HQN’S MAGAZINE FOR BOARDS, EXECUTIVES AND LEADERS SPRING 2020
The hidden housing budget What it means for the sector
Alison Inman faces 15 questions The ongoing cladding scandal Special pull out: Evidence
Contents Spring 2020 Published by: HQN Rockingham House St Maurice’s Road York YO31 7JA
Editorial: Alistair McIntosh Jon Land Jules BIrch Janis Bright Mark Lawrence Email: jon.land@hqnetwork.co.uk Tel: 07740 740417 Advertising: All enquires to: hqn@hqnetwork.co.uk Tel: 01904 557150 Design: Sam Wiggle
Printed by The Reliable Print Company, York
Published four times a year. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Printed on FSC ® certified paper.
Cover features 5 – A life in 15 questions
Special pullout: Evidence
Everybody in housing has heard of Alison Inman – but you might not know her biggest regret...
The latest edition of Evidence magazine incorporating topical housing research and analysis from leading academics.
10 – The hidden housing budget Last month’s Budget had some large implications for housing. Jules Birch files the fiscal themes.
13 – The last word Three years after Grenfell, and people continue to suffer terribly. Mark Lawrence covers the ongoing scandal.
2
| SPRING 2020
“This would be a good time for the regulator to make a swift change to its rules on value for money. Why not insist that any measures to save money also ensure that services are resilient?”
Where do we go from here? It’s going to be hard to hit the right tone today. Some of you will be worried about losing your job or maybe you fear the worst for the health of someone you love. All I can try and do is come up with some hope for the future. Lord King was the Governor of the Bank of England during the credit crunch and he talks a lot of sense about what we need to do now. He’s looking at the NHS and shaking his head. It might very well be efficient. But it’s got to be more resilient. Yes, it’s crying out for spare capacity. We all see that now. So we need to start tendering out services in a different way. Instead of grinding prices down, we must make sure there’s enough slack in the system to cope with a crisis. Lord King is making a similar point to Dame Judith Hackitt on fire safety. If you try and do things on the cheap, it can come back to haunt you. If social landlords push too hard for savings from contractors during the lockdown, some of them will topple over. Where will that leave us? We will struggle to get vital work done and, if the laws of supply and demand apply, the contractors will have us over a barrel soon enough. It’ll be a struggle to get anyone to do anything, so, all things being equal, prices should soar. Just as we have a big backlog to clear. This would be a good time for the regulator to make a swift change to its rules on value for money. Why not insist that any measures to save
money also ensure that services are resilient? This would apply to direct labour organisations as well as contractors. And any proposals to merge must pass a resilience test too. What will the new body do if events conspire against it? We’re finding in so many ways that life is not plain sailing. And if it seems to be going well, you can bank on the weather turning! Lord King is also sound on stress testing. He says we knew full well that a credit crunch and a pandemic would happen. But we didn’t know when it would occur or the scale of it. That’s a bit like a broken clock being right twice a day! In fairness, Lord King makes a good point, how can we get better at planning for the worst case scenario? For me, we’ve got to start by ditching fake assurance. The risk industry has not covered itself in glory. And how could it? Most of the risk experts look backwards to something that’s gone wrong in the past and amplify it a bit. But they carefully calibrate the dial so the downside never exceeds the ability to take mitigating actions to get back on course. At best, this approach will stop you from repeating a mistake. But, as the small print always says, past performance is no guide to the future. Is there a better way to do things? This is where I salute the RSH. They resisted the pressure to impose standard stress tests in the way that the Bank of England does. This stops
boards from thinking for themselves. You pass the test and rest on your laurels. Sadly, all it means is that you can defeat an old enemy but not necessarily the one you’re facing now. Part of the answer from Lord King is that you need to build up spare capacity. That’s a good idea. But I would suggest that we need to get a lot better at scanning. The big crises that have come along, such as the rent cut, fire safety and Covid-19, just weren’t on the risk registers, were they? But as soon as it happens, we hit Google, and guess what? Yep, someone somewhere was warning us about the dangers. At the risk of sounding trite, we need to get out more (after lockdown, obviously). We should talk to experts in other sectors. And we ought to read widely. History teaches us that someone always knows. The challenge is to separate the wheat from the chaff and listen to those that are on the money. I’m the first to admit that’s difficult. But maybe we’re better facing up to it than relying on simple models? When you’re looking at the traffic lights on the risk map, real life is blasting through your defences with the frenzied disdain of a London cyclist!
Alistair McIntosh Chief Executive, HQN SPRING 2020 |
3
HQN goes virtual Check out our webinar programme for events, training and best practice groups – updated daily on the HQN website. We’re here to support our members and the wider housing community.
For more information, please contact hqn@hqnetwork.co.uk or visit www.hqnetwork.co.uk
A life in 15 questions Alison Inman
The former president of the Chartered Institute of Housing – and all-round housing legend – shines a little light on her life and times.
Q1 – Tell us about your career and how you ended up in your current role My so-called career? I have worked in local government and the third sector. When I left university, I worked for the CAB in a number of roles, then moved to Basildon Council to join their welfare rights team. I then moved into what was then called ‘personnel’ and did a lot of training. I developed CFS/ME in my late twenties and left full-time work. As I recovered, I became a JP and sat for nearly 20 years, including ten years in the family court. I have been a school governor at various schools, and particularly enjoyed chairing a Fresh Start school for ten years. I have been a trustee of a number of charities and I suppose I caught the governance bug. I became a board member at Colchester Borough Homes in 2007, later becoming chair, and by some twist of fate became chair of the National Federation of ALMOs in 2009. I was on the CIH board from 2011-17 and was CIH president in 2017/8. I’m currently on the boards of two East Anglian housing associations, as well as Tpas. A couple of months ago I joined the board of the Housing Diversity Network. Fair to say that I have never had a plan. For years I thought that I would never work again, in either a paid or unpaid capacity, so it is just great to think I do have something to offer.
Q2 – Describe yourself in three words Enthusiastic, extroverted, opinionated.
Q3 – Favourite place on earth? Aldeburgh, on the Suffolk coast. It soothes my soul.
Q4 – What would you change about yourself? I always mean to be quieter. It never works. And I have rubbish feet that mean I lose my balance.
both unhappy and mentally unwell. Months earlier Karen Armitage had sat me down and told me to work out what I could and could not change and to act accordingly, but I did not take her advice. I wish I had. Also, my son gave me a piece of advice that really helps when people are behaving unreasonably and unpleasantly: just be grateful that you are not them. It works. Alison Inman
Q5 – Describe your home We moved to Colchester in 1990 when my husband got a job at the University of Essex. He had been a student here and this was his dream job. We have lived in the same street all that time, moving from no 21 to no 7 in 2006. The house was built in 1881, part of one of the first ‘artisan’ housing estates in the country. It is a really mixed area and there is everything you could possibly need, including a large ‘recreation ground’. I am writing this during the lockdown and feeling really grateful for the corner shops, local butcher, and somewhere to have a walk.
Q6 – What makes you angry? All the things you would expect – homelessness, poverty, domestic abuse, social injustice. On a more personal level… pomposity, narcissism, and people who do not respect proper queuing protocols!!!
Q7 – Most treasured possession? My Mum died last year and I now have what passes for the ‘family archive’. I would hate to lose any of that, including birthday cards she received as a child in the thirties, family photos etc.
Q8 – Best piece of advice you have ever been given? I got myself in a bit of a pickle a few years ago and it took me far too long to extricate myself from a work situation that was making me
Q9 – If you won £1 million on the Lottery, what would you spend it on? Oh definitely a little house in Aldeburgh. Then I would agonise about how to best spread the rest about to try and do some good.
Q10 – Biggest achievement? I am really proud of the impact the CIH ‘Make a Stand’ campaign has had. When I chose domestic abuse as the theme of my presidential year, I was not sure how the housing sector would react. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance and Women’s Aid to help start some conversations. Too many women are dying, too many lives are being ruined, and there is so much more that we can do to prevent this.
Q11 – Biggest regret? Had a terrible perm in 1988…
Q12 – Most overused phrase? Probably not appropriate for a family publication like The Governor.
Q13 – Recommend a book ‘Anne of Green Gables’. Anne would absolutely ace the lockdown #BeMoreAnne
Q14 – The best piece of television in the last 12 months See below
Q15 – Tell us a secret about yourself I do not watch the television.
SPRING 2020 |
5
We’ve seen some major changes over the last couple of weeks which have unsettled all our normal routines and ways of working. And it’s not over yet. Rest assured our networks are running as usual. We’re here to support our members and we’ve: • Enhanced our benefits with more guidance and advice • Gone virtual so you can access us remotely from your home office • Set up WhatsApp groups so you can network and exchange ideas more freely.
Email networks@hqnetwork.co.uk to find out more or visit hqnetwork.co.uk
EVIDENCE update Issue 26 | Spring 2020
THE LATEST RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS – IN PLAIN ENGLISH
Welcome! In normal times the focus on homelessness recedes at the end of winter. But in the new landscape the focus has rightly stayed and we remind ourselves once more that people are homeless in all kinds of situations, all the year round. Our current issue looks at the situations of two particular groups of homeless people: mothers with children, and people who are working. Kesia Reeve and colleagues found worrying questions about the interactions of policy and practice in dealing with mothers who become homeless – often losing their home and children in quick succession. Timely research flowing from evaluation of the new homelessness legislation in Wales by Anya Ahmed and colleagues also found serious difficulties for the growing numbers of homeless people in work. Having a job was no passport out of poverty, Katy Jones writes in her summary, and finding
housing became an increasingly desperate search for those who were homeless. Even those who have housing are far from immune from the wider crisis, writes Jenny Preece. Exclusion from decent housing, or from certain locations, is getting worse according to study participants. Meanwhile, England is not doing well against five principles for housing options for our ageing population, as David Robinson outlines. Also in this issue: housing organisations are uniquely placed to tackle hate crime, writes Kusminder Chahal from Birmingham City University. But is the sector doing enough? Meanwhile in Glasgow there’s news of an exciting project to evaluate retrofitting of very high energy standards in traditional tenement housing. The results will be keenly awaited by all strategic authorities and landlords in responding to the climate emergency. Janis Bright Editor, Evidence
In this issue: 1 Welcome | Stigma examined 2 Homeless mothers: understanding ‘single’ and ‘family’ homelessness 3 Hate crime and social housing: following the evidence 4 Exploring exclusion in contemporary housing systems 5 The challenges of an aging population 6 Experiences of ‘in-work homelessness’ 7 New report on homelessness in Europe 8 Carbon reduction targets and the existing housing stock
Stigma examined A study of the area around two estates in Melbourne, Australia, offers insights on social housing stigma. A team of researchers explored whether having had good interactions with public housing tenants, valuing ethnic and linguistic diversity, and being satisfied with living space and conditions changes private residents’ stigmatisation of public housing tenants. The team surveyed 275 residents, about half in public housing and half in private. Stigmatisation of social housing among private residents was higher, though not greatly so. Other factors associated with higher stigma were age and length of residence, while higher income was associated with lower stigma. The researchers noted that there was some
stigmatisation among social tenants themselves, which they say ‘points to the existence of internalised stigma among social housing tenants’. The team adds: ‘We found a complex relationship between interactions with social housing tenants and built form and stigma. ‘Simply designing neighbourhoods that place public and private housing residents in close proximity may be less effective than other approaches, such as education and marketing tactics, that encourage private housing residents to challenge their assumptions about public housing.’ Full report: https://bit.ly/2R1XB9v SPRING 2020 |
EVIDENCE - 1
Homeless mothers: understanding ‘single’ and ‘family’ homelessness Housing research rarely considers homeless women as mothers, and so does not uncover issues relating to maternal needs and experiences, write Kesia Reeve and Emma Bimpson from Sheffield Hallam University. Yet in the course of our research over the past 20 years we have come into contact with homeless mothers for whom maternal identity and needs have been paramount. We embarked on a research project funded by the Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) and Sheffield Hallam University to explore and make visible the experiences of homeless mothers and their interaction with housing and other social services. Based on interviews with 26 homeless mothers living in various forms of temporary accommodation in the north of England, and consultation with organisations that offer housing and other support to women and families, the research findings raise questions about whether policy and legislation are adequately protecting and supporting this group of women.
JOIN NOW! The Housing Studies Association (HSA) is a UK-wide membership organisation which brings together researchers, practitioners and professionals to promote the study of housing. HSA runs a programme of events including our annual conference and our public lecture on housingrelated themes. The Association also offers: • Events grant scheme enabling members to disseminate and discuss their work, • Seminar Series grant competition • Conference bursaries to early career and/or nonwaged housing researchers and practitioners • The prestigious annual Valerie Karn prize for best paper by an early career housing researcher. Become a member from just £25 a year and access these benefits plus reduced rates to our events. See www.housing-studies-association.org Follow us on twitter @HSA_UK.
EVIDENCE - 2
| SPRING 2020
‘Invisible’ mothers Many of the women interviewed were living apart from their children, although most had been full-time carers of children shortly before, or at the time, they became homeless. Yet their maternal status became invisible to many services once their children were living elsewhere. Those whose children had been removed by the local authority had received no follow-up support and they became defined by housing and homelessness services as ‘single’ women. Reinforcing family separation In the English homelessness legislation people are defined as a ‘family’ if they have dependent children, and ‘single’ if they do not. These categories confer certain rights, eligibility for, and access to housing. Local authorities, for example, have a statutory duty to house homeless families because they are deemed to have ‘priority need’. There is scope to classify people temporarily separated from children as a ‘family’ and therefore as having priority need. However, none of the mothers interviewed who were living apart from their children - even if only temporarily - had been defined as a ‘family’. Now defined as ‘single’, they were not automatically awarded priority need for housing (although some were given priority under others categories of vulnerability) and were only considered eligible for housing suitable for a single person. This was in direct conflict with the child protection plans drawn up by children’s social services that often include a requirement to secure family sized housing before children would be returned. ‘At risk’ or ‘a risk’? Domestic violence was the clear trigger for homelessness for many, which prompted deteriorating mental ill health and alcohol use amongst some. Women described situations where they were clearly vulnerable, but reflected on how children’s social care policies and professionals positioned them as culpable. For example, some women’s children had been removed on the grounds of ‘emotional abuse’ for allowing domestic abuse to continue (for example by remaining in the home) or allowing children to witness that violence. In a couple of cases children had been removed from women who had separated from the perpetrator because they had ‘failed’ to prevent their ex-partner from finding and being violent towards them. Women also reported being held accountable for ‘mismanagement’ of tenancies (arrears, property damage, abandonment) by being assessed as ‘intentionally homeless’ or barred from bidding for tenancies. Such ‘mismanagement’ was often a result of the behaviour of violent partners or occurred during periods of intense vulnerability including domestic abuse and child removal.
Temporary accommodation Temporary accommodation (hostels, supported housing, refuges) has a vital role to play at times of crisis, and some of the women interviewed are likely to have slept rough without it, but there are questions about the suitability of the current offer. Many of the mothers interviewed had lived in temporary accommodation for lengthy periods of time, often with limited contact from housing authorities. Most of those escaping violence had to move out of the area, isolating them from crucial support networks. Getting children to school, visiting non-resident children, attending important appointments and accessing important practical, emotional and financial support from family were difficult in these circumstances. Women living apart from their children were unable to spend time with them in temporary accommodation because of visitor policies, while women who had their children with them reported being housed in refuges and hostels which
were unsuitable for families. Some also reported feeling that their parenting was being judged and monitored. For all of these reasons, the provision for mothers who become homeless must be carefully considered by local housing authorities. Conclusion Many of the women in this study lost their homes and their children in quick succession during periods of intense vulnerability. Their capacity to prevent these losses and to rebuild a family home was then significantly hampered by the (sometimes conflicting) policies and procedures they encountered in the housing and social work systems. Crucially, these failings reinforced family separation, with consequences for the welfare of the homeless mothers interviewed. The disadvantage faced by many of the women was therefore sometimes reinforced, rather than resolved by the services, policies and legislation designed to help them.
Hate crime and social housing: following the evidence Kusminder Chahal, Senior Research Fellow, Birmingham City University, presents an overview of research evidence on hate crime, and asks: are social housing responses enough and could following the evidence frame different responses? Threats, intimidation and violence based on actual or perceived differences regularly feature in our news. Recent media attention has included focusing on coronavirus related racist abuse and attacks and targeted violence against women on public transport because of their perceived sexual orientation. Described as hate crime, these events are often viewed as individual, seemingly isolated, random occurrences that are decontextualised. However, research evidence highlights that often they are the tip of the iceberg and can lead to further hate violence. The practice-based definition of hate crime is: ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal [protected] characteristic.’ The requirement to recognise perception and motivation means a housing service response should be framed from, with and for victims, families and communities. Such contextual responses are part of the UK government’s hate crime action plan. The plan focuses on increasing reporting, supporting victims, preventing harmful narratives by challenging beliefs and attitudes, targeted responses, and widening our understanding of hate crime. Social housing providers have to respond through both policy and practice to the following hate crime protected characteristics: • Disability • Race or ethnicity
• Religion or beliefs • Sexual orientation • Transgender identity. The Law Commission’s review on the adequacy of current legal responses and expanding the protected characteristics may result in misogyny, amongst others, being included as a hate crime protected characteristic. This will have implications on housing providers, including updating policies and training, rethinking third party and multi-agency partnerships and responses, and raising awareness with residents and tenants. Evidence Police recorded hate crime has doubled since 2012/13. In 2018/19 in England and Wales there were 103,379 recorded hate crimes; in Scotland 4,914 and in Northern Ireland 355 hate crimes. Although the vast majority of hate crimes are race related there has been an increase in recording across all five characteristics. Evidence highlights that hate crime is widely underreported. Verbal abuse, threats and intimidation are the most common experience but also least likely to be reported. The most common reason for not reporting is ‘nothing would happen’ or ‘it would not be taken seriously’. Research evidence has shown that hate crime has a disproportionate emotional and mental health impact on its victims compared to non-hate crime victims and causes harm in communities. Housing organisations are uniquely placed to respond to hate crime. Having an updated policy, training staff and being part of local third party reporting are important but in themselves do not increase awareness and reporting or provide support. When talking with social housing providers the common response I get is that they have had only one or a few cases reported to them. This seems to be at odds with evidence that indicates high levels of hate crime occurrences in and SPRING 2020 |
EVIDENCE - 3
around where people live and national evidence of spikes in hate crime reporting, for example, during the EU Referendum campaign and after terror attacks.
incidents and not entrenched patterns of victimisation. Restorative justice could contribute to reducing repeat victimisation of hate crime victims.
Responses
Reflections
Social housing providers may need to reflect on the success of their current approaches to responding to hate crime. How effective are third party reporting schemes and multi-agency partnerships? Are hate crime complaints or experiences subsumed under anti-social behaviour? Research highlights victims do not always know they have suffered a hate crime. This requires a professional intervention focused from the victim’s perspective. Evidence suggests that providing an empathic and compassionate service response that includes listening, validating, co-producing solutions and offering after-care is viewed positively by the victim regardless of the outcome of the complaint. Experiences of hate based harassment, intimidation and threats in and around the home could be resolved through restorative justice practices. Restorative justice could become an important tool for housing practitioners that can respond to the context and complexity of hate crime, the harms caused, and explore with both parties the grievances beyond the limited legal approach that views disputes as singular
Evidence-led approaches are available to housing providers to respond to hate crime. But the most compelling evidence is that positive interactions and responses between a support/caseworker and the victim can be the difference between suffering secondary victimisation and harm and supporting client empowerment. The Housing and Hate Crime Knowledge Exchange project is supported by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. The project aims to synthesise current research evidence and create practice based tools for social housing providers, including a toolkit. If you have any case studies, good practice and resources to share please contact: kusminder.chahal@bcu.ac.uk Useful links: https://bit.ly/33qRP67 www.hatecrime.campaign.gov.uk/ https://bit.ly/38SM3eS www.why-me.org/evidence/
Exploring exclusion in contemporary housing systems Dr Jenny Preece, UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE), University of Sheffield, discusses some of the key issues identified in a new research report.
matter of housing affordability but went beyond housing to other policy areas, such as support services and legal / advice services. There was also acknowledgement of disproportionate impacts on some groups and in different geographical areas.
Recent research commissioned by the National Housing Federation found that 8.4 million people in England are directly affected by the housing crisis, with one in seven of the population living in unaffordable, insecure, overcrowded or unsuitable homes. We explore these issues using the concept of ‘housing exclusion’, which includes social, spatial and financial dimensions. Our evidence review looked at existing research into housing exclusion, organised around structural, individual, and institutional mechanisms. By carrying out interviews with a range of key stakeholder and housing providers from across social and private rental sectors, our research sought to add depth of understanding to contemporary debates about access to, and exclusion from, appropriate housing.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the lack of affordable, appropriate, secure housing was one of the most commonly identified problems. This was exacerbated by longer term changes in funding and the Affordable Rent programme, which was described by one participant as ‘almost Orwellian’ because of its lack of affordability in some areas. Scarcity of social housing shifts households into the private sector, increasing competition for housing and pushing up costs. However, the issue is also more nuanced, since in some locations the issue was more the type of housing available and where, than an absolute lack of dwellings. Changes to welfare policies were foregrounded as particularly important. For those already on a low and/ or precarious income accessing housing they can afford is a real challenge, especially in the PRS where a deposit may be required, but also in the social sector where rent in advance may be requested in order to account for delays in the processing of Universal Credit payments.
Worsening exclusion The majority view among our participants was that housing exclusion was worsening, with very limited options and no access at all to decent housing for a large number of people on a regular basis. This was not just a
EVIDENCE - 4
| SPRING 2020
Macro-drivers
Narratives It was clear that the complexity of the housing system
had exclusionary impacts, first by deterring housing providers from entering into some markets (for example PRS landlords refusing to let to those in receipt of benefits), and second by deterring individuals from being able to claim the rights to which they were entitled. This was compounded by the loss of specialist housing advice services. The sense that we were living through a ‘housing crisis’ underpinned conversations about who should be responsible for meeting housing need, who should be prioritised, and how we think about ‘need’ in a context of acute shortage. Those issues all play out in a mixed economy of local provision, with negotiations between different provider types, with different legal responsibilities, and yet also a sense of shared responsibility for providing access to housing in local areas. However, many participants described a range of newer mechanisms in the social sector through which to assess the riskiness of tenants, financially or behaviourally. In some cases this may lead to exclusion from some types of housing, until potential tenants could mitigate this ‘risk’ and evidence the sustainability of the tenancy. Mechanisms of exclusion Some of the precise mechanisms through which individuals may experience exclusion from housing differ between the social housing and private rental sectors, largely because of nominations agreements and choice based lettings systems. There were more parallels between the two sectors in relation to the use of landlord assessments of affordability, with participants emphasising space for interpretation and discretion
during the lettings process, and acknowledging the complexity of making assessments about individuals’ lives at a single point in time. Whilst the level of understanding or compassion varied, it was clear that landlord lettings practices are driven by macro-level factors, including financial risk assessments by mortgage and other lenders, as well as the availability of social support services. Challenges There was a striking degree of commonality in the recommendations provided by respondents for tackling housing exclusion. These mirrored recommendations to emerge from other recent CaCHE research projects focusing on the private rented sector (see: The ‘Frustrated’ Housing Aspirations of Generation Rent) [https://bit.ly/2TRLAFs] and the future of social housing (see: The Impact of Welfare Reform on Housing Associations) [https://bit.ly/2x41GCE]. These reforms were recognised as running counter to engrained processes of deregulation, privatisation and reduced state spending within the English housing system. However, it was suggested that lessons for increasing social housing supply, reforming the private sector, and re-reform of welfare policies may be drawn from devolved nations, particularly Scotland and Wales, in which key policies are already underway. “Forms and mechanisms of exclusion in contemporary housing systems: a scoping study”, is authored by Jenny Preece, Emma Bimpson, David Robinson, Kim McKee and John Flint. The report is available at: housingevidence. ac.uk.
The challenges of an ageing population Professor David Robinson outlines a framework for guiding efforts to improve the housing options of older people Population ageing is an established trend in the UK and is forecast to continue for many years. It is estimated that by 2043 16% of the population will be 65 years old and over, compared to 12% in 2018 (ONS, 2019). This shift in population toward older ages is a result of improvements in life expectancy and a decline in fertility. The increasing number of older people in society is prompting demand for an array of new and extended services capable of meeting their diverse needs and preferences. A prime example is housing. People often need to make adjustments in their living environment as they age. Traditionally, in the UK, this has involved older people either staying put and trying to make do in their own home, or moving to some prepackaged option, such as sheltered housing or a care home. However, population ageing is driving demand
for a wider range of housing options. This reflects both the shifting aspirations of older people, and a change in emphasis of health and social care policy away from high-cost, reactive, bed-based care and toward proactive, preventive care in, or closer to, the home. There has been lots of discussion and debate about what a more age-friendly suite of housing options might look like. Research has cast light on the preferences and experiences of older people who stay-put and those who move to more appropriate housing. Parliamentary inquiries, charities and campaign groups, practitioners and policy-makers across the four nations of the UK have explored how housing policy and practice can promote independent living and healthy ageing. Something resembling a consensus has emerged from these debates, centred around five fundamental principles or priorities: 1. Housing support and assistance services – repairs, maintenance and adaptations are critical to ensuring that older people who stay-put in their own home are living in safe, appropriate housing that promotes independence and well-being. 2. The accessibility and liveability of new housing – new housing should promote independent living in older SPRING 2020 |
EVIDENCE - 5
age by providing dwellings that are accessible, flexible and adaptable to changing needs. This includes new housing that provides opportunities for downsizing. 3. Specialist housing for older people – decent, affordable, appropriately designed specialist housing can allow people to live independently in a home of their own for longer. A move into specialist housing can improve quality of life and well-being for some older people. 4. Information and advice – choosing where to live in older age is a difficult decision and many older people, family members and caring professionals require advice and information about available options. 5. Housing, health and social care – health and social care services need to promote well-being and independence across all housing options. Strong strategic and operational links between housing, health and social care are critical to local solutions to meet the on-going health needs of older people, tackle health inequalities and address the wider health determinants of an ageing population.
These principles provide a useful yardstick against which to measure the strengths and weaknesses of policy and practice at the local and national level. Currently, the situation in England doesn’t measure up well. Local analysis reveals that the public sector is retreating from its traditional role and the private sector displaying little appetite for filling gaps in provision – including the provision of housing support, specialist housing, and information and advice services. The result is a notable gap between the principles and priorities of provision outlined above and the existing housing options of older people. If we are serious about delivering a diverse suite of options that meet the wants and needs of older people and promote independent living and healthy ageing, then concerted action is required across all five priorities highlighted in this framework. ONS (2019) https://bit.ly/2IN8DuL This blog draws on recently published research in the International Journal of Housing Policy https://bit. ly/2x2l2bm
Experiences of ‘in-work homelessness’ Moving into work is often presented as a key part of the solution to homelessness, writes Katy Jones from Manchester Metropolitan University. Responding to sharp rises in rough sleeping, the UK’s former Prime Minister emphasised employment as a long-term solution: Dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping is about more than just accommodation… the key thing is ensuring people can be in work and can be earning and not find themselves in that situation. (May, 2017). However, work does not always offer the means to escape poverty, and many who are working continue to face housing insecurity. Relatedly, there is increasing concern about ‘in-work homelessness’ - 55% of homeless families in temporary accommodation are reported to be in work. Drawing on interview data from research evaluating new homelessness legislation in Wales, led by Professor Anya Ahmed, our journal article uncovers the experiences of 18 working people who approached their local authorities as homeless, or at risk of homelessness in 2016/17. This piece summarises our key findings. The relationship between work and homelessness After losing their homes for reasons including eviction, relationship breakdown and the ending of short-term tenancy agreements, people found high upfront costs associated with starting a new tenancy (for example, deposits and lettings agency fees) were prohibitive.
EVIDENCE - 6
| SPRING 2020
Being on low incomes afforded by wages and Housing Benefit (HB) excluded participants from private rental properties: “We looked at various different properties, but they were all way out of budget for what we would have been entitled to in [HB], well with my wages… If you’re a family on a low income… there’s not a lot in the private sector out here to work with.” Even where participants could afford properties, many faced discrimination from landlords unwilling to accept tenants receiving HB: “Every time I phoned a letting agent they would just turn me away straightaway…they turn around and say, ‘Actually you’re not able to have this property because you’ll be on Housing Benefit.’ …I’m working part-time, so it would just be a top up.” Sustaining work while homeless Interviewees spoke about the challenges of sustaining work while facing homelessness. One participant who was sleeping rough described struggling to be presentable, with nowhere to wash his clothes: “I was getting back, well, home to the field, stinking, smelling of rubbish. I’ve got… nowhere to wash my clothes.” Being in work could also constrain respondents’ housing options, for example, due to a need to find affordable accommodation within travelling distance of their workplace: “We were offered temporary housing but they didn’t have anything in [places of work]… I work in a care home where I do late shifts… I also work in a local
pub and sometimes I don’t finish until 1am… I can’t be walking to a couple of villages across and I can’t afford taxis.” Experiences of ‘support’ from the housing service Participants were commonly given information about landlords and lettings agencies. However, information alone was unhelpful: “[The Housing Officer] just said that they would also keep an eye out for me, and if they find anything suitable they would contact me, but just to keep doing what I was doing. It hasn’t got me anywhere, it’s not working.” Several participants felt that support for ‘working and homeless’ people was inappropriate. One explained how a need to stay ‘professional’ meant the offer of a hostel was unsuitable: “When you’re working in a professional place and you’ve got to wear a shirt and tie to work with shoes and ironed and pressed I don’t really want to [stay in a hostel]… I don’t even know if the shoes are still going to be there in the morning.” Falling through the safety net Many participants felt they were ‘on their own’: “You’re working full-time and you’re trying to make
ends meet…you’re having to do things off your own back and it’s not fair.” Without other options, some alternated between rough sleeping, sofa-surfing, and sleeping in cars and caravans. Others moved into unsuitable accommodation: “We’ve actually found a house, even though I don’t think it’s suitable. It’s got no central heating in it and it’s got damp in it, my son’s got asthma.” One participant had taken on debt to access accommodation. Whilst alleviating the immediate threat of homelessness, they were now in a property they struggled to afford: “It feels like I’m squatting in this flat…I’m constantly fighting the battles of my overdraft… I’m housed but financially I’m not in a good place… [but] I was in a situation where I didn’t have any options.” Conclusion Our paper challenges simplistic policy assumptions that employment provides the ‘solution’ to homelessness. In emphasising the responsibilities of individuals to engage in paid work to escape homelessness, policymakers fail to pay adequate attention to broader structural issues including low pay and insecurity and a lack of affordable housing.
New report on homelessness in Europe The European Observatory on Homelessness (FEANTSA) has published comparative research from 16 European countries on homelessness. The latest analysis provides a detailed insight into the regulation and quality of services provided to homeless people across the EU, including the UK. While the report found unacceptable quality in some services, it praises the move in several countries to Housing First models which separate housing from support and harm reduction services. Even where resources are scarce, it says, the approach does seem to work in terms of alleviating homelessness for people with complex needs. The report says most countries have elements of the homelessness sector that operate without detailed or indeed any regulatory framework. It concludes: ‘The existing evidence base, while not perfect, increasingly indicates that the greater the degree of choice and control and the more flexible the support offered, the more effective a homelessness or preventative service is likely to be.’ Full details: https://bit.ly/33ZEGBj
SPRING 2020 |
EVIDENCE - 7
Carbon reduction targets and the existing housing stock Kenneth Gibb from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence discusses forthcoming research on tenement retrofitting in Glasgow A large proportion of carbon emissions flow from housing. Any meaningful effort to reach the challenging carbon reduction targets we have embraced as nations (e.g. net zero by 2045 in Scotland) must address the housing sector. Moreover, as has been pointed out in the current consultation on long term Scottish housing strategy, Housing to 2040, 80% of the Scottish housing stock in 2040 already exists. In other words, it is the existing housing stock that dominates the carbon challenge and there are specific built forms that are particular culprits. The worst performer in Scotland is the traditional older tenement, a house type that still makes up a quarter of all housing, and more in our cities and towns. If these iconic older tenements are to have a future and extend their life, ways must be found to deliver thermally efficient, emission-reducing retrofitting. This will be expensive but not as expensive as demolishing and redeveloping (let alone the carbon content of so doing). New partnership It is in this context that the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) is delighted to be leading a partnership project evaluation of a demonstration project to retrofit, to Passiv Haus standards (strictly speaking, Enerphit standards), a traditional pre-1919 tenement block in Glasgow. The construction project is a partnership between Glasgow city council, South Side Housing Association, John Gilbert Architects and CCG contractors. Working with academic colleagues from the University of Strathclyde expert in building performance and environmental sustainability, CaCHE will lead a yearlong project that will: • Monitor and detail the construction project key choices, good practice and wider learning • Examine the gap between theoretical carbon reduction and achieved carbon reduction, evaluate the costs and funding choices made • Assess the scope to roll out and scale up the retrofit model across the city and to different tenement scenarios (multiple ownership, configuration, common retrofit v tailored single unit solutions, etc) • Undertake a large scale multiple dissemination and knowledge exchange plan to share the learning from
Evidence newsletter editor: Dr Janis Bright www.hqnetwork.co.uk email: evidence@hqnetwork.co.uk follow us on twitter @hqn_ltd
EVIDENCE - 8
| SPRING 2020
the demonstration project, the wider evaluation and scaling-up challenges. We hope to explore realistic funding and delivery models that might offer affordable ways to deliver retrofitting solutions to as many tenements as possible be they social housing, owner-occupied, PRS or a mix of the three. This is an exciting but also a daunting project. In no way do we minimise the challenges we face. Tenements confront chronic repair problems and in particular widespread underlying difficulties with common repairs. The last cycle of major repairs and improvements in Glasgow occurred more than a generation ago with the establishing of the community-controlled housing association sector. Tenement housing is frequently a mixed tenure arrangement, contributing to the aforementioned problems of multiple tenure arrangements within single blocks and neighbourhoods. Funding retrofit Critically, we need to find affordable ways to pay for the retrofit and spread it over time in a manageable way (not adding excessively to the burdens faced by tenants, and, at the same time working out how to create incentives for property owners to participate). It is also clear that there needs to be investment in behavioural change for occupiers once they have the refurbished properties so that they and society as a whole can reap the benefits of the retrofit model. The evaluation project is funded by the Scottish Funding Council as part of their Climate Emergency initiative. The evaluation is also supported by in-kind and cash contributions from all the partners involved. The goal of spreading and replicating the demonstration project to support retaining as much older tenement stock in the city as possible, and doing so with an innovative high standard retrofit model, is now a major part of what the city council seeks to achieve in its forward housing strategy. Doing this in the context of COP26, scheduled to be in Glasgow this November, can only serve to widen the reach and impact of this demonstration project of eight typical older one bed flats in Glasgow’s inner south side. We hope the project can make some form of lasting contribution to both carbon reduction and sustaining this iconic urban built form.
Live virtual training Our training is not the normal e-learning experience. We have our specialists at the other side of the screen ready to answer your questions live. HQN have you covered, be it on your own or in a virtual group.
For more information, please contact training@hqnetwork.co.uk or visit www.hqnetwork.co.uk
The hidden housing budget With the coronavirus crisis becoming all consuming, it’s easy to forget that last month’s Budget had some significant housing announcements. Jules Birch gets into the details.
Photo: HM Treasury Flickr
In a world where huge things are happening on a daily basis, four weeks seems like an eternity. On 11 March, when the Chancellor Rishi Sunak stood up to deliver his first Budget, the number of UK coronavirus cases was under 500 and ten people had died. The government was taking a ‘business as usual’ approach. Despite the Budget being dominated by the coronavirus – with billions of pounds pledged to support the NHS and British businesses – the response was deemed inadequate and further money was announced within days. Meanwhile, the rest of the Budget was quickly forgotten. Yet the decisions taken by the Chancellor last month and those that follow in the Autumn Budget and Spending Review will still set the financial framework for
10
| SPRING 2020
housing for years to come. Even more so when what had been billed as a statement on planning from housing secretary Robert Jenrick 24 hours later gave a broad outline of his thinking ahead of not just white papers on planning and social housing, but also a new housing strategy that will be published alongside the Spending Review. The big news in the Budget itself was the scale of the next Affordable Homes Programme (AHP). This will be worth £12.2 billion over the five years from April 2021, an increase of a third on the current AHP (eventually worth £8.9bn over the five years from 2016 to 2021). Out of this total, £2bn for strategic partnerships had been announced in advance by Theresa May in 2018. It’s understood that £700 million will be carried over from the current AHP and £9.5bn is new money.
The glass half-full view is that, as Jenrick put it in his statement, this represents “the biggest cash investment in the sector in a decade”. The glass half-empty one is that it’s well below the level that the Conservative-led coalition inherited from Labour in 2010. What was then called the National Affordable Housing Programme was boosted in response to the financial crisis, and was worth £8.9bn over the three years from 2008 to 2011, at least £500m more per year than the new AHP, even before allowing for inflation. Jenrick said in his oral statement to MPs that the AHP “will deliver homes for social rent, as well as for affordable rent, shared ownership and supported housing” and that “we want a significant increase in the number of those homes in the social rent category”. However, he added that “there will be a route to ownership for all, regardless of the tenure at which people begin”. It is understood that this means that all the rented homes in the programme will be subject to the Right to Shared Ownership that Jenrick proposed at last year’s Conservative Party conference. Housing associations raised concerns then that this could make it more difficult to raise private finance for new development, while others asked why tenants would choose to give up a secure tenancy in return for (say) a 10% stake in their home and responsibility for 100% of the repairs. An attempt to introduce something similar in the 1980s floundered on similar impracticalities and only 400 applications were ever made. This time around, the policy paper proposes a new national model for shared ownership that will be “simpler and more affordable to access” and “more consumer friendly, fairer and more accessible”. Details are to come. It’s a similarly mixed picture for owners of buildings and flats with dangerous cladding. The new £1bn Building Safety Fund announced in the Budget is a major step forward on existing funding of £200m for the social sector and £400m for the private sector that was restricted to buildings with aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding like that used on Grenfell Tower. The new fund extends help to buildings with other types of cladding, including high pressure laminate and timber, and the money appears to be additional rather than part of the AHP. However, only buildings of 18 metres and over are eligible and the cladding crisis now extends to many more mid-rise blocks after several fires last year. And the fund does not cover the cost of other fire safety measures like waking watches and fire doors. Welcome though the new money may be, the National Housing Federation estimates that housing associations alone face a fire safety bill of £10bn. One other major announcement in the Budget is good news for council housing. When the interest rate for Housing Revenue Account borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board was raised by 100 basis points last October, local authorities warned that it’d choke off
their plans for new development. The Treasury has now reversed the increase. With a range of other announcements relevant to housing (see box), this was a Budget that caught up on business left unfinished because of Brexit and the election, while ducking crucial issues like decarbonisation and the gap between private rents and the local housing allowance. The policy statement and oral statement from Robert Jenrick flesh out some of the policy thinking that goes with the numbers. A social housing white paper is promised soon to deliver “reforms to ensure that residents in social homes are treated with dignity and respect”. The policy paper adds that: “These measures will empower tenants, provide better redress and regulation and improve the quality of social housing. This will include a simple and effective end-to-end process when tenants have complaints.” For housing as a whole, the mission is “rebuilding a home-owning Britain”. Jenrick argues that: “Home ownership seems like a dream that remains out of reach. Our children should be able to put down roots in the places where they grew up, but the simple truth is that too many will continue to be priced out if we do not build many more homes and take the action now that is required to remove barriers to people getting on to the housing ladder.” Chief among those barriers, says the government, is a planning system that dates back to 1947 and needs to be “truly fit for the 21st century”. A planning white paper in the Spring will “lay the foundations for a modern dramatically accelerated planning system”. The policy paper mentions some “innovative options” including housing-led regeneration of high streets, building above and around stations, and a radical plan to get planning permissions built out quicker by requiring “complete transparency” on the murky system of land options that developers hold over sites. Many of the proposals were foreshadowed in work by the Policy Exchange think tank calling for a new duty to build beautiful and for detailed land use allocations to be replaced by a zonal land use planning system. Jack Airey, its head of housing, became the prime minister’s special adviser on housing and planning in February. However, there is a tension between these agendas of beauty and deregulation, as the government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission recognised in its final report in January. It criticised the “inadvertently permissioned future slums” produced in converted office blocks under a permitted development regime that currently waves through schemes with no requirement to meet minimum space standards or local standards of design and no contributions to affordable housing. Even before the White Paper, the government has approved two major extensions to permitted
“The decisions taken by the Chancellor last month…will set the financial framework for housing for years to come”
SPRING 2020 |
11
development. The first, to apply from this Summer, will allow upwards extensions of existing buildings, including up to two additional storeys on existing residential blocks. In the social sector, this could be good news for landlords who will be able to add more homes to their stock without buying more land. In the private sector, it promises more homes as well as windfall gains for freeholders. But it could make it harder and more expensive for leaseholders to enfranchise at a time when the government says it makes it easier and cheaper. There will also be inevitable concern about the quality and safety of the homes delivered. The second is a new permitted development right to allow vacant commercial, industrial, and residential blocks to be demolished and replaced with housing. There will be a consultation on the detail, and the policy paper says they will be “well-designed new residential units which meet natural light standards”. This doubles down on an announcement in the November Budget of 2017 that would only have applied
to commercial buildings. Only a third of respondents supported that idea in a consultation that followed, with most arguing that it “would go beyond what is capable of or appropriate to be delivered through a national permitted development right”. A review of the existing system and the quality of homes in converted office blocks was promised last year but has still not been published. In addition to these concerns, the new right begs big questions about who decides whether a building is vacant. It could, for example, revive controversies about estate regeneration – but this time with no say for local authorities. And, at a time when Jenrick’s First Homes scheme promises to swallow up most affordable housing contributions currently made by developers under Section 106, it’d create a whole new market with no contributions at all. For all these reasons, the Budget is only the start of what will be a big year for housing. However, with the coronavirus blowing its sums out of the water, hold on to your seatbelts as well as your hand sanitisers.
Key decisions on housing at a glance
duty rates (from Autumn 2020) and Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (from April 2021) for housing cooperatives • Stamp duty – A 2% surcharge on non-UK residents buying residential property in England and Northern Ireland from April 2021, with proceeds used to help address rough sleeping • Other UK nations – Budget decisions at a UK level trigger consequential payments of £640m to Scotland and £360m to Wales that may benefit housing at a national level.
March Budget • Affordable Homes Programme – £12.2bn over five years from 2021/22, a 33% increase on the 2016-21 programme • Cladding replacement – a £1bn building safety fund to extend help beyond Grenfell-style aluminium composite material to other types of cladding, including high pressure laminate and timber in buildings 18m and over in the social and private sectors • Homelessness – £650m to help rough sleepers move into temporary accommodation, comprising £237m already announced by the prime minister, plus £416m for associated support and substance misuse treatment services • Land and infrastructure – £400m for mayoral combined authorities to establish housing on brownfield land, £1.1bn of allocations from previously announced housing infrastructure funds for nine areas including Manchester, South Sunderland, and South Lancaster to unlock 70,000 homes. New single housing infrastructure fund to be launched at Spending Review • Council housing – reversal of October’s one percentage point increase in the interest rate for Housing Revenue Account borrowing from Public Works Loans Board (PWLB). Consultation on PWLB loan terms to come • Housing benefit – new exemptions from Shared Accommodation Rate for rough sleepers aged 16-24, care leavers up to 25, and victims of domestic abuse and human trafficking to help them live on their own. Increased investment in housing benefit fraud detection by local authorities • Universal Credit – relaxation in rules on repayment of loans, self-employed earnings, and job centre attendance in the wake of the coronavirus • Housing co-operatives – Relief from high stamp
12
| SPRING 2020
Housing policy paper and statement • New housing strategy – to be published alongside Autumn Spending Review • Affordable Homes Programme – Housing secretary Robert Jenrick promises it’ll include “homes for social rent, as well as for affordable rent, shared ownership and supported housing” but adds that “there will be a route to ownership for all, regardless of the tenure at which people begin” • Planning – The government wants a system “truly fit for the 21st century” that will take “a more proactive approach to enabling home building”. Ideas include housing-led regeneration of high streets, “densifying gently” existing residential areas with solutions like building above and around stations, expanded use of zoning tools, and “a fast track to beauty” • Local authorities – All councils will have to have a local plan in place by December 2023 and a review of the formula for calculating local housing need, with ‘firm consequences’ for authorities that fail to meet it • Shared ownership – a new national model will “make the route to ownership fairer and more affordable” • Permitted development – major expansion of deregulated planning regime to include upwards extension of residential blocks and demolition and replacement of vacant commercial, industrial, and residential blocks.
The last word Cladding scandal tantamount to psychological torture
By Mark Lawrence, former 24housing editor It’s been nearly three years since the tragedy that changed the face of housing and had ramifications for the fire service, government ministers, and numerous other sectors. But while the fallout from that night of 14 June 2017 has seen the creation of a White Paper, the Grenfell Inquiry, and the Hackitt Review, over half a million people have been living in similar blocks around the country and left in a perilous state of uncertainty and fear. I’ve been speaking to various people living in those buildings, from different blocks, and experiencing this situation at different times in their lives. But one trend runs throughout all the stories I’ve heard so far: the impact this scandal is having on people’s mental health is severe and only getting worse. It goes as far as being psychological torture by a government that knows about the problem but seems unwilling to do anything to fix it. One woman told me of the impact it’s had on her life. She’s battled with mental health demons for years, being previously admitted to a psychiatric hospital. But she managed to get herself back on her feet and became a “functioning human being without medication”. She bought her flat when she was well and happy, but she believes that very same flat is now pushing her to a dark place. Her fear of
potentially going back down that road and into a ward was audible when speaking. It’s not an empty threat when she says it’s sending her towards suicide. Her bills have risen by £2,300 due to the implementation of Waking Watch and insurance premiums on the building rising by £50,000. And that’s not for any fire safety works. That’s for the interim measures before any works have even taken place. Those interim measures are only needed because the government is refusing to act, end the uncertainty, and force those who should be paying to stump up the cash. This financial strain is something hanging over the head of many, with worries about bankruptcy and homes being repossessed as a consequence of being unable to meet these costs. The lack of action has caused fury among many, with hundreds taking to Westminster last month to press the government into action. Finally, someone listened and a £1 billion fund was announced in the Budget to tackle cladding removal. But if £1bn doesn’t sound like a lot to sort the country’s cladding worries out, that’s because it isn’t. In fact, it’s pitiful. And it completely ignores every single bit of advice from residents, fire safety experts, and even Dame Judith Hackitt herself, in that this isn’t just a crisis of cladding: it’s a crisis of building regulations and overall fire safety. Sorting the cladding won’t stop the other major fire safety issues such as compartmentalisation, insulation, and internal alarms. And even if it’s been welcomed as more money for cladding removal, it won’t even stretch far enough to cover the removal of most of the cladding in the country. This psychological torture goes beyond finances. One woman I spoke to, who recently recovered from cancer, says she’s unable to give her son the childhood she
promised him when she was ill. Imagine having to say those words to your child as you tuck him into a bed under a roof you know is combustible. Several couples spoke about their complete sadness and frustration about having their whole lives put on hold. One had just got married when they heard their block had issues, which has meant they haven’t been able to go on their dream trip for their honeymoon due to increased service charges and other potential bills down the line. Another couple are desperate to start a family but are now stuck in their home as it (like many others around the country) is worth £0, and no one will buy it even if they could get it on the market. And they’re certainly not in a hurry to bring up a child in an unsafe environment. Having 14-week-old twins is supposed to be an exciting time for young parents, but as another couple say it’s now “turned into a nightmare”. Living on the seventh floor of a building that could go up in flames at any point is hardly the ideal situation for parents already struggling to get enough sleep. And this is the reality for many in these blocks. A lack of sleep due to a constant fear of their block going up in flames, or the fear of a letter landing through the letterbox asking for tens of thousands of pounds they simply don’t have. It’s the lesser of two evils. It’s no surprise people are reporting a reduction in working ability, an unwillingness to go out, and an overall feeling of helplessness. But these conversations only scratch the surface of what’s happening in this country. The actual picture is much bleaker and more disturbing. If the government doesn’t sort this out, the warnings from those in these blocks will become a reality and it will have more than the blood of the Grenfell Tower victims on its hands. SPRING 2020 |
13
Stop press! Save the date! It’s time for the Housing Quality Network Annual Conference Thursday 16 July 2020, location tbc Coronavirus won’t put us off. We’ll be virtual and, social distancing permitting, taking place at a central London location. We promise a high quality line up on topical issues with lively debates. Look out for more details as we firm things up. Don’t miss out – reserve your place today!
Visit hqnetwork.co.uk for more information