| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.48 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town
(Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate on the important subject of affordable housing in London. He made a powerful speech, highlighting the scale and range of problems and I thank him for his kind remarks about my involvement in the subject. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, has taken a keen interest in housing in the year since she was elected to represent her constituents. Both have done a real service by highlighting the scale of housing problems that still afflict too many people in our capital city. I welcome the fact that many other hon. Members, in particular several of my hon. Friends, have come to show their concern.
Housing in London has very special characteristics that mark it out from housing in the rest of the country. London contains 16 of the 22 most deprived local authorities in England and has two thirds of the most deprived housing estates. Furthermore, over one third of England's stock of flats and maisonettes is in London. London also accounts for over 40 per cent. of England's high-rise housing--which is housing of 10 storeys or more. If medium-rise properties--housing with more than four storeys--are included, the figure rises to over 60 per cent. London has the largest social rented sector of any of the English regions, and 18 per cent. of all those in England who live in the local authority sector live in London.
The Government have a key role to play in helping to meet London's housing needs. We invest heavily in the social rented sector through the housing investment programme--which this year will provide £162 million for local authorities, with a further £33 million to be invested in private sector renewal. Additionally, the Housing Corporation invests £307 million in the housing association sector through the approved development programme. Taken together, investment this year involves a total of about £0.5 billion.
The Government realise that that investment is not nearly enough to address the backlog of repairs and maintenance that has accrued over the past 18 years, which London local authorities estimate to be £5 billion, mostly in inner London.
Mr. Dismore:
My hon. Friend is specifically addressing housing issues in inner London. Is there not also a substantial problem in providing affordable housing in outer London constituencies, such as mine and that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)? Is not one option in dealing with the problem to form partnerships--such as that in Claremont road, in Barnet, where the local authority, working with Fairview builders and the Network housing association, has produced a mixed development providing 110 affordable rental housing units, a nursing home and a community centre?
Mr. Raynsford:
I take entirely on board my hon. Friend's comments on the extent of housing needs in areas of outer London, such as Barnet, where he has been working assiduously to tackle those needs, to help his constituents secure better housing.
Last year, faced with those problems in London, the Government acted quickly to implement our manifesto commitment to provide additional resources for housing
and housing-related regeneration under the capital receipts initiative. In this financial year, London authorities will receive £167 million through the capital receipts initiative. We realised that many of the local authorities with the greatest need to invest in their housing stock had relatively low levels of receipts set aside. We therefore established a system to redistribute receipts as credit approvals to authorities--using as a basis two thirds of need, and one third of historic receipts set aside from, for example, right-to-buy sales.
The inner London boroughs--those traditionally with the greatest need, but with relatively small receipts--gain considerably from that system. Inner London accounts for about 6 per cent. of the country's housing, but, this year, is receiving about 17 per cent. of the national allocation of capital receipts.
We expect individual local authorities to identify their own local priorities in applying extra spending power. However, many London authorities--once they have dealt with their immediate need to spend on their own stock--will turn their attention to new social housing provision by working in partnership with registered social landlords. This year, London authorities expect to spend about 18 per cent. of the available resources from capital receipts on such provision.
I have mentioned the need for improvement in the private sector, where many people live in poor conditions. Many elderly people--of whom there are a large number in outer London areas, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)--live in houses that they own outright, but do not have the means to maintain them. A grant under part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 towards the cost of repairs, improvements or adaptations to their home may enable such elderly people to stay in their home.
Discretionary house renovation grants may be given for major repairs or improvements, and disabled facilities grants for adaptations may enable disabled people to continue living in their homes. Home repair assistance may be given for more minor works of repair or improvement. All those grants can help to solve housing problems.
Housing must not be considered in isolation. Housing issues are closely interwoven with the other social issues of our day--such as welfare dependency, unemployment, poor education and crime. It is a matter not only of providing a roof over people's heads, but of working in an holistic manner to ensure that we find effective solutions to a range of problems. Housing is an integral part of the Government's broader agenda in tackling disadvantage and giving people a decent quality of life. It is about building community pride, by giving people opportunities and some influence and control over their daily lives.
Our housing agenda lies behind the Prime Minister's decision to establish a special unit in the Cabinet Office to secure concerted Government action to tackle social exclusion. It is no coincidence that one of the unit's top priorities is to deal with the problem of housing estates suffering from multiple deprivation and problems including crime, drug abuse, unemployment, community breakdown, poor schooling, low expectations and low attainment levels. The unit is due shortly to report on those issues and on rough sleeping--which is another issue of particular concern to London.
London has more than its fair share of housing problems, but it also has a wealth of experience in promoting anti-exclusion schemes through a range of programmes, including the single regeneration budget. We are pooling the knowledge, experience and ideas of those involved to provide a strong London input to the work of the social exclusion unit, which I hope will make an effective and lasting input in dealing with the problems of social exclusion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, planning policies have a significant role to play in housing. The Government's current policy on planning and affordable housing encourages private builders to help meet affordable housing requirements by providing a mix of housing types in their proposals. Planning policy guidance note 3 encourages local planning authorities to seek an element of affordable housing in significant new housing developments.
We have recently issued circular 6/98, to replace circular 13/96 and to clarify how the delivery of affordable housing may be assisted through negotiation with developers. The main change introduced in the circular lowers the size thresholds above which local planning authorities may seek the inclusion of affordable housing. Those have generally been lowered from 40 dwellings and 1.5 hectare to 25 dwellings and 1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings. In inner London, the size thresholds have been reduced from 25 dwellings and 1 hectare to 15 dwellings and 0.5 of a hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings.
The revised arrangements also provide, in exceptional circumstances, for local authorities in outer London to seek to adopt a lower threshold, through the local planning process. The arrangements will help further to increase the supply of affordable housing delivered through planning policy.
The circular is intended to provide a clearer framework and to help local authorities adopt more realistic and consistent approaches in preparing planning policies and handling applications involving affordable housing. It is also intended to encourage a more co-operative approach in preparing planning policies, to ensure that the views of all those involved in housing delivery--including providers and enablers--are taken into account.
When a local planning authority is able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing, based on a robust assessment of local housing needs, it is advised to include a policy in the plan for seeking affordable housing. Such policies should define what the authority considers to be affordable, having regard to local income levels and house prices. I specifically note the comments on local income levels and house prices in Westminster made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.
The assessment of need should also provide the justification for local authorities to estimate a specified proportion of affordable housing for suitable sites that
might become available. Such an approach will more accurately establish the amount of affordable homes needed, and enable housing and planning policies to focus on the particular problems and opportunities in a local area.
Therefore, where there is evidence of need for affordable housing within a London borough, we expect the local authority to seek the inclusion of affordable housing in all new housing proposals on suitable sites above the size threshold.
By providing a clearer framework for planning policies, circular 6/98 will facilitate speedier and more effective negotiations and decisions on planning applications involving affordable housing. However, both local planning authorities and developers will have to be more flexible in decisions on affordable housing provision. The message we are receiving from developers is that they are willing to negotiate with planning authorities, provided that they have in place policies that clearly show the way in which the authority intends to implement affordable housing policy. Those policies should also be consistent with the Government's advice.
The Government wish to optimise the contribution that the planning system can make to the overall supply of affordable housing. We wish also to ensure that there is certainty in the planning process, and that the overall supply of housing is not unduly hindered. Those objectives are especially important given the need to accommodate increasing numbers of new households, and to maximise the use of recycled land--brown-field sites--and existing buildings for that purpose. We must therefore ensure that affordable housing policies are consistent with guidance, consistently applied. I consider that our planning policy will help to optimise the contribution that the planning system can make to the overall supply of affordable housing in London.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |