e n t dwelling mix. Similarly it may not be appropriate to apply a
specific dwelling mix policy in respect of those schemes undertaken as part of a
wider rental or shared ownership programme which contributes to meeting the
Council’s statutory housing responsibilities by the provision of nomination rights.
The Council will routinely review the operation of this policy in the light of
emerging and other relevant information, including strategic advice and
guidance, so as to ensure that the policy continues to be amenable to the
provision of accommodation in accordance with housing needs and
requirements. The Council will also monitor the undertaking of conversions to
ensure that they do not further generate undue detriment, through traffic and
parking congestion e.g., to residential amenities.
p.84
REPORT OF CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
Classification
Executive response to Living in Public
Hackney Scrutiny Commission
Review into Overcrowding in Ward(s) affected
All
Hackney
Enclosures
Cabinet: 23 November 2009
Council: 25 November 2009
1.
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Hackney is one of the most severely overcrowded boroughs in the country.
Overcrowding can have a huge impact on the quality of residents’ lives – causing
loss of privacy, creating health issues, and impacting on the ability of children and
young people to play and study.
1.2
We are committed to tackling overcrowding, and have had some success in recent
years in alleviating the most severe overcrowding in the borough. The levels of
overcrowding remain far too high however, and an Overcrowding strategy is
currently being drafted which will set out the Councils strategic objectives and
mechanisms for further alleviating the overcrowding in the borough.
1.3
This scrutiny review is therefore timely. Many of the recommendations relate to the
draft Overcrowding Strategy, and will help shape the final document. The table in
section 3 outlines the Executive response to each of these recommendations.
1.4
I commend this report to Cabinet.
2.
RECOMMENDATION
2.1
Cabinet are asked to approve the content of this response.
p.85
3.
EXECUTIVE RESPONSE TO SCRUTINY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
Response
Recommendation One
The Commission recommends that in
finalising the Overcrowding strategy, further
consideration is given to how best to utilise
the private rented sector to help alleviate the
pressure on local housing registers. The
Commission anticipates that this would
include wider publicity and use of the
Londonwide voluntary accreditation scheme
for landlords, East London partnership work
with larger private landlords, evidence of the
strongest action taken against rogue
landlords and formalised support for
individuals or families moved into private
rented accommodation. The Commission
would also like the Council to provide
feedback on the innovative approaches used
in other London Boroughs (such as
Kingston’s “Breathing Space” initiative), and
how they may be utilised in Hackney.
As the Commission is aware an objective of
the draft overcrowding strategy is `to support
households moving into the private rented
sector’. As the fastest-growing sector in the
borough, and in the context of the limited
supply of new social housing compared to
demand, the
private rented sector has a
valuable role to play in meeting housing
need, including that of overcrowded and
under-occupying households.
It is essential that where the council suggests
this option as viable for particular
households, we follow through with sufficient
guidance and support for a successful
transition to be made to the private tenancies
we have brokered.
The Lettings Initiatives team who are
promoting the Choose and Move and Fresh
Start schemes already deliver personalised
packages of support and assistance in these
circumstances, including payments of up to
£6,000 for rent deposits, advance rent and
removal costs, and help with utility
connections, benefits, safety checks, and
advice on security of tenure.
We intend to further develop these intensive
support packages, and ensure that families
making these moves are contacted regularly
to ensure that they are thriving in their new
accommodation.
The service is also committed to promoting
good practice in the sector, including the panLondon Landlord Accreditation scheme. 300
landlords and agents in Hackney are now
accredited. The Housing Supply provides
training to landlords on their legal
responsibilities as part of the accreditation
process, and works only with accredited
landlords in offering private sector properties
as a housing option.
p.86
We are also committed to tackling bad
practice in the sector, and the Housing
Options team deal robustly with the small
number of cases where harassment and/or
illegal eviction is alleged.
A recent briefing note issued after a meeting
with a member of the Commission to discuss
these issues sets out the service’s approach
in more detail.
The Breathing Space initiative in Kingston
(which is currently suspended) involves the
leasing of large private sector properties for
overcrowded households who retain their
priority as transfer applicants while occupying
the leased property. This is an approach
which can be considered alongside the range
of new and existing initiatives set out in the
draft strategy.
The draft strategy also contains details of the
sub-regional initiatives which are in place to
contribute to the tackling of overcrowding and
under-occupation – this is an area of
development for East London authorities, but
has not to date delivered outcomes in
significant numbers compared to more local
initiatives. In a similar way, sub-regional work
with larger private landlords is currently
limited in its scope. The service will take the
commission’s views into account when
discussing how joint approaches in this area
can be made more effective.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate We are happy to provide a report in July
Director should provide the Commission with 2010 as requested on the progress of these
a report detailing options and decisions by initiatives.
July 2010.
Recommendation Two
(i) The Commission recommends that in
finalising the Overcrowding strategy, further
consideration is given to how best to support
families in overcrowded conditions who are
waiting to find new housing through the
Choice Based Letting system. The Space
Management pilot should take account of all
examples of similar projects completed
The Commission’s views are noted and
complement the views of the service and the
contents of the draft strategy. The service is
committed to providing support to all
households on the housing register who may
need guidance on the use of the system and
how to bid successfully. We will also be
carrying out home visits in the next few
p.87
across London.
months to all overcrowded households on the
register.
The Space Management model (essentially a
means of alleviating overcrowding `in situ’
through more effective use of available living
space) is now underway in Hackney, and a
number of families have made the
adjustments suggested with the assistance of
the service. This initiative is based on the
scheme developed in Camden, and uses the
same software package to provide customers
with a `virtual’ demonstration of the benefits
of the scheme.
(ii) The Commission recommends that in
preparing the final Overcrowding strategy, an
Equalities Impact Assessment is completed
as a priority, to consider all aspects of the
service but focused on: how ethnicity data is
collated and used across relevant services,
how different initiatives may serve one
community better than others, and the
support given to individuals moving into the
private rented sector.
The Equalities Impact Assessment is now
nearing completion, and will be included in
the draft strategy prior to public consultation.
The specific concerns of the Commission are
being taken into account. In particular the
EQIA will seek to identify the levels of takeup among different ethnic groups into the
option of moving to the private rented sector,
and suggest if necessary means of ensuring
that all groups in the borough are aware of all
the available options and experience the
same degree of confidence about their
viability.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate
Director should provide the Commission with
a report detailing how best the Council can
mitigate the impact of overcrowding by July
2010.
As stated above we are happy to provide a
further report on these issues, and suggest
that a single report should be produced which
will incorporate feedback on both of these
recommendations.
Recommendation Three
(i) The Commission recommends that the
formal referral system now used with Shelter
be revised accordingly to be agreed with all
relevant local housing advice providers.
The protocol with Shelter in East London has
been revised during the course of the
Commission’s review, as Commission
members are aware. Similar protocols are
already in place with a number of other
housing advice agencies with whom the
service works in partnership, and the service
will continue to refine these arrangements.
(ii) The Commission recommends that as
part of the work to link Children’s and
Housing services following the Children &
Young People Scrutiny Commission’s review
of 0-5 Services, efforts should be undertaken
to educate staff from Children’s Centres on
This recommendation is accepted. The draft
overcrowding strategy makes the important
link between our work with overcrowded
households and the Children and Young
People’s Plan, and this will need to be
followed up with specific projects of the type
p.88
the impact of overcrowding and options
available to families, whilst ensuring that
housing officers who attend surgeries are
providing the latest information relating to
overcrowding initiatives.
suggested.
(iii) The Commission recommends that the
Mystery Shopping be repeated by May 2010
(using the completed survey's questions to
provide comparable data), and that the
results of both the latest report and the
repeated exercise be fed into the Council’s
service planning.
As stated at the Commission meeting in
June, the Housing Needs service is happy to
carry out a further Mystery Shopping exercise
as requested. The Action Plan produced in
response to the exercise carried out earlier
this year has been completed.
There are already regular meetings between
senior managers in Housing Needs and
Children Services, and the Head of Housing
Needs will request that a discussion of the
Commission’s recommendation takes place
at the next scheduled meeting.
It is important to note the service is being
significantly remodelled in the coming
months, with all staff moving to the new
Hackney Service Centre and all functions
being reviewed with a view to potential
further changes to service structures and to
the way various responsibilities are
discharged between teams. In this context it
may be difficult for the repeat exercise to
make clear `before and after’ comparisons
between the services response to various
scenarios.
There are a number of links in the draft
overcrowding strategy to other council
priorities and strategies, including a number
of those referred to in this recommendation.
We will consider how the relevant sections
should be presented in the final version in
light of the Commission’s recommendation.
We recommend that the relevant Corporate
As stated above we are happy to provide a
Director should provide the Commission with
further report on these issues, and suggest
a report detailing progress by July 2010.
that a single report should be produced which
will incorporate feedback on all of these
recommendations
Recommendation Four
(i) The Commission recommends that the
Council begins consultation with RSLs
operating in the Borough to gauge interest in
creating shared lettings policies and (in the
longer term) a common housing register.
The Council should also consider the best
Accepted - Officers from the Neighbourhoods
and Regeneration Directorate are discussing
with officers from the Housing Needs Division
of the Community Services Directorate on
how best to take this recommendation
forward.
p.89
way to ensure contact details for RSLs
operating in the borough are kept updated.
(ii) The Commission recommends that the
Council works to promote the importance of
completing CORE data responses to all
RSLs and the need to gather wider
information about overcrowding, leading by
example with their own submissions to
central government.
Accepted. The Directorate will address these
issues when contributing to the draft
Overcrowding Strategy, which will soon be
out for consultation.
The Better Homes Partnership will look to
address overcrowding and under-occupation
in its immediate work programme. At the
most recent partnership Board meeting held
on the 16th September, partners agreed this
to be a priority issue. The draft proposal is for
the Board's work programme to set out a
series of focused discussions around priority
themes, including the challenge of tackling
We recommend that the relevant Corporate overcrowding and under-occupation in the
Director should provide the Commission with borough. The issue of housing management
a report detailing options and decisions by standards will be taken forward in the
development and delivery of the Hackney
July 2010.
Housing Strategy 2010 - 2015, with which the
partnership will be engaged on an ongoing
basis.
(iii) The Commission recommends that the
Better Homes Partnership continues its
important work in agreeing shared standards
across
RSLs
relating
to
housing
management, and consider including shared
definitions of overcrowding and approaches
to supporting overcrowded residents during
a future review of these standards.
Recommendation Five
(i) The Commission recommends that the
Council pursues any activity that will
continue
to
protect
family-sized
accommodation. This may include any
possible intervention through the anticipated
Supplementary Planning Document relating
to Residential Conversions (subject to their
evidence gathering), and priorities within the
Local
Development
Framework
Core
Strategy. The Council should identify any
other areas where family-sized properties
can be protected (through initiatives like the
Empty Homes scheme), or converted to
provide homes for larger groups.
Accepted. Hackney Council Planning Policy
protects family homes and the design of
homes suitable to accommodate larger
families on 2 fronts:
Dwelling mix: requiring a significant
proportion of family sized homes in all
developments
Size standards: prescribing minimum space
standards for bedrooms, living rooms, dining,
kitchen bathrooms and WCs according to the
number of occupiers.
These policies are expressed in the Hackney
Unitary Development Plan 1995, the London
Plan 2008 and Residential Development
Standards
Supplementary
Planning
Guidance originally approved by Hackney
Council in 1984, reviewed and re-approved of
SPG in 1992.
p.90
Space standards described are consistent
with Housing Corporation / Homes and
Communities Agency standards applicable to
public funded housing development.
Following adoption of the LDF Core Strategy
programmed for May 2010, it is proposed to
work up a Development Management Policy
which will provide a locally evidenced basis
for requiring a proportion of larger family
dwellings to be delivered, to meet specific
local housing needs.
On space standards, it is considered that
rigorous application of the existing SPG and
emerging London Housing Design guide
standards to all housing sectors offers the
best option of achieving a size standard that
meets local need. The Planning Service is
also rolling out a training scheme to test
officer’s capacity to evaluate and negotiate
space improvements.
(ii) The Commission recommends that the
impact of overcrowding and the expectations
of residents moving out of under-occupied
properties are included in the design
guidance and best practice, both before
developments received planning approval
(through the ‘planning design toolkit’) and
once more specific designs are to be
implemented (through housing management
work). These should draw on the examples
shared with the Commission, such as the
Holly Street development, and could benefit
from regular liaisons with the officers who
work closely with families impacted by
overcrowding.
Accepted. With regard to managing
expectations of residents moving out of larger
under
occupied
dwellings
into
new
developments, information concerning the
space standards, and available space for
occupation is available and could be supplied
for example through user friendly drawings
and schedules of accommodation and space,
in line with housing design standards.
This option is facilitated by planning best
practice to require planning application
submissions to demonstrate compliance with
housing space standards through a grid or
schedule on application scale drawings
enumerating the function, size and features
We recommend that the relevant Corporate of each room and space.
Director should provide the Commission with
a report detailing options and decisions by
July 2010.
p.91
Lead Councillor:
Cllr Nargis Khan, Cabinet member for Community Services
Lead Director:
Kim Wright, Corporate Director of Community Services
p.92