AGENDA
Meeting Housing Committee Date Tuesday 10 November 2020 Time 10.00 am Place Virtual Meeting Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-committees/housing-committee
Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/youtube and www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/london-assembly where you can also view past meetings.
Members of the Committee Murad Qureshi AM (Chair) Tony Devenish AM Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair) Nicky Gavron AM Siân Berry AM David Kurten AM Léonie Cooper AM
A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat Monday 2 November 2020
[Note: This meeting has been called in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. These regulations permit formal London Assembly meetings to be held on a virtual basis, with Assembly Members participating remotely, subject to certain conditions. The regulations apply notwithstanding any other legislation, current or pre-existing Standing Orders or any other rules of the Authority governing Assembly meetings, and remain valid until 7 May 2021. The meeting will be broadcast live via the web-link set out above. The regulations may be viewed here.]
Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Diane Richards, Committee Officer; email: [email protected]; Telephone: 07925 353478.
For media enquiries please contact Louise Young, External Communications Officer; Telephone: 020 7084 2825; Email [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report.
v1 2015
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].
Certificate Number: FS 80233
Agenda Housing Committee Tuesday 10 November 2020
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements
To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.
2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Diane Richards, [email protected]; 07925 353 478
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;
(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and
(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).
3 Minutes (Pages 5 - 38)
The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 August 2020 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
4 Summary List of Actions (Pages 39 - 76)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Diane Richards, [email protected], 07925 353478.
The Committee is recommended to note the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings and additional correspondence as listed in the report.
3
5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Pages 77 - 92)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Diane Richards, [email protected], 07925 353478
The Committee is recommended to note the recent action taken by the Chair under delegated authority, following consultation with party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the Committee’s response to the Mayor’s consultation on intermediate housing.
6 Responses to Investigations of the Housing Committee (Pages 93 - 102)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Diane Richards, [email protected]; 07925 353478
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the response from the Mayor of London to its letter and recommendations regarding affordable home ownership in London, as attached at Appendix 1; and
(b) Note the response from the Mayor of London to its letter and recommendations on leasehold in London, as attached at Appendix 2.
7 COVID-19, Rough Sleeping and Homelessness in London (Pages 103 - 106)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Sarah-Jane Gay, [email protected]; 07783 805 827
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the report as background to putting questions to the invited guests and the subsequent discussion; and
(b) Delegate authority to the Chair, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussion.
4
8 Housing Committee Work Programme (Pages 107 - 134)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Sarah-Jane Gay, [email protected]; 07783 805 827
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note its work programme as agreed under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 20 July 2020; and
(b) Note the additional activity undertaken since the last meeting, namely the informal meeting, the annual Affordable Housing Monitor and homelessness data analysis.
9 Date of Next Meeting
The date of the next meeting of the Committee will be confirmed by the London Assembly in due course.
10 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent
5
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2
Subject: Declarations of Interests
Report to: Housing Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 10 November 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests1;
2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and
2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.
3. Issues for Consideration
3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:
1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v3/2020 Page 1
Member Interest Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM Gareth Bacon AM MP Member of Parliament, Orpington; Member, LB Bexley Shaun Bailey AM Siân Berry AM Member, LB Camden Andrew Boff AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Léonie Cooper AM Member, LB Wandsworth Unmesh Desai AM Tony Devenish AM Member, City of Westminster Andrew Dismore AM Len Duvall AM Florence Eshalomi AM MP Member of Parliament, Vauxhall Nicky Gavron AM Susan Hall AM Member, LB Harrow David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM Deputy Mayor Dr Alison Moore AM Member, LB Barnet Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Murad Qureshi AM Caroline Russell AM Member, LB Islington Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Peter Whittle AM
[Note: LB - London Borough]
3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:
- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at
(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or
(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions
- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and
- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting
UNLESS
- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).
3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.
Page 2
3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.
3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.
3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £50 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.
3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on- line database may be viewed here: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.
3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £50, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.
3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Diane Richards, Committee Officer Telephone: 07925 353 478 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES
Meeting: Housing Committee Date: Wednesday 5 August 2020 Time: 11.00 am Place: Virtual Meeting
Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/housing
Present:
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair) Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair) Siân Berry AM Léonie Cooper AM Tony Devenish AM Nicky Gavron AM
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)
1.1 The Chair explained that the meeting was being held on a virtual basis, in accordance with Government regulations and Assembly Members were participating remotely.
1.2 The Clerk read the roll-call of Assembly Members who were participating remotely. Apologies for absence were received from David Kurten AM.
2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)
2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
2.2 Resolved:
That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v1 2015 Page 5 Greater London Authority Housing Committee Wednesday 5 August 2020
3 Membership of the Committee (Item 3)
3.1 Resolved:
That the membership and chairing arrangements for the Committee, which were agreed by the London Assembly at its Annual Meeting on 15 May 2020, be noted:
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair) Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair) Siân Berry AM Léonie Cooper AM Tony Devenish AM Nicky Gavron AM David Kurten AM
4 Terms of Reference (Item 4)
4.1 Resolved:
That the following terms of reference, which were agreed by the London Assembly at its Annual Meeting on 15 May 2020, be noted:
To examine and report on matters relating to housing in London and to lead on scrutiny of the Mayor’s Housing Strategy.
Lead responsibility for scrutiny of: GLA Land and Property Company, Homes for Londoners Board (HfL); Barking Riverside Limited; Greenwich Peninsula Strategic Board.
Page 6 Greater London Authority Housing Committee Wednesday 5 August 2020
5 Standing Delegations (Item 5)
5.1 Resolved:
That the following standing delegations of authority to the Chair of the Committee be noted:
(a) At its Annual Meeting on 1 May 2013, the Assembly agreed to delegate a general authority to Chairs of all ordinary committees and sub-committees to respond on the relevant committee or sub-committee’s behalf, following consultation with the lead Members of the party Groups on the committee or sub-committee, where it is consulted on issues by organisations and there is insufficient time to consider the consultation at a committee meeting.
(b) At the Plenary Meeting on 6 June 2019, the assembly agreed to delegate authority to Chairs of ordinary committees, sub-committees and working groups to agree, in consultation with the relevant party Group Lead Members and Deputy Chairs:
(i) The detailed terms of reference for any investigation to be undertaken by the relevant committee, sub-committee or working group within its work programme as agreed by the GLA Oversight Committee, and any related project plans and arrangements for related site visits or informal meetings; and
(ii) The topic and scope for any additional projects to be added to its work programme, where it is not practicable to secure prior approval from the GLA Oversight Committee and subject also to subsequent ratification by the GLA Oversight Committee.
6 Minutes (Item 6)
6.1 Resolved:
That the minutes of the meetings held on 21 January 2020 and 11 February 2020 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
Page 7 Greater London Authority Housing Committee Wednesday 5 August 2020
7 Summary List of Actions (Item 7)
7.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
7.2 Resolved:
That the completed, outstanding and closed actions arising from previous meetings of the Committee, and the additional correspondence as listed in the report, be noted.
8 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Item 8)
8.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
8.2 Resolved:
That the actions taken by the Chair of the Housing Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, be noted, namely:
(a) To agree the Committee’s output from the discussion on Affordable Home Ownership held on 21 January 2020; and
(b) To agree the Committee’s output from the discussion on Leasehold and Service Charges at the meeting held on 11 February 2020.
9 Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Housing in London (Item 9)
9.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on housing in London to the following invited guests: Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development; Lawrence Bowles, Director, Residential Research, Savills; Henry Pryor, Buying agent, professional negotiator and housing market commentator; Rob Wall, Head of Policy, National Housing Federation; and Christine Whitehead, Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics.
9.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 1.
Page 8 Greater London Authority Housing Committee Wednesday 5 August 2020
9.3 During the course of the discussion, the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development undertook to provide: The percentage of the paused repossession claims in the system that relate to London tenants; The number of boroughs signed up to Capital Letters; An updated list of ballot exemptions in estate regenerations; and Confirmation on whether a list of applications for ballot exemptions could also be published on the website.
9.4 Resolved:
(a) That the report and discussion be noted.
(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussions.
10 Housing Committee Work Programme (Item 10)
10.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
10.2 Resolved:
That the work programme, as agreed under delegated authority by the Chair of the Oversight Committee on 13 May and 20 July 2020, be noted.
11 Date of Next Meeting (Item 11)
11.1 The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 10 November 2020 at 11.00am. The Chair noted that the Committee might wish to add in an additional formal meeting into the autumn work programme.
12 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 12)
12.1 There were no items of business that the Chair considered to be urgent.
13 Close of Meeting
13.1 The meeting ended at 12.58pm.
Page 9 Greater London Authority Housing Committee Wednesday 5 August 2020
Chair Date
Contact Officer: Diane Richards, Committee Officer; email: [email protected]
Page 10
Appendix 1
London Assembly Housing Committee - Wednesday 5 August 2020
Transcript of Item 9 – Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Housing in London
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): This brings us on now to our main item of business, which is discussion of the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on housing in London, as well as the responses taken by both Government and the Mayor and potential interventions that will stimulate recovery in the housing market in London. Can I welcome our guests? Firstly, Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development; Lawrence Bowles, the Director of Residential Research at Savills; Henry Pryor, buying agent, professional negotiator and housing market commentator; Christine Whitehead, Emeritus Professor in Housing Economics, London School of Economics (LSE); and Rob Wall, Head of Policy at the National Housing Federation.
Let me start the questions by coming straight to Tom. What are the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on home ownership, the private rented sector (PRS) and the supply of housing in London so far?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Thank you for that, Chair. Firstly, it is very good to be here. It is a little strange being on the other side of the virtual table for the first time, but I am very pleased to be able to join you to talk about this important subject.
The first point to make is that all of those sectors and tenures are very much interlinked, particularly because of the reliance on cross-subsidy for the delivery of affordable housing. In terms of housing construction, GLA Economics believes there is going to be a 34% decline in output and that this is only going to recover to its 2019 level by 2022. As you know, once lockdown began, construction sites, quite rightly, shut down and they have only just begun to resume, with less capacity than previously because of social distancing measures. This is inevitably going to have a knock-on impact across the board, on both the private market and the affordable market.
In terms of things like private sale, I will be very interested to hear what Henry Pryor has to say about that. The initial indications that we have seen in the aftermath of the immediate lockdown was, I think, a slight uptick in the market but I suspect this is probably pent-up demand. As we move into the full-blown recession - which we are very likely to see, in particular when furlough comes to an end - I think we are very likely to see both a fall in sales and a reduction in house prices. This is inevitably going to have a knock-on on the affordable market. As I say, we are in the unfortunate situation because of years of Government policy of being very, very reliant on cross-subsidy for the delivery of affordable housing. Our grant that we distribute from the Greater London Authority (GLA) covers about 15% to 20% of the cost of delivering a new affordable home compared to 60% going back to 2009 and approaching 90% in the 1990s. Inevitably any downturn in the economy is going to impact on the delivery of affordable housing, which is a shame because we have had three record-breaking years in a row of affordable housing delivery in London and, in fact, in the last year we started more than 17,000 affordable homes which is more than in any year since the GLA began keeping records in 2003.
If I could just turn to the private rented market briefly as well, for me the real issue here is going to be the impact on private renters and the lack of protection for private renters that we will see once the ban on evictions comes to an end on 23 [August]. I am finding this very, very worrying. I think the ban on evictions coming to an end without other protection being put in place, combined with the end of furlough, could lead to a significant uptick in homelessness over the coming months with all the implications that is going to have both for local authority housing services and, of course, for street homelessness as well.
Page 11 Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Tom, for that overview and your concern about the models on cross-subsidy. It will be interesting to see what impact that has on the viability of intermediate housing.
Can I go to Rob now and ask what the effects of the crisis have been on the social housing sector, including the supply as Tom has suggested?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): The impact on the sector was quite immediate. Obviously COVID-19 has had a huge impact on our residents and on communities. Our focus, and the focus of housing association members, has been really on four things. One is on keeping residents safe, ensuring critical safety functions continue. One focus has been on protecting residents’ incomes and livelihoods, picking up on Tom’s point about no evictions and supporting those who fall into arrears. One focus has been on keeping vital services running. Obviously, housing associations in London and around the country provide critical care for some of our most vulnerable people so it is essential that those services can continue. Also, housing associations are parts of communities so there has been a real focus on supporting communities through the crisis.
When it comes to supply and development in particular, I would probably highlight a number of issues. Again, to pick up on something that Tom said, absolutely, the crisis has had an immediate impact on the pipeline of supply. Members are commonly reporting a three-month delay in terms of delivering new homes. Also, there are concerns looking forward. There will be, or there are, ongoing delays as a result of lower productivity for the reasons again that Tom touched on. Social distancing measures mean that there are fewer operatives onsite so that is impacting on productivity. Some housing associations are saying that they are seeing a rise in construction costs that will impact on development, and some report longer planning delays than usual that will impact on development. Therefore, we have seen an immediate impact and we are seeing an impact going forward.
There are concerns looking out into next year around market stability and confidence. I am happy to talk those through if that is of value.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Rob. Can I now go to our other panellists? Let us start with Henry. Do you have any commentary on what the impact has been on private rented and home ownership in particular?
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): Good morning, everybody. My comments, you will be delighted to hear, are brief, if only because we do not yet have a great deal of hard data, particularly on the sales market, to be able to share and from which to extrapolate trends and ideas of what is happening and what is likely to happen. There are, of course, endless generally pessimistic expectations about both the sales and, as Tom and Rob have indicated, the rentals market. The PRS stands on the edge of a precipice perhaps as far as tenant affordability of rents, payments, support from Government and obviously changes to eviction procedures etc.
On the sales market, the market only opened in mid-May. Whilst we would all like to think that it is possible to instantly take the temperature of the housing market, in fact it will be the end of August before we start to see exactly what happened in late May to lead in sale prices and it will be September before we are able to get a good handle on what actually happened to sale prices in June, so we are still waiting for a great deal as far as that is concerned. I am sorry, I wish we had more hard data but at the moment it is anecdotal data, the enthusiasm of estate agents and mortgage lenders who seem to have emerged from the lockdown in something approaching rude health. There is a market; people are buying, and people are selling, and frequently they are buying and selling at pre-COVID prices which has come as a surprise to many, including myself. We are starting to see a slight tail-off in activity, but I am afraid it is still too early to be able to tell Page 12 specifically whether the trend that most people are expecting to see when it comes to actual house prices between now and Christmas starting to slide, and we are not yet seeing, other than some data that came out this morning from Hometrack, that capital rents in the PRS are softening ever so slightly and, again, they are expected to soften further as we go through the year.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Henry. The only observation I can make is I think we have seen almost the death of Airbnb in my part of central London, I am certainly not seeing luggage moving up and down Edgware Road anymore as there used to be.
Lawrence, do you want to add any perspective on that?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): Love to, thank you very much, Chair. I am going to contradict Henry to some extent in that we do have some data coming through on the market. It is not as firm as we would like, clearly, but we are able to make some comment. We are working with a firm called TwentyEA which tracks the number of sales subject to contract that have taken place, which is not the same as a completion I would like to emphasise, and I am sure Henry will emphasise. There we saw the number of sales subject to contract down to about 17% of normal levels in April. They have now bounced back and in the week starting 27 July [2020] they were 67% above where they were at the same time last year on a national level. In London, in July, the number of sales subject to completion were 71% above the July 2019 level. Therefore, we have seen a rebound in the level of activity in that sense. What we have also seen, however, is a longer time to complete, the time between that sale being agreed and that sale actually completing is taking longer than it was previously. That is partly due to physical limitations, trying to carry out mortgage valuations and property surveys while social distancing, but it is also due to mortgage lenders taking a more cautious approach more generally, taking a much closer look at all the applications coming through and that process taking a lot longer than it was before.
In terms of the rental market - just looking at our own books, and I will accept that we are not representative of the market at large necessarily - we have seen tenant registrations up 20% week on week in London. I think generally part of the increase we are seeing in demand, both for sales and for rents, is pent-up demand, people who would have moved during lockdown, but a lot of it is that the experience of lockdown has highlighted the perceived inadequacies of where we are living at the moment. Particularly as people spend a bit more time with their housemates they are saying, “Actually, I would quite like to move into my own place” or, “I would quite like to move somewhere else.” Therefore, we are seeing a bit of additional activity in the short term as a result of that more recent experience.
Picking up on the Airbnb point, we did some analysis of the number of Airbnb listings taken off the market during lockdown. If all those Airbnb listings that have been taken off the market had gone straight into the PRS you would be talking about an increase in PRS stock of around 1% to 1.5% in London. Not completely insignificant but a relatively small boost to supply, certainly over the longer term.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you for those facts and figures. In your auction houses of Savills, you are still managing to move things on, are you not?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): Yes, absolutely. The big obstacle to demand, as we see it, in the very short term is access to mortgage finance. For those people who are buying with cash the market seems to be operating well. For those people who are buying particularly with lower loan-to-value mortgages - people who have more of a deposit, more equity to put down - that has been progressing a lot more quickly. The obstacle for the most part has been for those smaller-deposit buyers, particularly first-time buyers; there the obstacles have been much greater. We have seen that from Nationwide making headlines restricting their first-time buyer mortgages, restrictions on gifted deposits and that sort of thing. In general, I Page 13 think the number of mortgages available at a 10% deposit or less has fallen by more than half between July and June this year. Therefore, it is becoming more difficult for those often younger and often less affluent first-time buyers to get access to homeownership over this period.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you for that, Lawrence. Christine, can you give us academic oversight of what you think has happened so far in response to the COVID-19 crisis in housing in London?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): I can try but I think “academic” is probably for about two years’ time, as always.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Yes, that is true.
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): There are a number of things that do seem to be at least anecdotally obvious, one of them is throughput. The number of houses coming onto the market, at least in North London, is not rapid. People looking for a different home are finding there are not very many to look at and that in itself is slowing things down.
I think there is a difference between London and the rest of the country which, at least in historic terms, may be consistent with longer-term trends. What I hear from the North is that every house is being snapped up very, very fast and that house prices, if anything - this is very anecdotal - are stable or slightly rising and they see that being a fairly continuous process. I think London is very much clearer, as already said. There is a short-term pull-up but there may or may not be, we do not know yet, a longer-term one.
In the PRS I think two things that are probably worth mentioning are that there was an enormous amount of talk in the media about irregular or illegal evictions during lockdown. There appears to be very little evidence from local authorities that illegal evictions, as such, took place in any significant amount. What happened, of course, was that families fell apart and people in informal situations were kicked out, etc, but there were very few of the sort of ‘formal illegal’ evictions. I think that is important in terms of going forward. We were talking about a cliff edge on 23 August. It clearly is not on 23 August; it may or may not be three weeks after that or six weeks after that or nine weeks after that, but it is a slow burn. What has been happening is quite a lot of discussion between people but, of course, we are always talking about a different part of the market in that context.
That is probably all I can say at this stage. Obviously, the longer term is going to depend on the economy in a way that we have not seen at all at this present time.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Christine, for that. We will come back to evictions later on in the session. Can I now move on to our next question, which is going to be led by Léonie Cooper?
Léonie Cooper AM: Thanks, Murad, and good morning, Tom, and good morning to our other guests. I am going to start with my first question and that is going to be directed to Tom Copley, the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development. I am moving to a different area in terms of housing. I want to ask you about rough sleeping, Tom. First of all, thanks for the letter with all of the figures that you supplied. It is great that the Mayor’s team, working together with the boroughs on the In for Good Principle did such amazing work during the early stages of the pandemic. I note that you are talking about the reduction in numbers in hotels, but there do still seem to be some people in hotels. I wondered if you could give us any update, you were talking about still having nearly 1,000. I also wondered if the team had in hand any sort of contingency should there be another spike and there is a decision to try to get people who have gone back onto the streets back into hotels again, because obviously that is something that we seem to have ‘bubbling under’ at the moment. Page 14
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Thank you for that question, Léonie. I am incredibly proud of the work that has been done cross-sector from our team at City Hall, boroughs, rough-sleeping organisations and other partners supported by the Government. I should say, it is very important that support continues. You are absolutely right to highlight the issue of a potential second spike; I think this is something that is on everybody’s minds. If we do see a second spike, we are going to again need the support from Government in order to get everyone in again, which is going to be absolutely vital. The other crucial thing, of course, is that again it needs to include non-UK nationals, people sleeping rough with no recourse to public funds, EEA nationals as well, it really does have to be everyone.
We have helped accommodate in GLA hotels, 1,634 rough sleepers in total. Many more are accommodated by boroughs in their hotels as well. We are in the process now of trying to move people on into longer-term accommodation or into other services and support, depending on their individual needs. That is really crucial. We have to be looking at every rough sleeper on an individual basis and tailor the next steps to their particular needs, making sure they get the services and support they need. Sometimes that is simply a case of getting someone into maybe a private rented tenancy. It can also mean, of course, much more intensive support and services are required. That work is ongoing, and we are in the process now of winding down the hotels, as you say. That is right, the hotels were never going to be a long-term solution for this. They have been absolutely vital, and we are so grateful for the support that we have had from many hotel chains. I went recently and met with some of both the wraparound support staff and the hotel staff at one of the hotels on a virtual visit and the support has been incredible. However, we do need this long-term programme. We will, of course, be administering the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme (RSAP) funding which is coming from the Government. We have issued our prospectus. We have a target to deliver through that funding for the first year, 900 longer-term forms of accommodation for rough sleepers.
Léonie Cooper AM: I saw that you were talking about 900 places, so obviously the bulk of the £67 million - you are planning at this point to spend almost £58 million - is on the capital side and you have put your prospectus out for people to apply. That does not sound as though that is going to meet the needs of everybody who is still in the hotels, so I assume you will still be looking to other routes to house the residual people in hotels.
Also, does that leave you enough money for the support side? I saw that you were also wanting to spend almost £9 million on support. I think we know that a lot of people who have become, entrenched rough sleepers do need a little bit more than just a roof over their head to stop them from falling back into not being able to maintain a tenancy, controlling money and perhaps other problems and issues that they have. Is that balance right, is that going to be enough? Who are you expecting to bid through your prospectus, and would you be accepting people who are coming forward with permitted development right ‘rabbit hutch’ type opportunities at all?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): First of all, on that latter point, no, we will be expecting decent high-quality accommodation and certainly not modern slums being created through permitted development rights. A lot of the bids we expect to get are through the usual partners that you would expect - particularly the G15, we are very strongly encouraging bids from them - and, of course, other housing associations, partners, and boroughs as well. The 900 is for the first year. This is a four-year programme and the 900 is just for this year. It is a stretching target, but it is important, I think, because this work is so crucial. This has been combined as well with £15 million of the Mayor’s existing Move On funding, so there is existing funding from within the GLA for accommodation.
Again, we come up with one of the real challenges that we cannot deal with without the Government changing its policies, and that is non-UK nationals. We cannot escape from the fact that 57% of the rough sleepers in Page 15 GLA-procured hotels are non-UK nationals. We are doing a lot of intensive work and our partners are doing a lot of intensive work to help people to regularise their immigration status but of course even if it is possible to regularise someone’s immigration status that takes time. We have been having issues with the Home Office being very slow, for example, and there is only a finite amount of free legal support that is available to be offered. However, we really are working as fast as we can to try to honour the Mayor’s In for Good Principle and to make sure that we have a long-term pathway for all of our cohort of rough sleepers.
Léonie Cooper AM: I must compliment the Government because they have really given the additional support from March onwards to both the GLA and London’s councils. However, the interview with the Prime Minister when he clearly had never heard of no recourse to public funds was deeply worrying, so I am not surprised to hear that they are 50% of the people that you have been picking up as homeless. I must say I do not feel that the Government is going down the right route with the permitted development rights opportunity, I do have a worry that we might see some accommodation coming forward that will be unsuitable for the PRS. I am very glad to hear that you will not be using that for dealing with homeless cases in London, that is very good news. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Léonie. Can I now move on to a few questions from Tony Devenish?
Tony Devenish AM: Thank you very much, Chair. I almost heard Assembly Member Léonie Cooper talk about something the Government had done well. I am going to clip that soundbite and put it out on my social media, but she finished the point obviously with an attack on my Government. Anyway, moving on.
Léonie Cooper AM: That’s fine, Tony. You can listen to me any day of the week complimenting the Government. I was doing it yesterday during the Economy Committee as well.
Tony Devenish AM: Excellent, thank you.
Léonie Cooper AM: It does not stop me from pointing out the Government’s faults, of course, either.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you. Can we continue, please?
Tony Devenish AM: Moving on. I think my first question may have already been answered, Chair, but I will ask it anyway. If Henry or Lawrence do not have anything to add I will move on to the next question. The question is: many people are predicting falls in house prices and private sector rents over both the short and long terms, what are your thoughts on this and how will this play out in London?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): Previously we forecast pretty uniform house price capital value falls of 7.5% across the country in 2020. Since then we have seen an extension to the furlough scheme and we have seen a stamp duty holiday introduced which appears to be, to a large extent, helping to prop up values and prop up activity for the time being. Therefore, while we do expect to see a negative impact on capital values as a result of the pandemic and the resulting economic downturn, that may come later than we thought before those extensions.
Historically there is a very long-standing and close correlation between rental values and income growth. Typically, when you see unemployment rise you will expect to see income growth slow or even fall, and that is certainly what we are expecting to see over the course of this year. We are expecting to see income growth fall to negative 1.5% over the course of this year, which is the latest Oxford economics forecast we have, and we are predicting that rental values will fall by around the same amount over the course of the year. Henry, do you want to jump in at all? Page 16
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): Only to add that the vast majority of commentators or experts that I follow would echo what Lawrence has said. Capital values possibly 5 - 10%, rents falling but by how much is yet unclear.
Tony Devenish AM: Thank you. My next question: do you think the Government’s change to stamp duty will be effective in stimulating the market to avoid substantial falls in house prices, and which groups will be most likely to benefit in your opinion? Shall we start with Lawrence again?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): Very happy to, although I am at the risk of quoting Christine’s research back to her. Some of the best research we have seen on stamp duty holidays have been reports published by LSE previously, looking back at the stamp duty holidays back in 2010 I believe.
In terms of the buyer groups that we would expect to see the benefit, first-time buyers are less likely to see a benefit. They will still have that barrier of getting access to mortgage finance, stamp duty does not particularly help them there. They have actually lost some of their advantage against other buyer types because now instead of having first-time buyer relief they are on a level playing field with home movers. We do expect to see more of an impact on Help to Buy because that, in particular, takes away some of those issues with access to mortgage finance. A bank will look at a Help to Buy loan and see, “This is a 55% loan to value, that is something we are more comfortable with” so it will have more of an impact on demand for new-build homes. I will defer to Christine on the impact on transaction levels, timings and so on.
Tony Devenish AM: Christine, do you want to comment on that?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): Why not? The first-home buyers are not going to benefit very much because they were already not paying very much, although that is not so true in London as it is elsewhere. I do think that getting the mortgage for them is going to be very, very much harder than people who want to move. People of my age on vast incomes can move fairly readily and will benefit enormously from it. I imagine that there will be a certain movement in terms of timing of when things happen, but it will not have the same impact as it has had in the past because the structure of stamp duty is different.
Tony Devenish AM: Thank you. Henry, do you have anything to add?
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): Only that I am disappointed with the initiative. I think it is a poor idea and it is unlikely to achieve what is being suggested, although I think the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is talking about potentially a positive impact on prices somewhere in the order of 2 - 2.5%. I speak to a lot of people, particularly in London, who are on the lower rungs of the housing ladder who think that there is merit in rushing to buy something that I and many others feel will worth considerably less come Christmas. I think it is misguided, a mistake and a shame to have been deployed.
Tony Devenish AM: Thank you. Back to you, Chair.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Tony. Can I ask Léonie Cooper to ask the next few questions?
Léonie Cooper AM: Certainly can, Chair. It is really one for Christine, I think, about falling house prices. Obviously, there have been a lot of people who have been locked out of the housing market in London and, indeed, actually in some other parts of the country. I think there is a bit of a crisis going on in Manchester on this as well. There have been huge affordability issues, I think it was Lawrence who was talking about difficulty Page 17 for first-time buyers who need quite a lot of loan compared to the value of their properties. I wondered what you think the broader impact of falls in house prices might be and whether the Government should be trying to avoid this. Obviously, we have seen house prices go up and down in a cycle, sometimes linked with economic crises, for example, the last global financial crisis in 2008/09 which was caused, indeed, by subprime mortgage selling in the United States and then spread. I wondered whether you think we should try to avoid it or whether the sort of natural ebb and flow of prices is something to let the market decide.
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): Governments always want house prices to stay at least stable, for obvious reasons, and I do not think that will have changed in terms of the political importance of stability. The difficulty is that with very low inflation we cannot get the sorts of adjustments that we have had in the past. In the 1970s, some of you are much too young to know, we experienced a 40% drop in real house prices. Nobody paid a penny less, and nobody noticed, because of that. We have a real problem with the nature of the economy in which these types of changes are taking place. The real problem is that they have been wanting to have stability of house prices. I think they are not going to get that, they are going to get falling house prices, although not necessarily very much. The difficulty about that is it means that the mortgage companies are going to say high loan-to-value ratios are extremely difficult so your first-home buyer is not going to benefit as much as they ought to be able to from any reduction.
Léonie Cooper AM: If supply is constrained perhaps by the building societies taking that viewpoint about not wanting to lend very high percentage of the value of properties and wanting to see larger deposits - which of course, as we know, are very hard for people in London to save up because if you are in the PRS the rents are also very high - what do you think will be the longer-term effects then? Do you think affordability would worsen if there is a decline in those buyers?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): I think the question is not so much affordability in this context. If you can get in, you are paying at the moment only about 18% of your income, on average, as a first-time buyer which is historically quite low. However, you cannot get in because of the deposit issue. One of the issues around this are partial equity products, where Help to Buy lies in this and where whatever is going to replace Help to Buy lies in this. First Homes do not quite solve the same problem. There are issues about what is on offer to assist people with mortgage affordability in this context. In other countries the usual answer is some form of government guarantee on a part of the mortgage, which does not cost very much and not affect governments’ budgets that much. We have never done it. Sorry, we have done it. We did it for a couple of years over a short term, but we have never done it in the way that many, many other countries do.
Léonie Cooper AM: Yes, I am not sure how likely that is to emerge as a possibility.
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): I think it is unlikely.
Léonie Cooper AM: Yes, me too. I wondered if I could bring in Rob now as well. The funding model for housing associations has utterly changed over the last ten years in the sense the grant has massively declined and the expectation is that housing associations should build, sell and then recycle money from sales into housing at subsidised levels of rent, and also have jacked-up the rents for other properties to then also try to produce subsidised dwellings. I think it has been very difficult for housing associations to continue with their traditional long-standing activities in the way that they traditionally did. To me, that throws up some questions possibly about the viability of associations, particularly if we are going to see difficulties as we move forward over the next period - with people being able to actually pay their rent as people come out of furlough and find that their jobs have vanished and they are made redundant - with keeping their voids and arrears low. Page 18 I wondered if you would like to comment on whether or not you think associations should be, or are already, concerned about their viability and their ability to continue to deliver new housing after the crisis, including at these increased rent levels, to enable some housing rents to be lower.
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): Sure, I think that is a really good question. You are quite right that the business model for many housing associations has changed significantly in recent years. There is much more reliance on market sale or shared ownership to cross-subsidise the delivery of new affordable homes. The earlier conversation about the state of the market is directly relevant to the social housing sector, to housing associations. Probably one of our biggest concerns going forward is that uncertainty, as that will act as a drag on investment and will act as a drag on the development of new social homes. There are actions that Government can take to mitigate that and maybe we will come to that later on.
In terms of viability, I would like to be clear that the sector remains in a robust position and financially strong and vibrant. As I am sure you know, there is a range of reasons for that. It is a well-regulated sector and business plans are robustly stress tested. I think the sector went into the crisis in a good position because there had been a range of stress testing around preparations for Brexit and predictions around a market downturn so therefore the sector went in in, and remains in, good health.
However, the challenges that you flag are big challenges. I do not think they will impact on the viability of the sector, but they may impact on the delivery of new homes and that is ultimately what housing associations are all about, delivering high-quality, great, safe, secure, green homes for residents in communities.
Léonie Cooper AM: I would slightly take issue with you that what housing associations are all about is delivery. For those who are already existing tenants I do also think it should be about service delivery of the highest quality to them but let us not go down that rabbit hole. That is a very personal issue because I think most Assembly Members and Councillors get quite a lot of casework from housing association tenants and it can be very frustrating trying to deal with quality of service, where it is missing.
To come back to the whole issue, I think you are saying viability, yes; continued delivery, bit of a question mark and obviously the points that Christine was just making about whether Help to Buy and other mechanisms that we have at the moment are actually the ones that we need. One of the ones that has been very big for housing associations in helping people into the homeownership side of things rather than rented has been shared ownership. If shared ownership homes continue to be viable for housing associations to build will it continue to deliver the same level of cross-subsidy to fund the affordable social rented homes?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): On that point about tenant engagement, it is a point that is well made and, absolutely, associations are committed to engage with residents more authentically and more fully, not just in running their business but in the delivery of services. There was some research from Housemark over the last couple of months that shows that resident engagement is as good as it has ever been because many associations have really actively engaged with their residents through this period. I am sure there are lessons that we can learn there going forward so that is an absolutely fair challenge.
In terms of shared ownership, this is part of many associations’ business models. The feedback that we have had, which is anecdotal, is that at the moment shared ownership sales remain strong but we have yet to see the impact of the virus and the recession on that so it probably will not be until the end of this year, next year, until we see really what that means. In terms of development, there is a key question here about the terms of the new Affordable Homes Programme. Yes, the Government has committed £12.2 billion for the next programme starting next year but we do not know what the terms of that will be, we do not know what the tenure mix will be. Until we do it is very difficult for associations to plan and that, again, is another potential drag on development. We may see a dip in development between the ending of the current programme and Page 19 the beginning of the next programme. Therefore, uncertainty is probably my key theme but good questions, thank you.
Léonie Cooper AM: Thank you. Therefore, clarity and certainty from the Government.
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): Yes.
Léonie Cooper AM: A number of the other guests are nodding at this point as well. Thank you very much, Rob, that was really helpful. Thank you, Christine. Thank you, Chair, I am finished.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Léonie. Andrew Boff wanted to come in behind you, please.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): I am wondering as a result of the discussions about the possible fall in PRS, whether or not that means that Sadiq Khan’s [Mayor of London] plans for rent control would favour the landlord rather than the tenant. Perhaps, Professor Whitehead, you might want to comment on that?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): I think it depends on exactly what would get through. At the moment we know we have no powers at the GLA level and the way in which it might be taken forward is difficult to know. I mean it has always been the case that rent stabilisation - which is not of course his ultimate position but is his immediate position - has brought in consistent increases. For instance, rents in Berlin were rising much faster than they were in London over many of the years in the last decade because they have rent stabilisation in there, but of course they were starting from a very low point, so it is not immediately relevant. I think the answer is, if you put in rent stabilisation which says it goes with an indicator that is not the market, then you will get sometimes it benefitting one side and sometimes it benefitting another. If you do rent control of a form, which is part of what he has discussed, then of course that is an absolute decision and that goes back to traditional rent control where you set it at a given number and of course in the 1930s that did mean that rents went up in real terms.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that. Thank you very much.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Andrew. To end this section, we have Siân and we will go back to an issue that Christine brought up earlier. Siân?
Siân Berry AM: Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, I wanted to ask about renters and the possibility of them facing evictions. I know that you [Tom Copley] and the Mayor have written to the Secretary of State asking for a number of things; extending the eviction ban to the end of the pandemic and not just to 23 August, which is really getting close now; you have asked for dealing through the benefit system with renters not being able to afford rent and you have included arrears in that; and you have asked for landlords to be asked to pass on their mortgage holidays; all of which is good. I am really pleased, and I want to thank you, Tom, for the new call from the Mayor to say including arrears in the part about benefits and rents. I could not get any clarity from the Mayor on this at Mayor’s Questions, but I know that you clarified that privately to us in an informal meeting, and a few days later to see that out in public going to the Secretary of State was really good. That letter asking for that package went to Robert Jenrick [Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government] on 10 July. Have you received any reply to that letter yet?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Thank you for that question, Assembly Member Berry. No, and in fact the Mayor has written on two occasions now to the Secretary of State about this subject and has received no reply. Unfortunately, this is a general problem that we have with this Secretary of State, his response rate to letters from the Mayor has been extremely disappointing. Given Page 20 how worried a lot of private renters are going to be I think this warrants a response. This is not about the Mayor, this is about Londoners, 30% of Londoners are renting from private landlords and many of whom are in a very precarious situation.
It is not just the ban on evictions coming to an end on 23 August that I am worried about, it is also furlough coming to an end, as I mentioned before. I think that is really going to be when we start to see major, major problems because it might well be that because of furlough some tenants who would not be able to pay their rent can actually pay their rent, but once that comes to an end we could be in some very, very choppy waters indeed.
As I say, I do think it is disappointing that Robert Jenrick has not replied to these letters, particularly as this is an issue that affects London more than any other part of the country.
Siân Berry AM: Thank you for that. We know that a lot of renters on furlough have contacted their landlords and struck some sort of deal, but this is temporary and when furlough comes to an end, we do not know much longer those informal agreements can last.
In relation to the eviction ban coming to an end, we know that the most immediate thing will be the existing repossession claims that remain valid but are just simply paused in the court system will restart. At the beginning of that process Shelter estimated there were 20,000 of these claims already in the court system. Do you have an estimate of how many of those are in London, and the extent to which that will be an immediate threat?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): I am afraid I do not, but I am glad that you have raised that point and it is something I can go away and check with Shelter to see if they know how many of those are London.
Siân Berry AM: The other thing that Shelter has estimated by opinion polling, because there are so many people affected, is that around 174,000 private tenants - this is across the country - have been threatened with eviction by the landlord or letting agent upon raising issues of unaffordability or running into arrears. That is an awful lot. Again, we do not know from that opinion polling how many are London because the sample size is not large enough. Are you taking steps to make an estimate of who might be affected by this? Are you potentially asking for what Wales has done, which is asking for a longer notice period to be instituted in these cases that gives people more chance to get back on their feet? To be clear, Wales’ notice period is six months whereas the Government has mandated, I think, three months’ notice now.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): In terms of data, we are always trying to build up the body of data and evidence that we have on all of these subjects and the PRS is no exception. In fairness, often we do of course rely on the information that organisations like Shelter come up with and their data and their evidence is always very important.
I saw the extension in Wales to six months, which I think is interesting. It is not something that I have considered as yet in great detail. The obvious thing to say about that is it goes to show what can happen where you have a part of the country that has significant devolved powers in this area in a way that we do not. I would reiterate the call the Mayor has made for this matter to be devolved to London so that we can take the decisions at a London level that we believe are most appropriate for London. I think in the spirit of devolution that is what should happen, it should be a matter for the Mayor and for London government and not a matter for national government.
Page 21 Siân Berry AM: Wales was the first to get the Homelessness Reduction Act, which obviously gives local authorities a longer time period, a longer bit of notice, to start helping people. I strongly suspect this notice period extension is because of the anticipated load on local authorities, which I think you raised earlier on. Certainly, I have been talking with Centrepoint, which looks particularly at young homelessness, their support services have doubled in volume of demand since lockdown started and they know that local authorities are already struggling with not being able to offer as many face-to-face services. This is something that we can help with at a London level in terms of co-ordination, efficiency, maybe getting councils together to increase the impact of the resources they can put in. I know that resources need to come from Government really but is there something that you are doing about that side of things?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): I think the point you make about resources coming from Government is crucial. You can put as many duties and responsibilities on local government as you want but if the resources are not there and the ability to raise funds to pay for it are not there then it is not going to make the difference we would want it to make.
In terms of pan-London work on this, the Mayor has invested in work through things like Capital Letters, for example, which is about more co-ordination between boroughs when it comes to procuring temporary accommodation and Pan-London Accommodation Collaborative Enterprise (PLACE) as well, which as you know is the temporary modular housing schemes for homeless families. I think it is really important that the Mayor has invested in these things and will continue to invest in these things. Statutory homelessness is the responsibility of boroughs but where the Mayor can add something, add value and assist, it is important that we look at that.
Siân Berry AM: I know that my own borough, Camden, has recently joined Capital Letters. Do you know how many boroughs are in that at the moment?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Off the top of my head I think it is about half, but I would have to double check on that front.
Siân Berry AM: OK, thank you very much. I would like to move on to Rob, I think, because you are a social landlord, that I know has been having problems facing tenants with arrears in terms of your own viability, as it were. Are you also writing and asking the Government for support through the benefit system to tackle arrears or potentially to help landlords directly which is the model most likely preferred, although I do not really mind as long as the arrears get cancelled to be honest?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): We have been working closely with officials and with our members to support residents through the crisis. As I said earlier, our first priority has been to keep residents safe and actually to help them maintain their livelihoods and their livings. Yes, we have been working with residents and with Government to ensure that, for example, those who need to access benefits can get their full entitlements and obviously we signed up to the pledge not to evict any tenants or residents who have arrears through the crisis. However, we have always supported residents. This gives a new dimension to the work but actually is something that has always been core to how associations want to work with their residents.
Siân Berry AM: The controversy over arrears has been the question of whether or not tenants should be the ones paying this back, whether or not they go into debt and have a repayment scheme with landlords which is in the Government’s proposal. I think the Opposition is more or less united around the idea that arrears ought to be cancelled, but obviously that would affect your business. What is your call for this? You are not setting up repayment plans presumably that would be onerous on tenants, but you are going to need compensation. Are you lobbying the Government for that? Page 22
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): No, our starter point is to work up payment plans with residents; appropriate, affordable and in conjunction and consultation with [individuals] to try to work through those systems. As you mentioned there, that is obviously part of the business plan.
Siân Berry AM: You are not a private landlord and I know that your tenants are potentially not quite as squeezed as a lot of private tenants. However, genuinely, Londoners in general are putting out as much money as they possibly can towards their rent and the idea that there is an affordable way to pay back three- or four-months’ worth of arrears is not realistic, is it?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): The feedback we have had from our members is that the level of arrears is not as significant as it may have been. As we said earlier, we obviously have not yet seen the full impact of the crisis, the ending of the furlough scheme and of the recession on individuals. It is certainly part of our ongoing conversations and it is something that we are committed to support and engage in to help residents.
Siân Berry AM: We do not have any landlord groups here. I do not know whether either of our housing market experts have any idea about the extent to which landlords are taking the view that a mortgage holiday should be passed on to tenants?
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): I can only comment that I am afraid I am unaware of any data that landlord groups or, indeed, organisations like Shelter have as far as that is concerned. There is this extraordinary tension between both landlords and tenants in the PRS as to who is getting what benefits and what is being passed on but there is a lack of specific data as to what exactly is being done, as far as I am aware.
Siân Berry AM: OK, thank you. Chair, can I ask my second question to Tom, the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development?
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Please do but mind time.
Siân Berry AM: I will be as quick as I can. We received a letter from you yesterday in response to some queries that we put out. One of them was about an issue I have been chasing you up about, which is the out-of-date data on ballot exemptions in estate regeneration. At the moment, we do not have new data from you, we have a promise to review the approach to publishing the data. I do not think it is that complicated, it is a list of what has been exempted. Can we possibly get the updated list in the meantime, because it is January since we saw new information? I am trying to support tenant groups that are asking me, “What is the situation with my estate?” and I cannot even look up for them whether or not there has been an exemption granted.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): I am sure you will appreciate there has been an awful lot of pressure on officer time at the moment because of all of the work we have had to do diverted from COVID-19. I will chase that up and we will try to get an updated list to you as quickly as possible. I think I committed in the letter to ensuring that the Committee was in future informed as soon as the information is updated and will honour that commitment.
Siân Berry AM: The other piece of information I have asked for in the past is for applications to be listed as well so that we know which exemptions are being considered and so that potentially residents who want to challenge the idea that they have been sufficiently consulted could put in some information. Are you going to be looking at that in the process that you said you will -- Page 23
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): I will have to get back to you on that one actually. I cannot remember you raising this particular issue with me. I remember you raising the issue about the data not being up to date but I do not remember you raising this particular point, so I apologise for that.
Siân Berry AM: We will deal with that in writing. Thank you very much, Chair, for your indulgence.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you. We now move on to the whole area of the potential exodus from London. Nicky Gavron will lead the questioning on this point.
Nicky Gavron AM: Thank you very much, Chair. It is now good afternoon, panel. Nice to see you all. My question on the exodus, just to begin with - and really it would be good if each of you could give me your views, perhaps starting with Henry - is that there is a lot of speculation now about people wanting to leave London following the crisis. I wonder how much of a concern that is. What do you think the drivers are and what is your view on it now? Starting perhaps with Henry.
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): Nicky, good afternoon to you. I will be brief. There is inevitably a lot of chatter about the impact of COVID-19 and people’s motivations as to where they may or may not want to live and what that might mean for London and for housing, both in the sales and rental sector in London. As somebody who buys properties professionally for a living, I am aware of people who have taken the decision they do not either want or need to be in London as they perhaps did and are therefore looking to move out, but they are being replaced at the rate of two to one by people who either want to move to London or move to something else in London. I suspect a great deal of what we are hearing is a way of filling newspaper columns. I do not have direct evidence. The evidence I have seen from websites based on where people are searching, I tend to take with something of a pinch of salt.
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has done some work, has it not, on this? It is a national survey; it is very hard to unpick it.
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): It is very difficult, Nicky, at the moment. Lots of people would love and in fact strongly believe that you can take the temperature of the UK housing market or indeed the housing market in the capital instantly and we can provide and work out something off the back of that. However, as Christine said earlier on, most of this takes much, much longer. The housing market itself is very much like the proverbial super tanker. It takes much longer to respond and react and to change course as a result, change speed as a result. While the vast majority of people who I am speaking to, and those who I listen to who have an understanding of how the market operates, are expecting things to get gradually worse, for all the reasons we have talked about and have been alluded to this morning, there does not yet seem to be people packing their possessions on to charabancs and trains and heading to the shires. It does appear to be something of a talking point and a hook on which a lot of journalists are pinning their opinion pieces for the weekend property pages.
Nicky Gavron AM: It is very interesting what you say. Obviously, what we have to do is either write to you in a few months’ time or have you all back.
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): If you can bear it.
Nicky Gavron AM: I want to say at this point to the panel that the Assembly is conducting its own survey, but it is not complete yet. It is probably a sentiment survey as much as anything. A third - about 29% or 30% Page 24 - are saying they want to move. This is renters and owners. Of those, it is about half who are thinking that they would move outside London. That is all we have; it is a wait and see.
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): Can I just add something? It is worth members bearing in mind that we are going to hear a great deal more over the next 12 months about the impact, rather bizarrely and perhaps slightly worryingly, of Hong Kong. It is not something that is going to touch everybody in the capital, but it will be something that I suspect we will all be talking about and be reading about because of what is going on there and people’s attachments and connections with the UK and with London specifically.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Henry, we do have a question about that later on; we can leave that point until then. Nicky, continue.
Nicky Gavron AM: I do take the point. We are talking about exodus and we are not looking at incomers. Maybe some of you might want to touch on the Office of National Statistics (ONS) projections that have come out. Our London Plan was many cycles ago now and the ONS projects on household growth -- Jules Pipe, the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills, told us in the Planning Committee that it is looking like projections for household growth have about halved. We do not have the real details yet, but we need to be thinking about that as well.
Can I move on and ask you what you know about the speculation about people leaving London? Lawrence?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): We certainly saw demand for country homes, out-of-London properties, bounce back first but since then we have seen that very much matched by demand for properties in London. Informally we have been saying we expect that demand for London properties, for city properties, bounce back as soon as the pubs are back open. Indeed, the pubs are now back open again.
Generally, surveying our buyers and our applicants, we are finding there is a greater emphasis being placed on access to outdoor space, greater emphasis being placed on the ability to work from home more frequently, and we may see people’s choices and people’s preferences changing as a result of that. There are ample opportunities to live in places in London where you have that access to outdoor space and you have that ability to work from home, so there is no reason that we should see a particular increase in people moving out of London.
The point you make about the household projections, it is worth bearing in mind there that household projections are based on previous household growth trends. We have not been building enough homes in London for many, many years and so those projections are influenced by the fact that if you have seen slower household growth because you are not building enough homes, then we are going to project slower household growth in the future. If we want to make London more affordable and maintain its attractions to people wanting to live and work here into the future, we do need to maintain those higher levels of housing delivery and break that historic cycle of under-delivery. I see Christine wanting to comment on that.
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes, I am going to ask Christine next. This is exactly what Deputy Mayor [Planning, Regeneration and Skills] Jules Pipe said at the Planning Committee - and we all agree with this - which is it allows us to deal with the backlog of need as well if there are household projections. There is huge need. Could I ask Christine her views?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): Projections are always an issue because they are just if the future was like the past, these were what might happen. Even that is uncertain because we are talking about migration over a five-year period and we are Page 25 talking about births and deaths over a 30-year period, so the projections go up and down. We of course may be about to lose any interest in projections in the ways that we take things forward, but that is by the way.
I do think it is important that when you are talking about exodus you need to know both what the net exodus is going to be - in other words what is going to happen in terms of what is coming in - and you need to break it down by both and then see what the net is. Certainly, in the short term there are going to be fewer students in London who will need accommodation and a lot of them still take private accommodation. Overseas buyers may not buy for their children in quite the same way as they have done in the past, for student reasons. It is really a matter of how many people are going to come in looking for jobs. The evidence from New York - which is often quite relevant - is that population has been falling for about five years. It seems to be slow but real.
Then, of course, the question is do we want population growth for the sake of it. I do think you have to unpack that question whether people are going to go out of London. A lot of people compared the situation with the war when we looked at it at the very beginning -- down my street there was not a single person other than us around. Everybody had gone off. That is what happened in those sorts of areas at the beginning of the war. It took until five years ago to get back to a 1939 level. Therefore, there are underlying trends as well as immediate threats.
Nicky Gavron AM: The post-war exodus was planned, was it not, over some decades?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): Not by any means all of it.
Nicky Gavron AM: No, you are right, not all of it, but there were planned jobs and people moving out of London and so on.
What about Rob? Do you have a view on the speculation about people wanting to leave London and what are the drivers of that that you have heard? We have heard a few of them.
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): I am not sure I have a huge amount to add. Again, the feedback that we have heard from housing associations is that demand currently is holding up in terms of shared ownership demand. We know there is huge demand for affordable homes. Would it be a concern if that were to be the case? It would be a concern because we have a concern that people already cannot access affordable homes and our mission is to ensure that anyone has access to and has a right to good-quality, affordable homes and the solution is to build more affordable homes. That is what members want to do. Demographics does play a part. Housing associations will plan robustly, they have robust business plans. Demographics is part of the considerations that they will take into account when developing their plans, because we do need houses in the right places, not just of the right quality. It is a good question and something that is constantly thought through in terms of how associations will plan their strategies.
Nicky Gavron AM: Thank you. Tom, has it been raised with you, concerns about people wanting to leave London because of the crisis and what might be some of the drivers and how do we react to those drivers?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Yes, it is something that we are actively monitoring. It is really, really important that we monitor these trends and react accordingly. As other colleagues on the panel have said, it is too early to say with any certainty. I think a lot will depend, for example, on whether or not we get a second spike, whether we get a vaccine. Of course, even if people do leave London in the short term, it does not mean that in the longer term they will not decide that they want to come back because of all the attractions that London offers. I would not write off London and I would not Page 26 write off the attraction of city living. What I think could happen, and is more likely than a mass exodus from London itself, is perhaps a move within London. We see, for example, more people moving from central and inner London to outer London. It may be issues around outdoor space and things like that that make people decide that they want to move to outer London boroughs from inner London boroughs.
There are two things that I would say we could be pretty certain of. First, that demand for low-cost social rented housing is only going to increase, particularly if we go into a recession, and secondly, demand for commercial office space is probably going to fall. There are some possible positive and possibly negative implications for housing on that front. The positive is potentially that is more land to develop into high-quality, sustainable, affordable housing with decent space standards. The threat, of course, is that the Government is pushing ahead with their extension to the permitted development right, which could see these office blocks, particularly in central and inner London, turned into modern slums. I know the Committee shares my concern and the Mayor’s concern about, in particular, space standards. It is very, very important and I believe the Government should reverse this awful policy. At the very least it needs to make sure that minimum space standards are in included as part of the prior approvals process.
I note that the concession that they have made is that it is now going to require these properties to have windows. People will be wanting the moon on a stick next. However, it is completely the wrong way of looking at this. If we see this fall in demand for commercial office space, there is a real danger of many, many tiny micro flats being created. If there is one thing, we should have learned from about housing from COVID-19, it is the important minimum standards.
Nicky Gavron AM: Absolutely, yes. What are we coming to if the Government is realising that you need a window?
On this I want to go into my next question, which is, given what you have just been saying, could the Mayor be doing anything to make homes more attractive? People are wanting to move; you are quite right. It seems that some of the survey work does show that people are wanting to move, not out of London but to a different part of London. Is there anything the Mayor could do in terms of the kinds of features that people are looking for and that COVID-19 has highlighted, which is the need for a balcony, the need for private open space? The RICS survey - and I am not very happy about this - says that people are less keen on having communal space. They want more private space and also some more home working. Is there anything you are thinking of doing in relation to this? I do wonder whether you are going to look at the housing design Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). It is coming out for consultation soon, is it not? Would you review that, do you think, in the light of people’s experience of COVID-19?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): The intend to publish London Plan contains a number of provisions requiring the provision of outdoor space, so that is already there. You have referenced the SPG that is coming out in the form of these design modules. I am sure the Committee and others will be submitting responses to that consultation.
I think we should not be afraid, in light of COVID-19, to be looking at all of these things, as I alluded to earlier, about the importance of monitoring different trends, whether that is different trends in attitudes towards the kind of housing that people want or whatever. We have to be reactive to that, bearing in mind the limits in terms of the land supply that we have, which does often lend itself to a certain type of typology, given the land constraints that we have in London. However, I want us to be innovative and creative in looking at ways that we can deliver housing that meets the demands and needs of the population, whether or not those demands, and needs are changing.
Page 27 Nicky Gavron AM: The garden and the balconies are in the London Plan and will be in the Housing Design Guide SPG, but the home-working aspect of it has been accelerated enormously by COVID-19. You are thinking about that, are you not?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Yes, this whole pandemic has shown up the divide between people who are well housed and who are quite enjoying being able to work at home, and other people for whom it is incredibly difficult. The important thing over the longer term as we move out of the immediate lockdown and the immediate crisis is that people are genuinely given flexibility about this. That is really important. It speaks to all the issues around making sure that we have decent space standards in homes, and high-quality homes as well in terms of sound, noise insulation and things like that. It emphasises that point and again is why the strategy of the idea of expanding permitted development homes is so completely wrongheaded. That is creating precisely the kind of homes that would not be suitable for home working in.
Nicky Gavron AM: Absolutely. We are all on the same page in terms of permitted development and we have looked at that in the Planning Committee too. I totally agree with you. I have been asked to bring forward a question because you have to leave our panel.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Yes, apologies for that.
Nicky Gavron AM: You touched on looking at new kinds of housing and so on. Can I come to modern methods of construction, or precision manufactured homes (PMH)? I heard you say a little bit earlier that you were looking at them in terms of temporary housing and so on as solutions for people on housing waiting lists. How much are you looking at it altogether in the short and longer term, particularly the short term first?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): This is a subject that I am incredibly interested in and I am really keen that we drive forward PMH and modern methods of construction, for a number of reasons. This is something that featured quite heavily in our Housing Delivery Taskforce report. There is big cross-sector interest in this at the moment. The really crucial thing is about making sure that there is sufficient demand and a sufficient pipeline of demand so that manufacturers have the confidence to produce these sorts of homes. That is why there was a big emphasis in our report on the Mayor and London councils working together and co-ordinating in order to generate that pipeline of demand for their development programmes. Of course, there is no reason why our housing association partners cannot come on board with this as well.
I talk to a lot of people who have been in this field for a while now who think that the time has now come, for a number of reasons, for PMH, not least the real danger that we have of losing conventional skilled workers in conventional building for various reasons, including potentially European Union (EU) workers leaving because of Brexit. This creates a whole new opportunity to create a skilled workforce developing these homes in factories. I think that the public sector and local Government should be leading the way on this.
Nicky Gavron AM: This is music to my ears, as you know.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Of course, it would be.
Nicky Gavron AM: Having worked on behalf of the Planning Committee and done an investigation into all this.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Your work has been very influential in this area. Page 28
Nicky Gavron AM: Thank you for that. Done well, PMH meets so many of the Mayor’s objectives because it is speed of delivery, it suits the business model. The rented sector suits the business model very well because you get your return so quickly from it because of the speed of delivery. There is also the lack of waste, the lack of noise and pollution because it is so quick on site and so on and craned in. However, one of the things that will be interesting post-COVID is that you can make it very flexible. You can get it right. You can reconfigure the walls and so on. You can really make them good homes. That might be something to think about as well.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): That is a really important point.
Nicky Gavron AM: You were talking really about co-ordinated continuity of demand, are you not, because you are going to co-ordinate with the local authorities, with the housing associations and the manufacturers?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Yes, we talked in the first instance about the Mayor and London boroughs coming together on this, but I do not see any reason why that cannot be extended to housing associations as well. Of course, some housing associations have their own systems and their own factories already.
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes, I know. The other thing I know that is being pushed at a national level - and we have done our own work on this with the Prism app that is looking at some replicability and standardisation, because it is very hard to get the scale if all the manufacturers have their own system, which cannot be replicable in some way, or not interoperable, anyway. That is a good point.
Rob, are housing associations thinking about this?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): Yes, we would agree with what has been said. We certainly see a greater role for Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) going forward and you are right that the current crisis has provided an opportunity or certainly put the benefits into sharper focus, both at a practical and a policy level. Practically it is easier to put social distancing measures in place in factories than it is on a traditional construction site. That could see costs come down, which could make MMC more attractive. Also, at a policy level we still see huge potential. There is still huge capacity to do more. I am sure you know the figures: 5% of housing stock in the UK is currently manufactured offsite compared to 70% or 80% in parts of Europe. Therefore, there is absolutely a real potential and we are keen to support and encourage members. We do that in a variety of ways.
There are still some fundamental challenges to tackle. Tom mentioned lack of demand. We do need to build up demand. Costs. We need to bring costs down and we also need to continue to work with lenders and valuers to convey the benefits and build the evidence base around quality in terms of MMC.
Nicky Gavron AM: There are plenty of examples now of quality in London. That is what I found when the Planning Committee was doing its investigation. There are examples elsewhere in the country of consortiums or housing associations working with local authorities and combined authorities and I think there is a lot to play for here. Thank you for that, I will pass back to the Chair.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you. Andrew wanted to come in with some supplementaries before he moves on to the other questions. Andrew?
Page 29 Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Yes, I was interested to hear from the Deputy Mayor with regard to the number of things and standards that are defined by the Mayor in terms of the quality of homes, but of course he did not mention size mix and neither does the consultation that has just gone out on intermediate homes. Absolutely the Deputy Mayor was a very active member of the Planning Committee and he went along with a statement from that Planning Committee back in March 2018 that the London Plan needs to set targets for the development of larger homes and to alleviate overcrowding. Now you are in a better job, what has changed?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): The London Plan requires boroughs to set size mixes for the first time for low-cost social rental housing. I am pleased to say I can reveal some information that is not quite out yet from the next London Plan annual monitoring report that will show another increase in the proportion of family-sized social rental homes being developed in London, up from 34% under the previous Mayor to 41%. I am looking at the evidence of what the Mayor’s policies are delivering and I think it is 34% --
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): You are talking about specifically social rent, which is a very small number.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Of low-cost social rented homes where there is particular need for family-sized housing. We know from market housing that only around a third of market homes are inhabited by families. A lot of the rest are part of the PRS rented out to sharers.
You mentioned intermediate housing, Assembly Member Boff, which we have just launched a consultation on, by the way, as you mentioned. One of the issues with shared ownership is that once you get above two bedrooms it essentially becomes unaffordable in much of London. This is one of the issues that we have. The Government requires us to deliver half of our Affordable Homes Programme for low-cost home ownership, essentially. That is the most difficult part to make work as family-sized housing. If we had more flexibility with our programme, we could deliver more family-sized social rented housing.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): You are saying it is all the Government’s fault again?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): The Government is the one that sets the limitations. It sets the overall size of the pot of money that we have, it sets certain restrictions, as I said, on the tenure mix that we can provide. That tenure mix does not fit the evidence that we have.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Does it set a restriction on the number of bedrooms within a property?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): No, the market then sets essentially a restriction on the number of bedrooms that can be provided in shared ownership homes because, as I say, once you get above a certain number of bedrooms these properties become very expensive and essentially they became unaffordable.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): So, it is the market’s fault, is it?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): The point of the Affordable Homes Programme is not to provide unaffordable homes.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): It is the market’s fault, is it, that you are not building the homes that Londoners need? Page 30
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): The market is what it is. Once you get to a certain price point, shared ownership is not affordable, and I do not think that we should be using our Affordable Homes Programme to deliver shared ownership homes that are not affordable to people. This is one of the questions that is asked in our intermediate housing consultation, which I am sure the Committee will be responding to.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): We certainly will be.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Do you not admit that there is a crisis in the number of family-sized homes? You seemed to admit that when you were an Assembly Member, but you do not admit it now.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): There is a housing crisis that cuts across all tenures.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): For people living in overcrowded housing.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Can we move this on, please?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): I want to repeat the Mayor has a major responsibility for funding low-cost rented homes. If you look at low-cost rented homes we are seeing the proportion that are family-sized, three-plus bedrooms, go from 34% under the previous Mayor; the new figures for last year’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) are going to go up to 41%, which is --
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Deputy Mayor, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected those people in overcrowded conditions - disproportionately - and you have not come forward with any initiatives whatsoever as to how we recognise that and how we resolve London’s - not individual boroughs but London’s - overcrowding problem. Do you not think it is time you went away and thought about an overcrowding policy that can resolve the issue? Otherwise, are you saying that people living in overcrowded conditions are no worse off than anyone else?
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): No, overcrowding is appalling and the whole point of the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme is to deliver good-quality affordable homes that people can move into, including overcrowded families. To repeat - I do not know if I am not explaining this adequately - the proportion of social rented family-sized homes, which is most crucial, has gone from 34% to 41%. I do not know how I can explain that any more clearly.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Give us the numbers? What are the numbers? Not percentages, the numbers.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Under the current Mayor, which suggests to me that the Mayor’s policies on this are working, if we want to radically increase those numbers, there is no way around it. I know, Assembly Member Boff, you have said in the past that money is not an issue. Money is an issue. It is obviously an issue with affordable housing, and the more affordable housing funding that we have, the more we can build, including family-sized housing. This is why the Mayor is making --
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): That is not an issue if you do not have any or if you have loads.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Andrew, I think we are going around in circles here. Page 31
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): We have only a fraction of what we need if you look at the research.
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): I thought I might make the Deputy Mayor recognise that overcrowding is a crisis that he needs to do something about but thank you for that anyway.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you for that. Tom, thank you very much for your contribution. I know you have to leave right now. We will no doubt be in touch.
Tom Copley (Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development): Lovely to be here.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Andrew, do you want to continue with the questioning?
Andrew Boff AM (Deputy Chair): Well, that would be pointless, he has gone.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): We are going to move now on to the questioning on the suggested recovery strategies. We have Tony Devenish leading the first two questions. Tony.
Tony Devenish AM: Thank you, Chair. Excuse me one second. I was enjoying Andrew’s argument with the Deputy Mayor, so you will have to forgive me. Where am I? Question 13. We are starting with Christine if we can, please. There is a lot of discussion in the housing sector about strategies that could tackle a rising demand for social and affordable housing at the same time as contributing to the economic recovery. How would council cyclical investment in the social and affordable housing sector boost the economic recovery, please, Christine?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): Clearly, we are going to be short of activity and what we want is activity and therefore building homes is a very good thing. One of the issues that concerns one and certainly concerned one in 2009/10 is that land prices go down more than house prices. Particularly some of the housing associations have quite large land banks, and they are going to find it quite difficult to build on that land if the value has gone down. What happened last time was we had to wait until people had transferred land and therefore it came out in the balance sheet such that you built on it. I think there is going to be an issue about can you build on what has been over-valued land and has developer contributions that were based on earlier values. There are some issues about how we keep the process going.
From the point of view of the economy, I am afraid it probably does not matter whether it is market housing or affordable housing, but we do think that from a point of view of policy, Government has more control over the second and therefore, if it wants to make the system work, it is going to have to support social and affordable housing to a greater extent than they are doing at the present time. Its problem, to some extent, is that it has First Homes in play, and it wants to make that work and it is going to be very unclear about exactly what its priorities are.
Yes, of course, more social, and affordable homes would help. Yes, of course, because they are sub-market value they will be filled. There will not be a problem about that. However, I do think that the Government interventions on home ownership in this context and more generally for planning changes - however much they are meant to speed things up, they will slow things down to begin with - make it very difficult to see how we are going to build a lot more houses in the next few years, the next two or three years, anyway.
Page 32 Tony Devenish AM: That is a bit pessimistic. Can I give you a couple more positive points that I am picking up from the sector? One is senior living, another is the PRS and build-to-rent. Are those not going to help in a way? We have hopefully moved forward in terms of all the other tenures of housing. Do you think they will help? Those two particular examples I gave, do you think they will help mean that we can build some more social and affordable housing?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): I think Build to Rent has been an issue, and Savills know far more about this than I do. There have been a lot of planning permissions, there have been a lot of completions, there have not been an awful lot of starts lately, and that was before the COVID-19 crisis. I think that it can add to it, but it will need some support, I suspect. I do think that the evidence that old people want to move on, especially in a world in which they have been shielding or being very careful, the honest answer to that is to stay where you are. I do not think there is a short-term benefit. There should be from Build to Rent but they are not very large short-term improvements. Of course, the industry wants to see itself as being able to do things, but it is being optimistic, I think. I bow to my more market-oriented colleagues in this.
Tony Devenish AM: Do you want to come in, Rob, briefly?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): Sure, just to add to what Christine has said. In the Federation we have developed our own recovery plan that we think will help support not just the sector but provide wider economic growth. There are five strands to that: ending rough sleeping; supporting communities; helping people thrive at home. There is also a strand around decarbonisation, and we have not touched on that at this session, but there is a lot of evidence and research to suggest that investment in green infrastructure and green projects can be a better fiscal stimulus than traditional fiscal stimulus [measures]. Increasing investment in energy efficiency measures, investment in decarbonisation is a way to provide better, greener, cleaner homes but provide also economic support. Also, obviously, there is a key strand in our recovery programme around building more affordable homes for the benefits that Christine has outlined.
Back to my earlier point, that is all about certainty. In the short term, housing associations need certainty to continue to develop. That is about bringing some funding forward now but also providing flexibility on tenure and allowing tenure flipping so that, as we said earlier, if associations are building houses for market sale and they cannot sell them, they can convert them into a home for rent. Also, the crisis has provided the Government with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver this new generation of affordable homes. We would really like to see a ten-year Affordable Homes Programme that can provide a generational change in the delivery of homes across the UK.
Tony Devenish AM: Thank you. I had better move on because the Chairman is looking at me in terms of time, I am sure. My final question is on the Housing Recovery Taskforce - I am back to Rob again - of which the National Housing Federation was a member. It has recommended the Government should provide the financial backing to housing associations and councils to act as a buyer of last resort for unsold market homes. Is this something, Rob, that you feel could be achieved on scale without additional Government funding?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): It is something that we absolutely support. We are a member of the Taskforce and we support the recommendations. It will require additional Government funding, as the Taskforce report makes clear. Housing associations support the concept but that level of Government funding, that level of subsidy, will determine the degree to which associations want to purchase homes. Of course, it comes with the caveat that the homes need to be of the right quality, of the right size and in the right place.
Page 33 It is worth mentioning also that obviously this is a buyer-of-last-resort approach. As the Taskforce report notes, it is only where developers cannot return a profit on an open market, so it is not a wholesale approach.
Tony Devenish AM: Great. I will leave it there, Chair. Thank you very much.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Tony. Siân wanted to come in at this point.
Siân Berry AM: Thank you, Chair, I think I just got in just ahead of Nicky there. I want to follow up with Rob on the comments you made about green recovery investment. The housing recovery action plan from the Taskforce, which I think you were on, does not seem to cover that very well. Did you make arguments that that should be a plank of the recovery demands?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): It is touched on in the Taskforce report and it is certainly one of the main strands of our own recovery plan, for the reasons that we have touched on. It is a complex and confusing and costly issue, but it is critical. We do need to decarbonise our homes if we are going to tackle climate change, and members are committed to that. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. Thirty years may sound a long time, but we need to put the foundations in place now. There are a number of --
Siân Berry AM: We have a very short period in which to take action and it is the case that homes and home energy efficiency has been the most under-invested-in way of decarbonising our country and it is the thing that is most in demand as well as being a good stimulus. Yes, I would have hoped it had come through more clearly from the Taskforce.
Nicky Gavron AM: Chair, can I just follow up on that?
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Yes, make it quick.
Nicky Gavron AM: Rob, I was so pleased to hear you talk about the economic case for decarbonising homes and I want to go back to the MMC point. It is a very brief point I want to make, which is PMHs, or the ones that we have seen, council houses, private houses, whatever, mainly rented, are so much more energy efficient, partly because of their materials. If they are mainly engineered wood, cross-laminated timber (CLT), they are a carbon sink. I have talked to tenants who are saving £1,000 in a three or four-bed home on their energy bills. It is not just the operational carbon; it is the embodied carbon. I want to make that point to encourage you to go for more PMHs. I think it will make a confidence case with some of the lenders who are not at the moment as confident as they should be.
Chair, this would be a question for Lawrence and Henry. We did not touch at all on the international market and its impact on central London. Do you want to touch on that?
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): I thought we had run out of time on that section. Let me deal with this right now. Henry, you wanted to come in and make a contribution on this front and I am going to give you this opportunity to do that. Can I frame it in terms of what do you think is going to happen in that market as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and will it be part of a recovery strategy at all in any way?
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): London still remains an attractive place for foreign nationals to both buy and invest and to visit but obviously there are significant practical impediments at the moment when it comes to travel, with people arriving here having to quarantine for 14 days before they can go about whatever it is, their holiday or their business that they are coming to. Obviously, we have tax changes coming down next April with additional costs in stamp duty and Page 34 land tax that overseas buyer will face. They are an important part of the housing economy, the sales and the lettings, private sectors, and it is something that we are going to continue to watch closely and they will continue to play a part.
As I mentioned earlier, the thing that we are probably spending a great deal more time over the next 12 months attending to and watching is the impact of people in Hong Kong and what is going on there, many of whom - and by “many” I mean significant numbers, enough to perhaps either underpin the central London housing market or to move the market in a way that perhaps stamp-duty changes recently have done, in my opinion - are going to come to the fore.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): That is an interesting observation, because it may be that they have a different perspective, given, I hear, that they will not be allowed back into China ever again if they took up British citizenship in the way that was offered by the Government. Do you think that model will continue and is that part of the recovery? For example, I know near me that we have West End Gate. Berkeley Homes are doing it. It is coming off stream now and it is several hundred properties. I am not sure that anyone is going to be moving in straightaway and they are probably going to be lying empty before they are picked up.
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): I think they will be and clearly that part of the housing market is particularly exposed. Some people think that is part of why people like Rob are understandably concerned about what happens to the general health of the housing market and the knock-on impact that it has. Politicians both nationally and, with the greatest respect, locally have an enthusiasm - to the irritation of some of the rest of us - for sticking their noses into the housing market, always I am sure for very good reason. What happens with Hong Kong, what happens to people who come from Hong Kong - what they buy, how long they are able to stay - all goes into, dare I say it, the Brexit mix that we are going to no doubt be talking about in more detail as we get into 2021.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): We are assuming that all those from Hong Kong will have substantial financial resources as well. I am not sure that is going to be the case because most dissident communities are not particularly well off. We will come to that.
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): I do not think we need to see these as people who are going to be coming and bothering estate agents on the back straight of the Monopoly board. These are people who, you are quite right, are trying to find homes for £200,000, £300,000, £400,000, and therefore will have a much more immediate impact, I suspect, on the markets in Zones 4 and 5 than they will necessarily in Zone 1.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you. We have covered the international ownership market, unless any others want to come in on that?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): Just to add on that, there are plenty of inquiries coming from overseas in terms of looking at properties to buy. In general, the feel seems to be that people are waiting to transact until there is greater clarity or the lockdown measures have been lifted further. There is some caution generally around the levels of coronavirus infection rates and the possibility of additional lockdown measures being introduced. People want to get through that level of uncertainty before they commit to anything long term.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Are you saying that lockdown factors and how we manage that are more important than the nature of our exit from the EU?
Page 35 Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): The exit from the EU has to some extent been factored in. That has been hanging over us for several years now, I think. Buyers are now looking at the latest uncertainty to arise, which is the coronavirus pandemic.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you very much for that point, Lawrence.
Tony Devenish AM: Chair, could I just say on a note of optimism - because there is always a bit too much pessimism, in my view, in some of these meetings - that I know of two real developers that have sold substantial units in the last few weeks in our borough, so it is not all negative. People are buying and when things stabilise with COVID-19, things will get better and hopefully quicker than some of the pessimists believe.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): When you say, “in our borough”, do you mean the City of Westminster?
Tony Devenish AM: Yes.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): We are coming towards the end of the session, you will be relieved to hear, for our expert panellists. Can I end now by asking are there any other key measures that we have not yet spoken about today that are needed to enable the housing sector to recover from this COVID-19 crisis? Can I go to Lawrence?
Lawrence Bowles (Director, Residential Research, Savills): The fundamental thing we have to remember is that just because there has been a lockdown, just because construction has been curtailed by lockdown measures, housing need in London has not gone away. Encouraging construction to resume and increasing housing delivery is absolutely fundamental to ensuring that London remains an attractive place to live, work, play, relax and so on.
Part of the solution here is that we are clearly entering a more negative part of the cycle, both economically and in terms of the housing market. In previous cycles, the affordable housing sector has been counter-cyclical. It has been able to take up a greater share of housing delivery during downturns. At the moment, with cross-subsidy, it has been a lot more pro-cyclical. Unless we see a return to higher levels of grant funding - and I am sure we will hear from Rob shortly on the amount of grant required per home in order to make affordable housing delivery more viable - unless we are able to increase the support for that, we are likely to see much greater falls in housing delivery. If we are able to increase support for affordable housing, we could mitigate that impact.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you. Henry, do you echo that, or do you have different views?
Henry Pryor (Buying Agent, Professional Negotiator and Housing Market Commentator): I do, but I would urge - beg, even - Assembly Members to prepare robustly for the impact on the PRS tenants’ ability to pay rents, either at all or at a vastly reduced rate. I apologise to Assembly Members who would like us to be more upbeat and optimistic. It is in my nature to see the glass as being half full, but I am expecting a very, very bleak winter in the PRS.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you, Henry. Christine, do you have any thoughts on what else we need to do to enable the housing sector to recover from the COVID-19 crisis?
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): Two quick ones. First, just taking the PRS point, I do think that there is real reason to believe not just that there
Page 36 will be a bad winter but that it is going to be a longish-term adjustment process, not something that bounces back.
I think we should go back to the question of new build versus renovation and other things of that sort. It used to be the case that 50% of our investment in housing was in the existing stock. The existing stock is 98% plus of what is around over the next couple of years, so let’s invest in it. It also helps smaller builders. There is a lot of improvement work going on and there could be an enormous amount more. It does not need so much capital and it can be moved towards the green agenda very effectively. Therefore, I would say in-place renovation is probably just as important as new build for the economy overall, although not for individual developers and agents.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you. We will have to do something about value-added tax (VAT) as well. I have always through VAT on refurbishment made it more expensive to refurbish rather than new build.
Christine Whitehead (Professor Emeritus in Housing Economics, London School of Economics): That is something to be said for being out of the EU, then, because we can do what we like.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Right. Rob, finally?
Rob Wall (Head of Policy, National Housing Federation): Yes, probably just to condense my earlier comments. The best thing that we can do to boost supply in the short and long term is to improve and boost certainty. There are a range of ways that Government can mitigate uncertainty and provide clarity for housing associations. In the short term that is about clarity around the terms of the new Affordable Homes Programme. It is about providing more flexibility on tenure flipping for the reasons that we discussed. Also, it is about showing ambition and using this forthcoming spending review to commit to a long-term affordable homes programme. We would like to see Government commit an additional £20 billion in grant funding for this new ten-year programme. We know that longer-term programmes are much more efficient because developers and housing associations are more inclined then to invest in innovation and skill, and productivity goes up. Certainty in the short term and an ambitious ten-year Affordable Homes Programme in the medium term.
Murad Qureshi AM (Chair): Thank you very much, Rob. I am going to draw this meeting to a close now. I thank our expert panellists for their perseverance over these last few hours. Thank you very much for your contributions and they are noted in this time, certainly. Who knows, we may have to come back to this subject in six months’ time, as I think Henry suggested. We will only then be nearer to understanding where we are with the housing market itself. Thank you very much indeed, expert panellists.
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Agenda Item 4
Subject: Summary List of Actions
Report to: Housing Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 10 November 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out actions arising from previous meetings of the Housing Committee.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings and additional correspondence sent and received as listed in the report.
Actions Arising from the meeting of 5 August 2020 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 9. Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Housing in London
The Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential In progress. Deputy Mayor, A follow up Housing and Development undertook to provide: request was Residential The percentage of the paused repossession claims made on 21 Development October in the system that relate to London tenants; 2020. The number of boroughs signed up to Capital Letters;
An updated list of ballot exemptions in estate
regenerations; and
Confirmation on whether a list of applications for ballot exemptions could also be published on the website.
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in Ongoing. Senior Policy consultation with party Group Lead Members, to Adviser agree any output from the discussion.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 39
Action arising from the meeting of 2 April 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 4. Housing First
Members requested a summary of the breakdown of Completed. See funding provided to homeless services across London. Appendix 1.
Actions arising from the meeting of 26 March 2019 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 7. Update on the Use of Transport for London (TfL) Land to Build Homes
Members requested an update in March 2020 on how Completed. See TfL are progressing towards their March 2021 housing Appendix 2.
target.
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in Ongoing. Senior Policy consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree Adviser any output from the discussion.
Actions Arising from the Meeting of 4 October 2018 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 5. Question and Answer Session with Housing Associations Members requested the proportion of Network Homes Completed. See forward programme that is affordable rent. Appendix 3.
The guests from the g15 committed to support Completed. See publishing on an annual basis a report from housing Appendix 3. associations including, what they are spending on maintenance in London and how many homes they have in London.
3. Additional Correspondence
3.1 On 5 October 2020, the Chair of the Committee and the Chair of the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee co-signed a letter to the Mayor in regards to External Wall Fire Review (EWS1) Forms and the impact on leaseholders in London, attached at Appendix 4, and the response from the Mayor, attached at Appendix 4a.
Page 40 3.2 The Chair of the Housing Committee and the Chair of the Environment Committee wrote to Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 16 September 2020 in regards to the Green Homes Grant and Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund. The letter is attached at Appendix 5.
3.3 The Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development wrote to the Chair on 4 August 2020 in response to requests for information on the Affordable Housing Programme. The letter is attached at Appendix 6.
3.4 The Committee is asked to note the additional correspondence sent and received.
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications to the GLA arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Response to the Committee from Rough Sleeping Lead, GLA, 17 August 2020 Appendix 2 – Response to the Committee from TfL, 27 July 2020 Appendix 3 – Response to the Committee from Network Homes, 25 August 2020 Appendix 4 and 4a – Letter to the Mayor, 5 October 2020 and Response from the Mayor, 26 October 2020 Appendix 5 – Letter to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 16 September 2020 Appendix 6 - Letter from the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, 4 August 2020
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: MDA 1225 – GLA Oversight Committee Letter to Mayor from FREP & Housing Committees EWS1 Forms MDA 1219 – GLA Oversight Committee Letter to BEIS Green Homes Grant and Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund
Contact Officer: Diane Richards, Committee Officer Telephone: 07925 353478 Email: [email protected]
Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 Appendix 1 Response to follow up request for information from the 2 April 2019 meeting of the Housing Committee Request for information: Members requested that the Rough Sleeping Lead, GLA, provide a summary of the breakdown of GLA funding provided to homeless services across London
Response: Breakdown of GLA funding for 2019/20 – not including any additional money that we were successful in bidding for from MHCLG
Project Contract type Approval GLA Core GLA GLA business GLA - unapplied Growth rates reserve / budget accounts closure Page 43 Page London Street Rescue Commissioned MD1532 £638,755
Night transport addition to LSR Grant MD2166 £150,000
Additional LSR (RSI funded) Commissioned
Rapid Response team Grant £563,000
CHAIN Commissioned MD1532 £214,493
CHAIN additional money Commissioned £35,000 £50,000
Clearing House Commissioned MD1532 £209,992
Routes Home Commissioned MD1532 £599,406
Expansion of Routes Home
Tenancy Sustainment Team North Commissioned MD1532 £1,206,931 Tenancy Sustainment Team South Commissioned MD1532 £1,199,692 No Second Night Out Commissioned MD2031 £3,680,000
NSNO extension 19/20 Commissioned MD2481 £64,000 £46,000
NSNO Floating hubs (winter programme) Commissioned MD2515 £400,000
NSNO staging posts (winter programme) Commissioned MD2515 £200,000
Severe weather emergency provision (core) Commissioned MD2481 £200,000
Severe weather emergency provision (winter Commissioned MD2515 £200,000 programme)
Winter Programme Grants £700,000 £1,500,000 Rough Sleeping Innovation Fund 1 (Carry over) Grant £15,947 Rough Sleeping Innovation Fund 2 (Carry over) Grant MD2089 £110,403 Page 44 Page Rough Sleeping Innovation Fund 3 Grant MD2089 £175,000 Taskforce Fund Grant MD2089 £50,000 Mental Health EASL service Grant Equipping Shelters Fund Grant £300,000 Streetlink Grant £50,000 £100,000 £150,000 Groundswell Grant DD2193 £45,000 Veterans Aid Grant MD2214 £61,983 WHHP (FERSP) Grant £21,000 London Homelessness Awards Grant £10,000
Within the winter programme grants the following organisations were funded:
Brent Islington SHP
Camden K&C Spires
Croydon LACS Ealing St Mungo's
Enfield LACS RBKC Stonewall-OSP
Greenwich LBBD Sutton
Havering Lewisham Westminster Council
Housing Justice Newham
Page 45 Page If they want more detail on any of these then the best place to look is here – which also contains the breakdown of all services including funding source: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayor_of_londons_rough_sleeping_services_december_2018.pdf
Sent by email on 17 August 2020
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Appendix 2
By email [email protected]
Transport for London Murad Qureshi Commercial Development Chair of the Housing Committee City Hall 7th Floor – 7B3 The Queen's Walk 197 Blackfriars Road London Southwark SE1 2AA London SE1 8NJ
27 July 2020 Tel No: 020 3054 3420
Dear Murad,
I wanted to write to you directly to update you on TfL’s housing programme, and the impact that the covid-19 pandemic has had on our work over the past few months.
Our housing programme had been building momentum. Not only are there 1,100 homes under construction, we had been granted planning permission for another 3,000 homes. Following months of extensive engagement with local communities, in March 2020 we submitted planning applications for 4,500 homes, and we have applications for a further 4,500 homes due to be submitted in the coming months. We have also carried out work to identify and progress additional sites, meaning our housing programme is now capable of delivering well above the original 10,000-home target.
As a result of the pandemic and subsequent lockdown, we implemented a ‘Safe Stop’ on our construction sites on 24 March. This measure was necessary to ensure the safety of construction teams and to further reduce the number of people travelling on the public transport network. Implementing the Safe Stop had an immediate impact on the construction of more than 1,000 homes at four of our sites: Fenwick (Lambeth), Blackhorse Road (Waltham Forest), Kidbrooke (Greenwich) and Bond Street (Westminster). It is also likely that the Safe Stop will have a knock-on impact on site handover dates on a number of other sites in the programme.
The lockdown, as I am sure you are aware, has also impacted the planning system with boroughs adapting to emergency legislation and new ways of working. We have been working with boroughs to supplement the statutory consultation obligations, and where necessary agreed to amend planning timetables to ensure local people have sufficient opportunity to scrutinise plans and make representations.
Page 47
Page 2 of 2
In specific examples, delays of three months were agreed for three schemes in Harrow, and an extended statutory consultation period is expected on two schemes in Ealing. Together, these impact some 1,800 homes in our programme. Elsewhere, the backlog of planning applications and new ways of working, including virtual committee meetings, means delays are being experienced on both current schemes and imminent submissions.
Together, these factors mean that our target to start work on the sites that will deliver 10,000 new homes by March 2021 can no longer be met. Nonetheless, we remain passionately committed to delivering our housing programme in full as soon as possible.
We are reviewing the programme in light of the delays and are currently unable to provide you or the Committee with a table of our sites with confirmed delivery data. A revised timetable will be published in due course, and I will of course share this with you as soon as it is available.
We continue to progress applications. In the last month we submitted an application at South Kensington station for 50 new homes (35 per cent affordable) and new commercial space. At Nine Elms, we are going back to improve on the existing planning consent and are now proposing 479 new homes with 40 per cent affordable.
The focus on delivery of numbers must of course not be at the expense of design. Good design is fundamental to our development programme. It creates sustainable places for the future as well as ensures we can maximise long-term value for money. We have adopted design principles to be at the core of our development programme, and we have actively adopted a strategy to create sustainable places, including encouraging shifts towards walking and cycling.
As outlined, we are in the process of assessing the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on our housing programme. We will share this work when it is complete. We would also be happy to share our design principles or sustainability framework at any stage.
I would, of course, be happy to discuss in more detail any of the issues outlined above.
Yours sincerely,
Graeme Craig Director of Commercial Development Email: [email protected]
Page 48 Appendix 3 Response to follow up request for information from the 4 October 2018 meeting of the Housing Committee
Request for information:
Members requested that Network Homes provide the proportion of Network Homes forward programme that is affordable rent.
The guests from the g15 also committed to support publishing, on an annual basis, a report from housing associations including what they are spending on maintenance in London and how many homes they have in London.
Network Homes’ forward programme
In terms of our GLA 2016-22 Affordable Programme we are currently forecasting the delivery of 2,123 affordable homes (circa 40% Rented & 60% Shared Ownership) comprising:
558 Affordable Rented Homes 297 London Living Rent Homes 1268 Shared Ownership Homes
These homes are being delivered across 8 London Boroughs: - Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Harrow, Hounslow, Lambeth & Tower Hamlets.
G15
At the G15 we monitor starts, completions and pipeline on a quarterly basis. In terms of pipeline there were a total of 49,237 homes across the G15 either on-site (and not yet completed) or with the land owned but not yet started on site.
Affordable Rent 2,602 5.28% London Affordable Rent 7,631 15.50%
Shared Ownership 15,163 30.80%
Social Rent 4,457 9.05% London Living Rent 1,474 2.99%
Intermediate Rent 212 0.43%
Market Rent 1,331 2.70%
Open Market Sale 16,367 33.24%
Total 49,237 100.00%
Page 49 Annual report on maintenance
Having checked with a number of colleagues in different G15 organisations I’m afraid that this action does not appear to have progressed. We do publish quarterly information on the delivery of new homes - https://g15.london/what-we-do/our-progress-building-homes – but nothing on repairs and maintenance.
I have checked with our Asset Management Sub-Group and they are able to collate this information. They will work on this with an aim of publishing as soon as possible and on an ongoing annual basis. I’ll let you know as soon as the data is live on our website.
Sent by email from Jamie Ratcliffe, Executive Director for Business Performance and Partnerships, Network Homes, on 25 August 2020
Page 50 Appendix 4
City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Telephone: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk
Andrew Dismore AM Chair of the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee
Murad Qureshi AM Chair of the Housing Committee
Sadiq Khan Mayor of London (Sent by email)
Dear Sadiq 5 October 2020
External Wall Fire Review (EWS1 form)
We are writing about the problems facing Londoners living in leasehold homes who are finding themselves unable to move or remortgage due to the unavailability of an external wall fire review form (EWS1), without which mortgage lenders won’t release financing. The responsibility for getting these reviews done sits with freeholders.
A recent (12 June) report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee1 looked at this issue and condemned the mortgage industry’s cladding form as slow and expensive. The Committee recommended that the Government intercede with mortgage lenders. Although the Housing Minister, Christopher Pincher, said that mortgage lenders were reviewing the process there has been no progress made to date.
Both Murad and I have been receiving correspondence from Londoners telling of their distress and financial loss caused by their inability to move because of the impasse over these reviews, which they cannot commission themselves. An example of a Londoner who is stuck in this dire situation is Sam from East London. Sam bought a shared ownership flat in March 2017. Sam has described his experience with the housing association as “very frustrating”, who seemingly lack any sense of urgency to ensure that the EWS1 is put in place for their building. In the latest correspondence from the housing association to another resident in March 2020, they have stated that their programme may take “ten years to deliver”. This means that Sam and other people in his building cannot move property until the EWS1 forms are issued which could take up to 10 years.
Another Londoner who recently got in touch with the London Assembly is Mark. Mark lives in North London with his wife and 2 children in a one bed flat. His block has timber cladding and needs
1 https://committees.parliament.uk/work/85/cladding-progress-on-remediation/publications/
Page 51
remedial work. Mark owns 55% of the of the property but has been told by his landlord that he must pay 100% of the costs of the remedial work. The building in which Mark lives in is under 18 metres so it does not qualify for funding under the Government’s £1bn package to deal with this issue. Mark and his wife have lost 3 potential buyers over the last year due to the EWS1 form situation and have subsequently had to abandon their search for their family home. This is having devastating effects on the whole family’s mental well-being.
Sam and Mark are just two people who live in a building affected by cladding. It has been estimated that 2,000 high-rise buildings across London 2 are yet to have remediation undertaken post-Grenfell so cannot get an EWS1 form. It has also been identified that mortgage lenders and building societies are now requiring EWS1 forms for properties below 18m height directly impacting on many others. Londoners, from families to first-time buyers, have invested in property across the capital and now find themselves in this extremely difficult situation with nowhere to turn to for support.
The Public Accounts Committee published a report on progress on remediating dangerous cladding on 16 September. The Committee noted that besides the Government’s £1bn investment, which is estimated to cover a third of the total cost to remove dangerous cladding from buildings across the UK, “the Government has no plans to support residents or social landlords to meet the costs of replacing dangerous cladding in buildings below 18 metres.” The Committee also acknowledged the financial burden and ‘nil’ valuations that leaseholders face because of EWS1 forms not being available and the shortage of qualified fire engineers to complete these.’ In what has already been an extremely difficult year for our city, we cannot sit by and watch thousands of Londoners be affected by this issue, which leaves them stranded and unable to plan for the future. They are stuck in limbo. Through no fault of their own, these Londoners are struggling financially and mentally and there’s no one helping them find solutions to this vast and complicated problem. Safety must come first and while the EWS1 forms bring safety to people buying houses across the UK, we cannot allow EWS1 forms to protect some but trap others in potentially unsafe buildings with no support. In addition to your letter to the Government on this issue which detailed five key steps to tackle the EWS1 form issue, as Mayor of London there is action you can take to help those Londoners who need urgent support. We ask that you:
1. Raise this issue urgently with the housing sector in London by setting up a housing task force with a view to agreeing a common approach for obtaining EWS1 forms; 2. Urgently look into how you can use your Adult Education Budget to help combat the shortage of specialist skills needed to tackle the unsafe cladding issue which is impacting thousands of Londoners across our city.
Please can you respond to this letter by 16th October 2020 and copy in Diane Richards ([email protected]) to your response. Yours sincerely,
Andrew Dismore AM
2 Housing, Communities and local Government Committee report Cladding: progress on remediation, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/1438/documents/13153/default/ , 12 June 2020
Page 52
Chair of the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee
Murad Qureshi AM Chair of the Housing Committee
Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 54 Appendix 4a
Andrew Dismore AM Our ref: MGLA051020-6318 Chair of the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee Murad Qureshi AM Date: 26 October 2020 Chair of the Housing Committee
Dear Andrew and Murad,
Thank you for your letter of 5 October regarding the External Wall System Fire Review (EWS1) form.
I share your concern about the EWS1 crisis – it is unacceptable that leaseholders face overcrowding, mental health problems, immense financial pressure and miss out on employment opportunities pending the assessment of their external walls and a completed EWS1 form. Thank you for sharing Sam and Mark’s stories. I agree with you that no residents should be facing these problems and I am lobbying the Government to take action to resolve this national issue, which is affecting Londoners disproportionately.
I raised the issue of zero valuation of flats as early as December 2019 when I wrote a letter, jointly with members of the Homes for Londoners Board, to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The fact that there was no reply is a sad reflection of the Government’s lack of commitment to tackling this topic. Last month, I wrote again to the Government stressing how urgent it is to tackle this issue and set out five key areas where Government action is needed.1
Please find below my responses to the asks set out in your letter.
1. Raise this issue urgently with the housing sector in London by setting up a housing task force with a view to agreeing a common approach for obtaining EWS1 forms
My team regularly meets with housing associations, leaseholder groups, the National Housing Federation, London Councils and others to understand how social landlords are approaching this situation. These discussions reveal multiple difficulties with the completion of EWS1 forms, which cannot be solved through simply agreeing a common approach, as your letter suggests. The problems are systemic and require a national intervention from the Government.
The structural difficulties the sector highlights include the shortage of professionals with the required competency and professional indemnity cover to carry out the work, in addition to the high costs of these assessments and the lack of funding where remediation is required. These problems are particularly acute for councils and housing associations. Landlords of large portfolios receive large volumes of EWS1 form requests, meaning they are forced to prioritise which blocks receive assessments first according to anticipated safety risks.
1 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/rt_hon_robert_jenrick_mp_21_09_20.pdf
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 55
Through their engagement, my team would like to share Network Homes’ approach and highlight it as a good practice2. Through an online database – which holds building safety updates, fire risk assessments and now EWS1 forms – residents can input the name of their building and access the relevant information and documents. This is an effective way of increasing transparency, as residents are able to efficiently and easily access up-to-date information on the fire safety of their buildings; and I encourage the sector to follow this approach.
2. Urgently look into how you can use your Adult Education Budget to help combat the shortage of specialist skills needed to tackle the unsafe cladding issue which is impacting thousands of Londoners across our city.
The lack of competent fire safety professionals is an urgent issue. The only way to deal with this urgently is to upskill existing professionals in the sector. This is beyond the scope of the Adult Education Budget (AEB). The AEB facilitates courses for Londoners with low levels of qualifications (generally up to level 3; equivalent to an A-Level) and is not suited to retrain or upskill adults with the higher qualifications needed to inspect external wall systems of high-rise tower blocks.
In addition, to receive funding from the AEB courses must be on the national qualification framework. As there are currently no clear standards for this type of specialist skills, this would be a lengthy process, involving awarding bodies and employers to design viable courses of learning.
A fast-tracked government funded training programme is needed to upskill existing professionals with the accreditations needed to carry out EWS1 assessments. I was pleased to hear at the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee meeting on 13 October that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) is working on a training and accreditation programme to upskill surveyors to carry out EWS1 assessments. RICS aims to launch the programme before Christmas, which is a positive step forward.
A training and accreditation programme alone will not be sufficient, however, due to severe difficulties obtaining professional indemnity cover for cladding remediation work. My Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development recently met with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and raised the matter of professional indemnity cover. I understand that discussions between the ABI and the Government aimed at resolving this situation are ongoing, but that no solution has been found to date. The Deputy Mayor also raised this issue directly with the minister, Lord Greenhalgh, at the recent London Building Safety Action Summit. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to work with the industry to find a solution as quickly as possible.
At Mayor’s Question Time on 15 October 2020, I committed to exploring whether any bespoke solutions to this crisis could be applied in London. I can confirm that this has been considered and explored by the Greater London Authority’s Building Safety team and my Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development as part of the ongoing work on this topic. As set out earlier in this letter, I have concluded that the problems are systemic and national in nature and require sustained and radical intervention from the Government.
I would like to end by thanking both of you and your committees for your work on this important issue. I will continue to lobby Government to tackle this crisis and appreciate your support on this urgent matter.
2 https://www.networkhomes.org.uk/your-home/my-building-fras-documents-and- newsletters/?Search=Electric&Category=&Updated=
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 56
Yours sincerely,
Sadiq Khan Mayor of London
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 57
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 58 Appendix 5
Environment and Housing Committees
Caroline Russell Londonwide Assembly Member Chair of the Environment Committee
Murad Qureshi Londonwide Assembly Member Chair of the Housing Committee
City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP Secretary of State Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 1 Victoria St London SW1H 0ET (By email)
16 September 2020
Dear Secretary of State,
Re. Green Homes Grant and Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund
The London Assembly Environment and Housing Committees welcome Government investment in making homes more energy efficient and were pleased to see the Green Homes Grant and Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund announced in the Chancellor’s Summer Statement. The energy efficiency of homes in London is a significant problem. Many Londoners face considerable issues with damp, condensation and cold, which in turn negatively affects their health and wellbeing.
As this is such a critical issue for Londoners, the Committees are writing to you to outline some questions and key points for consideration, as information for households about the funds continue to emerge and you and your teams further develop and roll them out. We support the Government’s ambition to reach net zero emissions, but this must be achieved sooner than 2050. In December 2018, the London Assembly passed a motion to declare a climate emergency, calling on the Mayor to do likewise and on the Government to provide him with the powers and funding needed to make London a carbon neutral city by 2030.1 The Mayor declared a climate emergency shortly afterwards, and in early 2020, set a target
1 https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/call-on-mayor-to-declare-climate-emergency
Page 59
Environment and Housing Committees for London to be net zero-carbon by 2030, alongside his manifesto commitment for London to be zero-carbon by 2050.
We recognise that decarbonising buildings is a key element of reaching net zero emissions. We are therefore providing this information to support you in the essential work to decarbonise buildings and ensuring that these targets are met.
Energy efficiency of homes in London
The inability to heat homes properly, along with fuel poverty, is a widespread issue in London. For instance, a 2016 survey by Shelter and YouGov found that 26 per cent of private renters in London have experienced poor insulation or excess cold, and 39 per cent have experienced damp or mould in their homes.2 According to data from your own department, 11.4 per cent of London households were in fuel poverty in 2018, compared to 10.3 per cent for all of England.3
In its 2019 report, Keeping out the chill: fixing London’s cold, damp and mouldy homes, the London Assembly Environment Committee estimated that damp problems affect around six per cent of all homes in London.4 Overcrowding, a particular issue in London, has been shown to increase how susceptible a home is to condensation and mould.5 The Committee’s report identified that Londoners’ health and wellbeing are being harmed by cold, damp and mouldy homes.6 The presence of damp can increase exposure to allergens, cause or aggravate respiratory conditions and sustain dust mites. Respiratory problems due to damp homes particularly affect the elderly, young people, and disabled people.7,8 Research has also found that living in cold and damp homes is associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression.9 Nationally, treating the health impacts of cold homes costs the NHS an estimated £1.36 billion each year.10 The COVID-19 pandemic has meant that many people are now working from home, and will continue to do so for some time, including through the winter months. The need to address cold and damp homes is even more pressing if we are to avoid putting additional pressure on the NHS as it continues to respond to the pandemic.
With these figures in mind, the Environment and Housing Committees would like the following points to be considered regarding the two funds.
2 https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_releases/articles/60_of_london_renters_forced_to_live_with_unacceptable_conditions,_incl uding_vermin-infested,_damp_or_dangerous_homes2 3 www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fuel-poverty-supplementary-tables-2020 4 www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf. Under-ventilation of properties was also identified as an issue in the Environment Committee’s investigation into ways to improve energy efficiency of London’s building stock: www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_assembly_environment_committee_-_climate_emergency_report_final.pdf 5 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf 6 www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf 7 https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/documents/Fuel_poverty_health_inequalities.pdf 8 www.jrf.org.uk/report/housing-and-disabled-children 9 https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/people_living_in_bad_ho using_-_numbers_and_health_impacts#:~:text=The%20key%20findings%20from%20this,tenants%20live%20in%20bad%20housing. 10 https://www.e3g. org/news/media-room/17000-people-in-theuk-died-last-winterdue-to-cold-housing
Page 60
Environment and Housing Committees
Private rented sector
Around 27 per cent of London’s homes are privately rented, with around one in five of these below the Decent Homes Standard, a higher proportion than in any other tenure.11 In Keeping out the Chill, the Environment Committee estimated that six per cent of homes in the private rented sector were damp or mouldy. This compared to an estimate of one per cent for owner-occupied properties.12 The Housing and Environment Committees are very concerned that issues with damp and mould are significantly more prevalent in the private rented sector than in owner-occupied homes.
Because energy bill savings would be rightly benefiting tenants rather than landlords, it is unclear from the information currently available about the schemes how the Government will ensure the Green Home Grants will be taken up in one of the most needed tenures – the private rented sector. While private landlords are eligible for the grants, incentives between tenants and landlords are often misaligned. The Committees would therefore welcome further information from the Government about how it will ensure widespread take up from private landlords, with particular emphasis on reaching the most vulnerable tenants: children, older or disabled people and people in overcrowded homes. In addition, the Committees urge the Government to consider increasing the cap for landlord contributions to energy efficiency measures above the current £3,500 (inclusive of VAT) to £5,000, to help unlock further funding for retrofit, as outlined in Keeping out the Chill,13 and agreed in a London Assembly motion on the matter.14
Social rented sector
The social rented sector also faces a considerable challenge in terms of cold and damp homes. The Environment Committee estimates that some eight per cent of local authority homes, and six per cent of housing association homes are damp and mouldy.15 The problem is also compounded by the issue of overcrowding – 15 percent of London’s socially rented homes are overcrowded,16 leaving them more susceptible to condensation and its effects.
The Committees therefore welcome a specific social housing decarbonisation fund, which will allow housing associations and local authorities to move faster towards zero carbon emissions.17 However, we are seeking clarification on how many social homes will benefit from the £50 million pilot, and how and through whom the fund will be administered.
As recommended in Keeping out the Chill, reaching the most vulnerable residents living in cold and damp homes should be integral to Government’s net zero strategy. This should
11 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/housing_in_london_2019.pdf 12 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf 13 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf 14 https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/assembly-calls-for-5000-cost-cap 15 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf 16 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/housing_in_london_2019.pdf 17 David Kurten AM of the Brexit Alliance Group does not agree with the viability of pursuing net zero carbon dioxide emissions in housing, or state subsidies for decarbonisation.
Page 61
Environment and Housing Committees include steps for bringing together community groups, advice agencies such as Citizens Advice, and energy companies to provide energy saving advice to fuel-poor households.
Proposed efficiency measures
The Government has confirmed that the Green Homes Grant covers measures such as insulation, heat pumps, solar thermal, double or triple glazing when replacing single, energy efficient doors, and hot water tank/appliance tank thermostats/heating controls. The Committees would welcome further detail about how the scheme will be encouraged in those areas with high proportions of flats or houses in multiple occupation, as is the case in much of London, where installation of measures such as solar or heat pumps can be a particular challenge.
The Environment Committee’s investigation into cold and damp homes found that ventilation is key to successful energy efficiency. Moisture in the air needs to have a way out of buildings, meaning that energy efficiency measures can lead to condensation if they are installed badly or without enough additional, continuous ventilation.18 This is a particular problem during the cold months, when windows are closed, and in overcrowded homes, where the ventilation is not sufficient to remove enough moisture from the air. We are therefore pleased to see that the Green Homes Grant can be used to fit ventilation measures. We would welcome confirmation that similar measures will be enabled by the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund.
Looking to the future
The Committees are pleased to see that the first steps for the pilot will begin soon, and indications that the £50 million is just the initial investment of a wider £3.8 billion Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund.19 We would highlight that the Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that £15 billion will be required each year to reduce all emissions from buildings (domestic and non-domestic) by 2050, so the Government should increase the size of the fund in order to reach its deadline.20
We further recommend that you consider findings from the Mayor’s Retrofit Accelerator for Homes programme when shaping the future Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund.21
Finally, on a broader point, the Committees are very concerned that many of the issues faced by Londoners living in cold, damp, energy inefficient homes are often compounded by overcrowding. Urgent action is needed to tackle existing problems with cold, damp and mould in overcrowded homes. Alongside this, the need for more family sized homes in London is vital, particularly in the social rented sector. The Assembly has repeatedly raised concerns with the Mayor about this. We urge Government to bear this in mind, and also
18 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill_-_final.pdf 19 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-housing-decarbonisation-fund-demonstrator/social-housing-decarbonisation- fund-demonstrator-programme-overview#timeline 20 www.ippr.org/files/2020-07/all-hands-to-the-pump-july20.pdf 21 www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-introduces-programme-to-update-london-homes
Page 62
Environment and Housing Committees consider maximising the energy efficiency of new affordable homes, as it develops the terms of the next Affordable Homes Programme.
The Committees would welcome a response by 15 October 2020. Please address your response to Haley Bowcock, Senior Policy Adviser, at [email protected].
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Russell AM Murad Qureshi AM Chair of the Environment Committee Chair of the Housing Committee
Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 64 Appendix 6
Murad Qureshi AM M [email protected] Date: 4 August 2020
Dear Murad,
Thank you for your letter of 16 July, setting out the Housing Committee’s requests for additional information, further to my letter of 22 June. My responses to your requests are set out below.
1. To update Appendix 1 Remaining Allocations, of your letter dated 22 June 2020, to include all 5 types of tenure rather than the 3 originally provided.
Please see appendix one below, showing updated information by tenure where the detailed breakdown is available.
2. To provide further information in regards to why, in Appendix 1 Remaining Allocations, of your letter dated 22 June 2020, some providers have been allocated £0, yet they still have homes in the pipeline according to the following columns (e.g. A2 Dominion 10002).
Entries like this typically reflect one of three different situations: • First, instances in which providers funded through the Mayor’s programme take on affordable units secured from developers under Section 106 agreements; • Second, specific developments for which the providers have received no grant but are developing as part of the overall programme agreement with the GLA; • Third, these providers are strategic partners who received payments prior to April 2019 to deliver homes that will start on site after that date as part of their overall strategic allocation with the GLA. (Further details of this provision are available in the Affordable Homes Programme funding guidance and addendum available at https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/homes-londoners- affordable-homes-programme-2016-21.)
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Page 65 3. Also in regard to Appendix 1 Remaining Allocations, of your letter dated 22 June 2020, to provide further information on the meaning of ‘remaining allocations’, and, given that the Appendix outlines roughly half of the total current Affordable Homes Programme (£2,602,842,574), the status of the rest of the £4.82 bn fund.
In the table appended to my letter of 22 June, the term “remaining allocations” refers to the parts of funding allocations that the GLA was or is due to pay providers after April 2019. Typically, the GLA pays half of funding allocated when homes are started and the remaining half when homes are completed.
In relation to the £4.82 billion funding settlement, payments will have been made prior to April 2019. The table provided shows how much of this funding is still to be paid to providers.
4. Currently, data is published on the GLA website on the number of bedrooms of starts made in the last quarter, however data from the previous quarter is removed as each new release is published. We would greatly appreciate if the full historic data set could be made public on the website, and for Housing Committee Members to be notified when a new release is published. c This data covers homes that providers report they have started in the previous quarter, as requested by the Housing Committee. As noted in the quarterly reports, the information is partial: it is not mandatory for providers to report the bedroom size of homes at the point when they start development, so the data only covers homes for which providers have done so. In addition, because the reports are based on “in-year” data, the figures are provisional, based on a snapshot of information providers have supplied at that point in time. Given this, each set of quarterly figures is replaced when new figures are published, pending reconciliation at the end of the year.
In line with the Mayor’s commitment to achieve full compliance with the Office for National Statistics’ Code of Practice on Use of Statistics, the GLA may revise published statistics to ensure accuracy. Revisions will be kept to a minimum and included only where the changes reflect a material adjustment to previous reporting. They may occur where scheme details are updated after start on site or completion is reported, or where, occasionally, a provider has submitted incorrect information in relation to a project and adjustments may need to be made. Any revisions will be captured in the GLA’s published statistics on an annual basis. (They will be applied from 2015/16 to reflect the Mayor's target delivery period.) This process means that annual statistics provide an accurate record of starts and completions. However, any annual data on starts by bedroom size would only offer a partial picture, subject to change. The Mayor’s response to Assembly Member Boff’s recent question 2020/2443 provided this snapshot data.
My team already provides the Assembly’s Budget Monitoring Committee with new data on starts by bedroom size when it is published on the GLA website. It could provide the Housing Committee with current and historic data.
5. To provide an update on the data on ballots and exemptions on the GLA website and for the Committee to be alerted when this is published.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Page 66
My team is currently reviewing the process for updating and publishing the data on funding, ballots and exemptions for estate regeneration schemes published on the GLA website, with a view to updating the information more regularly in future. The next updates will be published as soon as possible. I will provide more information on our intended approach to updating and publishing the data once it has been agreed and will ensure that the Committee is informed when the data is updated in future.
6. To provide details of the grant level envisaged per unit for the tenure conversion programme as part of the £5 bn affordable homes investment that the Mayor has requested from Government.
Of the funding that the Mayor has requested the Government invest in a one-off recovery package, £1.33 billion would be used for tenure conversions. The assumed additional grant for the conversions, applied in the modelling, was as follows: • £66,250 per unit for shared ownership to London Living Rent; • £100,000 per unit for shared ownership to London Affordable Rent; and • £40,000 per unit for private homes to shared ownership.
These conversion rates represent a mid-point between the fixed grant rates advertised at the start of the 2016-22 Affordable Homes Programme and the average subsidy gaps identified through the research we did with the G15 last year.
The modelling assumes that the ultimate tenure balance of the remaining programme is in line with the evidence of need set out in the 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment, namely, 70 per cent low cost rent, 20 per cent intermediate rent, and 10 per cent shared ownership.
I should emphasise that this modelling was indicative, with the specific purpose of evidencing the total size of the fund necessary to respond to the potential deterioration in delivery that is a very likely consequence of the economic impact of the pandemic. Any policy decisions about the actual additional grant available for different tenure conversions would only be made once the terms of a Government recovery package were known.
7. To provide details on the current accommodation status of rough sleepers who have been accommodated in hotels in London during the pandemic. Specifically, how many rough sleepers in total have been assisted by the GLA and local authorities into hotel accommodation since the programme was announced in March; how many are still living in hotels; how many have been helped into move on accommodation; how many have returned to living on the street; and how many have fallen out of contact with the service providers. If there are people who do not fall into one of the outlined categories, please also include information on their current accommodation status.
A total of 1,634 rough sleepers have been accommodated in hotels procured by the GLA since March. London Councils would be best placed to provide data on the additional number of rough sleepers provided with hotel accommodation booked by London local authorities.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Page 67
The GLA and boroughs have agreed to implement the Mayor’s ‘In for Good’ principle for those in the hotels, providing an offer of support to try to ensure they do not return to the streets. We are now working with the Government, London local authorities and charities to find move-on solutions. As we do so, we are gradually closing hotels. This work presents a huge challenge, especially for non-UK nationals who may not have access to benefits in the UK. Given this, the Mayor and I are urging the Government to allocate the funding it has committed for continuing work with these rough sleepers on a longer-term basis than is currently the case, and also to make policy changes that will open up options for non-UK nationals.
Of these 1,634 people accommodated in hotels booked by the GLA, as of 27 July 2020: • 970 remain in hotel accommodation. • 378 have been helped to move into other accommodation, including move-on, supported and private rented accommodation. • 286 have left the hotel accommodation for other reasons, most frequently abandoning the accommodation.
Where individuals are sleeping rough, outreach teams will work with them to provide a route off the streets. We do not have information on the number of those accommodated in hotels who have lost contact with service providers. There are no individuals who were accommodated in hotels and are not in one of the categories you identified – i.e., those in hotels, those who have been helped to move on, and those who have left hotel accommodation.
8. To provide further information in regards to the amount of money allocated to the GLA from the additional government funding announced on 24 May 2020 for homes for rough sleepers and how the money will be allocated; and, when the data is available, to provide information on the allocations i.e. amount, to whom, for how many units, capital/revenue split.
As part of its Next Steps Accommodation Programme, the Government has made available £160 million nationally to support the delivery of move-on accommodation for rough sleepers by the end of 2020/21. £66.7 million has been allocated to the Mayor, of which £57.8 million is capital funding and £8.9 million revenue funding. This will support the delivery of 900 units of accommodation in London.
The prospectus for the programme and guidance on bidding are available at https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/increasing-housing- supply/funding-supported-and-specialist-housing. The deadline for bids for this first year’s funding is 20 August. We hope to announce allocations in September.
I also wanted to update you on the commitment I made in my letter of 22 June, to provide a response to your query about the levels of funding so far awarded to different providers through the current Affordable Homes Programme. My team are working on gathering this information and hope to have some information to share with you by the end of August.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Page 68 I hope that this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Copley Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Page 69 Appendix 1: remaining allocations from 1 April 2019 onwards.
Note: Tenure breakdown of remaining homes from 1 April 2019 shown where this information is available and may be subject to change over the course of the programme. Changes to homes by tenure require GLA approval.
£2,602,842,574 66,429 1,091 34,047 1,273 29,842 176
Provider Org Remaining Total Of which Of which Of which Of which Of which Code GLA Funding Remaining Other Social Rent/ Other London Living Affordable No. Affordable London Intermediate Rent/ Shared Tenure homes Rent Affordable Ownership TBC Rent L&Q 10122 £80,848,750 7,635 0 3,162 0 4,473 0 MetTVHA (Met) 10151 £13,814,000 294 0 233 0 61 0 MetTVHA (TVHA) 10229 £30,000 9 0 0 0 9 0
Page 70 Page Newlon 10159 £2,324,000 83 0 81 0 2 0 One 10169 £4,008,000 269 0 115 0 154 0 Southern 10210 £18,598,000 464 0 146 0 318 0 Swan 10221 £3,890,000 80 0 48 0 32 0 A2 Dominion 10002 £51,239,500 1,670 0 942 0 728 0 Catalyst 10037 £4,083,000 1,383 0 575 0 808 0 Connected Partnership 10166 £11,050,000 257 0 59 0 198 0 Home Group 10085 £5,474,000 197 0 80 0 117 0 Network 10156 £28,762,011 1,284 0 507 0 777 0 Notting Hill Genesis 10419 £70,338,162 5,947 0 2,121 0 3,826 0 Clarion 10010 £180,963,906 4,384 0 1,321 0 3,063 0 Hyde 10094 £86,203,922 2,657 0 1,834 0 823 0 Optivo 10412 £67,696,391 1,722 0 841 0 881 0 Peabody 10179 £156,315,384 3,782 0 1,141 0 2,641 0
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Provider Org Remaining Total Of which Of which Of which Of which Of which Code GLA Funding Remaining Other Social Rent/ Other London Living Affordable No. Affordable London Intermediate Rent/ Shared Tenure homes Rent Affordable Ownership TBC Rent L&Q 10122 £114,000,000 2,000 0 1,200 0 800 0 LB Redbridge 10140 £6,678,000 126 0 75 0 51 0 MetTVHA (Met) 10151 £9,944,108 952 0 591 0 361 0 Newlon 10159 £21,592,000 478 0 175 0 284 19 One 10169 £25,336,000 975 0 515 0 460 0 Southern 10210 £24,082,000 562 0 193 0 369 0 Swan 10221 £8,983,333 1,375 0 573 0 802 0 A2 Dominion 10002 £0 241 0 156 0 85 0 Catalyst 10037 £19,510,000 345 0 200 0 145 0 Connected Partnership 10166 £25,998,000 525 0 189 0 336 0 Page 71 Page Guinness 10233 £0 1,519 0 641 0 878 0 Home Group 10085 £15,790,000 675 0 279 0 396 0 Notting Hill Genesis 10419 £1,120,000 11 0 11 0 0 0 Clarion 10010 £29,200,000 600 0 200 0 400 0 Hyde 10094 £34,440,000 600 0 420 0 180 0 Optivo 10412 £57,200,000 1,000 0 600 0 400 0 Peabody 10179 £39,864,000 660 0 462 0 198 0 LB Newham 10114 £84,470,000 961 0 791 0 170 0 LB Redbridge 10140 £20,000,000 474 0 474 0 0 0 Agudas Israel Housing Association Limited 10012 £882,000 15 0 0 0 15 0 Anchor Hanover Group 10614 £300,000 14 0 2 0 12 0 BL Canada Water Holdings Ltd 10592 £21,600,000 480 0 336 0 144 0 Brick by Brick (Croydon Council) 10275 £23,082,000 539 0 0 0 539 0 City of London 10255 £29,190,000 391 0 381 0 10 0
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Provider Org Remaining Total Of which Of which Of which Of which Of which Code GLA Funding Remaining Other Social Rent/ Other London Living Affordable No. Affordable London Intermediate Rent/ Shared Tenure homes Rent Affordable Ownership TBC Rent City of Westminster Council 10460 £15,810,000 433 0 388 0 45 0 Croydon Council 10528 £45,290,000 467 0 467 0 0 0 Eastend homes 10395 £4,634,000 99 22 19 0 58 0 Estuary Housing Association Limited 10063 £1,890,000 53 0 18 0 35 0 Evolve Housing + Support 10283 £3,780,000 61 0 61 0 0 0 Golding Homes 10399 £0 30 23 0 0 7 0 Greystar 10595 £0 219 0 0 219 0 0 Hexagon Housing Association Limited 10084 £5,080,623 200 0 53 0 147 0 Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Ltd 10099 £5,030,421 109 10 52 0 47 0 Jewish Community Housing Association Limited 10102 £710,000 10 10 0 0 0 0 Page 72 Page Keniston Housing Association 10276 £70,000 2 0 2 0 0 0 L&G Affordable Homes 10572 £5,076,000 262 0 9 0 253 0 Lambeth & Southwark Housing Association Limited 10109 £3,000,000 30 0 30 0 0 0 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 10123 £37,782,000 957 316 289 0 352 0 London Borough of Barnet 10436 £8,700,000 87 0 87 0 0 0 London Borough of Brent 10124 £85,180,000 975 124 581 0 117 153 London Borough of Camden 10400 £23,350,000 208 0 208 0 0 0 London Borough of Ealing 10126 £96,115,000 1,102 0 901 0 201 0 London Borough of Enfield 10127 £36,220,500 791 67 653 0 71 0 London Borough of Hackney 10129 £42,754,000 750 0 411 0 339 0 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 10524 £15,308,000 251 123 115 0 13 0 London Borough of Haringey 10081 £61,758,000 851 0 650 0 201 0 London Borough of Harrow - Housing 10131 £32,144,000 639 105 475 0 59 0 London Borough of Havering 10133 £51,842,000 867 0 603 0 264 0
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Provider Org Remaining Total Of which Of which Of which Of which Of which Code GLA Funding Remaining Other Social Rent/ Other London Living Affordable No. Affordable London Intermediate Rent/ Shared Tenure homes Rent Affordable Ownership TBC Rent London Borough of Hillingdon 10134 £11,412,000 297 0 90 0 207 0 London Borough of Hounslow 10135 £75,446,000 835 0 686 21 128 0 London Borough of Islington 10136 £22,500,000 327 0 327 0 0 0 London Borough of Lambeth 10137 £9,996,000 281 0 233 0 48 0 London Borough of Lewisham 10430 £36,600,000 373 0 373 0 0 0 London Borough of Southwark 10165 £95,350,000 1,019 0 984 0 35 0 London Borough of Sutton 10429 £6,500,000 81 16 65 0 0 0 London Borough of Tower Hamlets 10142 £9,750,000 390 161 229 0 0 0 London Borough of Waltham Forest 10143 £25,357,000 279 0 226 0 53 0 London Borough of Wandsworth 10144 £12,074,000 139 0 70 4 65 0 Page 73 Page Moat Homes Limited 10153 £6,007,000 79 0 64 0 15 0 Orbit Group Limited 10170 £23,772,000 346 0 138 0 208 0 Paradigm Housing Group Limited 10176 £2,672,000 53 0 0 0 53 0 Paragon Community Housing Group Limited 10177 £30,491,748 458 95 182 0 177 4 Paragon Community Housing Limited 10428 £0 17 3 0 0 14 0 Phoenix Community Housing Association 10182 £12,444,000 184 0 152 0 32 0 (Bellingham and Downham) Limited Pocket Living Ltd 10593 £0 902 0 0 902 0 0 Poplar HARCA Limited 10187 £13,357,823 259 6 189 0 64 0 ReSI Housing Limited 10474 £5,968,000 132 0 0 0 132 0 Richmond Housing Partnership Limited 10194 £24,898,800 540 10 218 49 263 0 Riverside Housing Association Limited 10196 £27,930,000 399 0 399 0 0 0 Royal Borough of Greenwich 10128 £32,600,000 588 0 588 0 0 0 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 10197 £33,680,000 338 0 338 0 0 0
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Provider Org Remaining Total Of which Of which Of which Of which Of which Code GLA Funding Remaining Other Social Rent/ Other London Living Affordable No. Affordable London Intermediate Rent/ Shared Tenure homes Rent Affordable Ownership TBC Rent Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 10273 £67,844,000 713 0 665 0 48 0 Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS) 10411 £661,960 33 0 5 14 14 0 Soho Housing Association Limited 10205 £2,837,958 9 0 9 0 0 0 St Mungo Community Housing Association 10217 £0 64 0 0 64 0 0 Sutton Housing Society Limited 10189 £70,000 1 0 1 0 0 0 TBG Open Door Homes Limited 10507 £2,632,000 49 0 30 0 19 0 Wandle Housing Association Limited 10246 £832,000 117 0 5 0 112 0 YMCA Thames Gateway 10268 £2,810,000 39 0 39 0 0 0 A2Dominion Homes 10002 £242,577 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catalyst Housing Limited 10037 £32,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 74 Page Circle Anglia Limited 10043 £1,326,158 0 0 0 0 0 0 City YMCA, London 10047 £2,190,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clarion Housing Group 10010 £1,036,089 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Mosaic Housing 10065 £48,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 George Peabody Donation Fund 10396 £3,117,198 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hyde Housing Association Limited 10094 £80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leicester Housing Association Limited 10118 £481,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 London & Quadrant Housing (L&Q) 10122 £59,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited 10151 £64,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Network Homes Limited 10156 £2,254,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newlon Housing Trust 10159 £762,292 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notting Hill Genesis 10419 £2,397,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 Octavia Housing 10166 £716,191 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Provider Org Remaining Total Of which Of which Of which Of which Of which Code GLA Funding Remaining Other Social Rent/ Other London Living Affordable No. Affordable London Intermediate Rent/ Shared Tenure homes Rent Affordable Ownership TBC Rent One Housing Group Limited 10169 £32,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optivo 10412 £1,580,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peabody Trust 10179 £16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Places for People Group Limited 10183 £1,694,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sanctuary Housing Association 10202 £945,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern Housing Group Limited 10210 £11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swan Housing Association Limited 10221 £2,609,161 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thames Valley Housing Association Limited 10229 £16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Guinness Partnership Limited 10233 £2,922,499 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page 75 Page Walterton & Elgin Community Homes (WECH) 10401 £1,290,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 76 Agenda Item 5
Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority
Report to: Housing Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 10 November 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out recent actions taken by the Chair of the Housing Committee under delegated authority.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the action taken by the Chair under delegated authority, following consultation with party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the Committee’s response to the Mayor’s consultation on intermediate housing.
3. Background
3.1 Under Standing Orders and the Assembly’s Scheme of Delegation, certain decisions by Members can be taken under delegated authority. This report details those actions.
3.2 At its Annual Meeting on 1 May 2013, the Assembly agreed to delegate a general authority to Chairs of all ordinary committees and sub-committees to respond on the relevant committee or sub-committee’s behalf, following consultation with the lead Members of the party Groups on the committee or sub-committee, where it is consulted on issues by organisations and there is insufficient time to consider the consultation at a committee meeting.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 Following consultation with the lead Members of the party Groups on the Committee, the Chair agreed a response to the intermediate housing consultation, as attached at Appendix 1.
4.2 The Committee is asked to note the action taken by the Chair under delegated authority.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 77
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no direct financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing, 9 October 2020
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Member Delegated Authority Form 1230 (Intermediate Housing Consultation Response)
Contact Officer: Diane Richards, Committee Officer Telephone: 07925 353478 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 78 Appendix 1
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Introduction Intermediate housing is a key issue for the London Assembly Housing Committee (the Committee). Over the past few years the Committee has thoroughly investigated the affordability, delivery, and resident experience of affordable housing products, which will form the basis of this response. The Committee’s past inquiries have raised concerns around the shared ownership model in particular, including issues around staircasing, leasehold extensions and service charges, as well as the affordability of intermediate rented homes. While there is room for improvement, the Committee believes that Intermediate Housing has a role to play in the delivery of a diverse housing stock that is needed to meet the diverse housing needs of Londoners. Affordable housing, including intermediate tenures, could be key to the capital’s recovery from COVID-19, both in terms of meeting housing need and strengthening the economy through counter-cyclical affordable housebuilding. The Committee therefore welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Mayor’s consultation, in order to ensure that intermediate housing is improved and delivers for Londoners now and in the future. Chapter 3: Affordability and delivery Q2a. Should the GLA require housing providers to report on service charge levels at regular intervals?
In 2019, the London Assembly Housing Committee held an investigation into affordable home ownership in London. The aim of the investigation was to take stock of the affordable housing market in London and to assess whether these types of homes were working for Londoners. As part of our inquiry, the Committee ran a survey and held an open forum to hear about the experiences of Londoners living in these homes. Through our investigation, we found that service charges and maintenance fees were a primary cause of concern for shared owners, who expressed dissatisfaction with the costs and quality of the service they received. Our investigation also found that when shared owners experienced issues with excessive service charges, they felt the ownership model created confusion and they struggled to identify the routes of redress. A theme that emerged from this was the marketing of shared ownership homes as ‘ownership’ which shared owners felt was underpinned by a complex legal structure that, in reality, was akin to a combination of assured tenancy, long lease and contract. To address this concern and improve the experience of those living in shared ownership homes, the Committee recommends that the realities of the ownership model should be made clear prior to purchase, and the Mayor should publicly issue clear guidance material that outlines avenues of redress that shared owners can take if they are not satisfied with the services they receive. Housing associations should, in turn, direct shared owners to this information as part of
Page 79
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing the information package at the time of purchase. These recommendations are detailed in a letter the Committee sent to the Mayor in March 2020.1 In our letter, the Committee recognised that the Mayor had limited powers to improve the affordability of existing shared ownership homes but welcomed his efforts to manage service charges through the establishment of the Shared Ownership Charter for Service Charges. Under the charter, housing providers are expected to set service charges at a realistic level and to review them on a regular basis. The Committee’s investigation however, found that as the charter remained voluntary, it was not adhered to in practice. In his response to the Committee’s letter, dated August 2020,2 the Mayor recognised that more could be done in this area. To this end, the Committee believes that a service charge monitoring programme should be implemented to improve the effectiveness of the charter. This would help housing associations acquire data on historic fees and provide prospective shared ownership buyers with enough information to help them understand and plan for future costs. Alongside this, and as outlined in the Committee’s letter to the Mayor in March 2020, the Mayor should require housing associations to provide potential shared owners with a key features document which should include, at the minimum, a five-year estimate of service charges and maintenance fees as well as information on historic charges. This document should be provided to prospective shared owners well in advance of purchase. While the Mayor has responded that he has asked officers to look at expanding his Guide to Leasehold to shared ownership properties on his Homes for Londoners portal, the Committee believes that the Mayor must go further to ensure that Londoners can access clear, transparent information about their potential purchase. The Mayor should therefore require housing associations to provide a key features document by making this a condition of funding. Q2b. If so, should the GLA make this information available to the public? During the Committee’s recent investigation into affordable housing, we found that shared owners were frustrated with the lack of transparency around service charges, with many often left without an explanation for the costs they had incurred. The Committee therefore believes that the Mayor should make information on service charge levels publicly available. This would ensure that this information is clear and accessible, improving the transparency of the process.
1 London Assembly Housing Committee, Letter to the Mayor of London on affordable home ownership in London, 25 March 2020, https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly- publications/affordable-home-ownership-london 2 Mayoral response, 27 Aug 2020 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly- publications/affordable-home-ownership-london
Page 80
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Q3. Should the GLA require affordable housing providers to publish a schedule of additional fees which may be charged to shared owners for specific services or transactions? As previously noted, our investigation indicated that shared owners were concerned with the lack of transparency with service charges, but also with the additional costs they incurred throughout their tenure, including maintenance costs, the administrative costs of staircasing and escalating fees. For this reason, the Committee recommends that the Mayor should require housing associations to report publicly on service charges and maintenance costs for each block of shared ownership homes under its management and to require housing associations to publish a key features document (as outlined above). This document should include a clear description of the ownership model; the length of the lease (including the fact that it may need to be extended should it approach 80 years and the associated fees); rent increase terms; the ground rent; maintenance fees; staircasing fees; permission fees; and any key restrictions on the lease such as owning pets or subletting. This would allow prospective shared owners to plan ahead when making a purchase. Q4. What more could be done to improve the experience of those living in shared ownership? In addition to complaints about service charges, another key theme that emerged from our investigation was around the length of leases and the cost of extension. The Committee heard from shared owners who expressed concerns that shared ownership leases, which are generally around 99 or 125 years, were not long enough and therefore required an extension during their period of ownership. Many were not aware of the fees required to extend the lease or even the requirement to do so until they approached their bank for a re-mortgage, at which point the lease had dropped to below 80 years and they were liable to pay a substantial marriage value payment to the freeholder. Throughout the course of the Committee’s investigation, it became apparent that shared owners require greater information and support to manage the lease extension process than they currently receive, with housing associations often relying on solicitors to provide this information. During our meeting in January 2020, we spoke to Peter Apps, News Editor at Inside Housing and a shared owner, who stated that the expectation to extend their lease was not explained to shared owners from the outset: “it seems to come completely out of the blue,” he told us, “and there seems to be a kind of residual expectation in the sector, not just among housing associations but among landlords of leaseholders full stop, that people just have that money lying around to extend a lease. People do not. It will make people bankrupt and they will lose their homes.” To improve the experience of shared owners, the Committee has several recommendations on the issue of leases. First, the Mayor should require housing associations to actively manage the lease extension process, including providing shared owners with support
Page 81
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing to ensure they are planning for lease extension at regular intervals and providing clear information on the implications of not extending the lease. Second, the Mayor should require housing associations to report on an annual basis how many of their shared owners have 85 years or less remaining on their lease. If the lease extension process is managed appropriately, then little to no shared owners should be in this position. Finally, we encourage the Mayor to work with housing associations to explore the possibility of providing longer leases for shared owners. In his response to the Committee, the Mayor indicated that while housing providers should monitor the number of homes which have 85 years or less remaining on the lease, they should not be required to report this information to the GLA, as the GLA does not have any remit to take action. The Committee asserts however that requiring housing providers to report on leases would increase accountability and transparency and urges the Mayor to re-examine this recommendation. Q5 and 6a. What role should intermediate housing and intermediate rented homes play in meeting housing need and supporting the housing market as part of the recovery from the impacts of Covid19?
In August 2020, the Committee held a meeting on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on housing in London with the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development as well as a range of industry experts. During the meeting, we heard from Rob Wall, Head of Policy at the National Housing Federation, who told us that anecdotal evidence suggested that shared ownership sales remained strong but that the impact of the virus and the recession was yet to be felt. The Deputy Mayor stated that the economic downturn, expected when the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme comes to an end in October 2020, will have a significant impact on the delivery of affordable homes.
In September 2020, the Committee heard more on this topic, as guests warned that economic uncertainty will be amplified over the coming months and years as the UK transitions out of the European Union and future waves of COVID-19 take effect. The impending crisis is already bringing significant challenges to the sector, as supply chains are affected, materials rise in cost, and development is slowed by social distancing measures. On top of this, early evidence suggests that demand for housing in London may fall as a result, with one in seven Londoners looking to move out of the capital as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This may particularly affect products such as shared ownership, where the target market may start to seek housing outside of London, where they could afford to buy on the open market. For those who stay in London, as the impact of COVID-19 on employment and income is expected to worsen in the coming months, the Committee is concerned that shared ownership may not continue to be a viable housing product for some middle-income Londoners, as their incomes fall.
Despite these challenges, the Committee believes Intermediate Housing – both rented and shared ownership - will have a key role to play in meeting housing need as part of the recovery from COVID-19. At our informal meeting in September 2020, we heard that intermediate
3 London Assembly, 2020. https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/escaping-the-city-post-covid
Page 82
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing homes will be key to post-COVID-19 recovery, particularly in providing a safety net for Londoners, and in encouraging many to stay in the capital. One guest outlined that while incomes may fall, there will likely still be demand for intermediate products as higher earners may now become middle earners.
This potential shift in affordability of target groups outlines how essential it is that intermediate products are delivered as part of a diverse portfolio of tenures, including social rented homes and innovative affordable products designed to meet specific local need. For example, in January 2020, we heard evidence from the London Borough of Camden, where the development of shared ownership is now discouraged due to these homes no longer being able to be delivered at a price that is affordable for those who earn between £30,000 to £40,000 a year. The Committee heard how Camden Council had planned to deliver 300 units of shared ownership through its Community Investment Programme, but these homes will now be Camden Living Rent. As the effects of the crisis bed in, understanding the changing housing needs of Londoners will be essential to striking the right balance of tenure mix and flexibility. For this reason, the Housing Committee supports the Planning and Regeneration Committee’s recent recommendation that the Mayor should carry out a specific London Housing Survey, rather than relying on a small sample of the English Housing Survey, so that City Hall can have a more robust understanding of London’s households and their needs. This should operate on a longitudinal basis, so as to capture changing needs as the COVID-19 crisis develops.
In terms of economic recovery, the Committee heard from its September 2020 panel that building affordable housing is often the only way to sustain housebuilding in a crisis. In the years following the 2008 financial crash, the housebuilding industry came to a stop, with house building rates reaching new lows. Counter-cyclical investment helped to stimulate construction and maintain supply. For example, during this time, many developers benefited from funding initiatives such as ‘Get Britain Building’ to kickstart ‘shovel-ready’ sites. Housing associations were given additional grants to convert shared ownership homes that had not been sold to rent. This type of counter-cyclical investment into the affordable housing sector could help to kickstart the economy following the COVID-19 pandemic and help to bring forward the pipeline of affordable homes.4 We note that the Mayor’s Housing Delivery Taskforce has called on the Government to provide funding for a £1.33 billion tenure conversions programme and urge the Mayor to continue to lobby for greater devolution in this area, particularly as the economic impact of COVID-19 becomes clearer. At the informal meeting in September 2020, we heard that if Londoners do seek to leave London and demand does substantially fall, there may be knock-on effects on the cost and delivery of intermediate homes as the value of land may also fall.
4 Affordable Housing Commission, 2020 https://www.affordablehousingcommission.org/news/2020/7/16/making-housing-affordable-after-covid-19-a- follow-up-report-from-the-affordable-housing-commission
Page 83
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has also brought into stark focus the issue of overcrowding in London, with research from Inside Housing highlighting the link between COVID-19 deaths and overcrowding.5 On 3 September 2020, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the Mayor to review all planning and housing policies to tackle overcrowding.6 The Committee believes that policy on intermediate housing should be reviewed as part of this, and that the Mayor should ensure that intermediate products are delivered with a range of bedroom numbers to improve London’s desperate need for family sized housing. Q6b. What more could the Mayor do to support delivery of London Living Rent homes? In our meeting in January 2020, the Committee was told that the GLA need to re-examine the grants system, which provides flexibility, but does not incentivise Living Rent products. The Committee reiterates the recommendation it made earlier in the year to urge the Mayor to work with affordable housing providers to increase the delivery of London Living Rent where appropriate and consider additional incentives for London Living Rent such as higher rates of grant. Although the Committee notes that London Living Rent is a relatively new tenure and it may therefore be too early to draw substantive conclusions regarding the impact of the product and certainly its role in supporting London’s housing recovery post-COVID-19, the Committee nonetheless urges the Mayor to advocate for greater devolution of the affordable homes programme in order to allow greater flexibility on the allocation of different housing options. This will help to meet changing housing needs and support the housing market as part of the recovery from the impact of COVID-19. Q9c. What mechanisms already exist to support social tenants who want to access shared ownership homes to do so, and how effective are they? At the Committee’s informal meeting in September 2020, we heard that some mechanisms exist to support social tenants who want access to shared ownership homes, with different local authorities operating different programmes. Some councils, for example, allow renters to convert their rented home to shared ownership under the Social HomeBuy scheme. The scheme allows tenants to buy a share of their home at a discounted price, with rent paid on the remaining share. Those who qualify can buy a share of
5 Inside Housing, The housing pandemic: four graphs showing the link between COVID-19 deaths and the housing crisis, 29 May 2020, https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-housing-pandemic-four-graphs- showing-the-link-between-covid-19-deaths-and-the-housing-crisis-66562 6 London Assembly, Motion on Housing Overcrowding, 3 September 2020, https://www.london.gov.uk/motions/housing-overcrowding
Page 84
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing either 25%, 50% or 75% based on how much the property is valued on the market.7 However, the Committee heard in its informal session that the take-up of this initiative is low. Considering the similarity of this scheme to the upcoming Right to Shared Ownership (RTSO), the Committee recommends that the Mayor assesses the outcomes of this scheme to anticipate the likely effects of RTSO. The Committee also recommends that the Mayor explore options for social tenants to access shared ownership in ways that maintain the stock of social housing. This could be for example, exploring how schemes such as Second Step (see question 15b) could be offered to social tenants as well as current shared owners. At the Committee’s informal meeting, we also heard about Tenant Incentive Schemes, where tenants are offered a cash incentive (sometimes repayable) to move home. These operate in a variety of ways, some of which include supporting access to home ownership. For example, in 2013 Lewisham Council outlined their Cash Incentive Scheme which offers up to £44,0008 as a grant if the council tenant is looking to buy a home on the open market.9 Harlow Council runs an Incentive Scheme which offers financial support to existing council tenants wanting to move to a smaller council home.10 The Committee recommends that the Mayor explore offering such incentives to social tenants to support them to access intermediate housing as well as open market and social housing. Q10a. Are there other examples of innovative models of affordable home ownership in London? Q10b. What could the GLA do to support delivery of these homes? Alongside the scheme mentioned in Q9c, other innovative models the Committee has identified include the home ownership model developed by the London Community Land Trust (CLT). Community land trusts are set up and run by local people to develop and manage homes. The London CLT delivers affordable homes through partnerships with developers as well as developing homes on directly purchased public land that has either been released at below market rates or nil value. The homes are targeted towards local people and are priced according to local incomes. This is calculated as the median income in the local area and is based on data published by the Office for National Statistics. The model allows for homes to be sold according to local earnings in perpetuity as part of a contract that homebuyers must sign. The homes are allocated on a range of criteria, including housing need and local connections – buyers must have a minimum of five years’ connection to the borough and must also be able to prove that
7 Southwark Council, Social Homebuy Scheme, updated, https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/council- tenants-services/social-homebuy-scheme?&article 8 Based on buying a 5 bed property. 9 Lewisham Council, Cash Incentive Scheme https://lewisham.gov.uk/-/media/files/imported/cash-20incentive- 20scheme-20information-20sheet.ashx 10 Harlow Council, Tenant Moves Incentive Scheme https://www.harlow.gov.uk/housing-and-garages/council- tenants/tenant-move-incentives-scheme
Page 85
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing they have been priced out of the open market.11 Local residents often play a key role in the design process through planning workshops.12 The London CLT’s pilot scheme at St. Clements, Mile End, was built in partnership with Linden Homes, Peabody and the GLA (the landowner).13 During its evidence session, the Committee heard that the difficulty in implementing such innovative models is in acquiring land. However, as the GLA has a record of delivering homes in this space, including the Mayor’s £38m London Community Housing Fund, the Committee believes that the Mayor could further support the delivery of these homes by providing additional funds and better access to GLA owned land, to ensure that innovative models of home ownership can be developed by CLTs.
11 London CLT, Community Land Trust Financing, Understanding the diversity of models in Europe, September 2019, https://f3ca62c7-764c-461c-bce8- 5c58e9221e33.filesusr.com/ugd/9b1760_2a006b6743614ac5b4fd9908e60c5e52.pdf 12 World Habitat, New life for old hospital shows affordable housing is possible in UK capital, 25 May 2016, https://world-habitat.org/news/press-releases/new-life-for-old-hospital-shows-affordable-housing-is-possible- in-uk-capital/ 13 London CLT, Briefing, undated, https://f3ca62c7-764c-461c-bce8- 5c58e9221e33.filesusr.com/ugd/9b1760_bc69adeebb8a40f18ee22763e73c0ff2.pdf
Page 86
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Summary of recommendations Chapter 3: Affordability and delivery 1. A service charge monitoring programme should be implemented to improve the effectiveness of the Shared Ownership Charter for Service Charges. 2. The Mayor should require housing associations to provide potential shared owners with a key features document. The Mayor should require housing associations to provide this by making it a condition of funding. 3. The Mayor should make information on service charge levels publicly available. 4. The Mayor should require housing associations to report on service charges and maintenance costs for each block of shared ownership homes under its management. 5. The Mayor should require housing associations to actively manage the lease extension process, including providing shared owners with support to ensure they are planning for lease extension at regular intervals and providing clear information on the implications of not extending the lease. 6. The Mayor should require housing associations to report on an annual basis how many of their shared owners have 85 years or less remaining on their lease. 7. The Mayor should carry out a specific London Housing Survey. 8. The Committee urge the Mayor to continue to lobby for greater devolution in the Affordable Homes Programme. 9. The London Assembly has passed a motion calling on the Mayor to review all planning and housing policies to tackle overcrowding. The Committee believes that policy on intermediate housing should be reviewed as part of this. 10. The Mayor should work with affordable housing providers to increase the delivery of London Living Rent where appropriate and consider additional incentives for London Living Rent such as higher rates of grant. 11. The Mayor should assess the outcomes of the Social HomeBuy scheme to anticipate the likely effects of the Right To Shared Ownership scheme. 12. The Mayor should explore options for social tenants to access shared ownership in ways that maintain the stock of social housing. 13. The Mayor should explore offering incentives to social tenants to support them to access intermediate housing as well as open market and social housing. 14. The Mayor could further support the delivery of CLT led intermediate home ownership, by providing additional funds and better access to GLA owned land.
Page 87
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Chapter 4: Eligibility, prioritisation and allocation Q12a. What evidence is there of households staircasing to a 100 per cent share of shared ownership homes within a year of purchase? During our investigation into affordable housing in January 2020, we heard from Dr Alison Wallace, an academic at the University of York who has conducted research into shared ownership. Dr Wallace told the Committee that reliable data on staircasing is lacking but that all the evidence to date suggests that it is quite a low rate. This may be an affordability issue, but the Committee also heard from shared owners who made an active choice not to staircase because full home ownership was either not an aspiration for them or they were concerned about the impact on future resales. Q12c. Should this be disincentivised and, if so, what measures should the GLA take to achieve this? Given that our investigation found a significant proportion of shared owners did not staircase at all, it is likely that the proportion of homeowners who do staircase to 100 percent within a year of purchase is negligible. Any intervention may create disproportionate administrative burdens for the GLA. Q15a. What are the challenges facing shared owners who wish to move to a more appropriate home? The Committee’s evidence session in September 2020 raised a number of challenges that shared owners face in moving to a more appropriate home. Among these, is that those who have a greater stake in the property may find it harder to sell their shared ownership home, as it is more expensive for buyers to purchase a greater share. Additionally, housing providers often have the exclusive right to market the property for the duration of a nomination period (generally around 8-12 weeks depending on the contract). When this nomination period ends, if the housing provider fails to find a buyer, the property can be sold on the open market. However, the new buyer will need to fulfil eligibility for shared ownership, which limits the pool of potential buyers. Further, it has come to the Committee’s attention that many Londoners living in leasehold properties are unable to move or re-mortgage their homes due to the unavailability of an external wall fire review form (EWS1). These forms are often requested by lenders to ensure the fire safety of buildings and are required to be completed before mortgage funds are released. While this problem reaches beyond the intermediate housing sector, as shared ownership homes are leasehold, we have heard from residents of these properties who have found themselves incurring significant financial losses and essentially becoming trapped in their properties. The Housing Committee, joint with the Fire Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee, has written to the Mayor asking him to raise this issue with the housing
Page 88
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing sector in London and to continue lobbying the Government to improve the EWS1 process. Other challenges shared owners face in moving include leasehold extensions and marriage payments. These are covered in detail in the Committee’s response to Q3 above. Q15b. What more could be done to support shared owners who need to move to another shared ownership home? At the informal meeting in September 2020, the Committee heard from guests about Second Steps, a scheme run by Southern Home Ownership, which allows existing shared owners to sell their property and purchase a new home on the open market, under the terms of the Shared Ownership initiative. The scheme is available to residents from Southern Housing Group and other housing associations and only freehold properties are eligible with the maximum purchase price of the new property being capped at £600,000. Southern Housing purchases the new property and the shared owner purchases a share between 25-75% from the Group, paying rent at a discounted rate on the share the resident does not own.14 The Committee recommends that the Mayor examine the outcomes of the Second Steps scheme to assess its suitability for extension.
Summary of recommendations Chapter 4: Eligibility, prioritisation and allocation 15. The Mayor should work with the housing sector in London to improve the EWS1 process and continue lobbying the Government on this issue. 16. The Mayor should examine the outcomes of the Second Steps scheme to assess its suitability for extension.
Chapter 5. Supporting London’s key workers Q16a. Should the GLA define a ‘core’ list of key worker occupations for use in intermediate housing allocation policies, and should local authorities be able to identify additional key worker groups, where there is evidence of local need? The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the way in which London relies on an entire eco- system of workers, from hospital staff to retail workers, delivery drivers and cleaners. This has brought new focus on the housing needs of such essential workers and the Committee believes
14 Southern Housing Group, Introducing Second Steps, undated, https://www.sharetobuy.com/news/southern- home-ownership-introducing-second-steps/
Page 89
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing it is right to explore options for supporting key workers to access homes appropriate to their needs and incomes. However, as the Committee found in its recent informal session in September 2020, while such a list could potentially provide clarity and help in defining a target demographic to deliver homes to, it would inevitably lead to the exclusion of some groups and need to be constantly updated in order to meet the changing understanding of what roles are constituted as ‘key’. Some roles that are now considered essential during the COVID-19 pandemic may slip through the net for inclusion on a key workers list. For example, a list that included TfL staff, could risk excluding agency workers who work on the transport network. Similarly, taxi and PHV drivers have formed a key part of the COVID-19 response but may be excluded as they are self- employed. One way to mitigate such a risk would be to review the list periodically and add more occupations. However, this would mean that eventually, the list would become all encompassing, and thus redundant for allocation purposes. This would repeat the challenges seen in earlier definitions and iterations of key worker housing policy, as outlined in the background information provided in the consultation. The Committee recommends that focus for intermediate housing allocation policies should be on income, targeting support to intermediate earners, rather than on arbitrary definitions of key workers. This by extension would include a substantive majority of essential workers, many of whom are on this level of income, and provide clarity that very low-income earners who are key workers should be allocated social rented housing, rather than key worker intermediate housing. The GLA should thus avoid imposing a ‘core’ list. Q19. Should the GLA explore options to support housing providers to convert shared key worker accommodation into self-contained intermediate homes, where there is demand for this? Guests at the Committee’s informal meeting in September 2020 felt strongly that any available funds would be better utilised to increase supply of affordable housing rather than reconfiguring existing accommodation. It was suggested that housing providers should assess if conversion was suitable for their stock and local needs, and where appropriate, work on developing financial models for conversion themselves.
Summary of recommendations Chapter 5: Supporting London’s key workers 17. The Committee recommends that focus for intermediate housing allocation policies should be on income - the GLA should thus avoid imposing a ‘core’ list of key workers.
Page 90
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Chapter 6: Improving data on intermediate housing Q21a. What data is currently collected by housing providers on staircasing transactions? The Committee believes improved information is vital in understanding staircasing trends (such as fast staircasing to 100%, raised above in Q12a) and assessing whether shared ownership is an effective vehicle for full home ownership. In our evidence gathering session in September 2020, the Committee found the mechanism through which housing data is collected, the COntinuous REcording of social housing lettings and sales data (CORE) could go much further in collecting meaningful data on staircasing transactions. Guests told us that housing associations themselves collect a variety of data such as the number of customers staircasing every year and the amount staircased, as well as data on arrears, performance and satisfaction. While guests outlined that it is likely that all housing associations that deliver shared ownership collect this data (bearing in mind that differences across stock size will affect data collection), it is not currently standardised across the sector and vital insights are missed. The Committee recommends that housing associations should be required to collect and report staircasing data alongside additional data on arrears, the satisfaction of shared owners and the performance of this tenure type. The Committee would like to reiterate its call for the Mayor to require housing associations to report annually on staircasing sales (including those to less than 100% ownership), which should be broken down by year of original sale and should be made public. We welcome that this question has been put forward for public consultation. Furthermore, the Committee would like to reiterate its recommendation that the Mayor should require housing associations to survey shared owners on a three-yearly basis to identify barriers and motivations for shared owners who are not staircasing. This would help improve programme design. While the Mayor is of the view that staircasing data should be a priority over this information, the Committee wishes to restate the importance of such data in providing valuable insights into the performance of the shared ownership model. Q21b. Should more data be captured on the tenure that shared owners move into if they leave their shared ownership property?
Page 91
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee
09 October 2020
Response to the Mayor of London’s Consultation on Intermediate Housing
Alongside data on staircasing, the Committee believes understanding the tenure types that shared owners move into once they leave the scheme is crucial in determining whether shared ownership is a viable route to full home ownership. As outlined in our letter in March 2020, the Mayor should require housing associations to report annually on the tenure type(s) that shared owners who sell their property are moving into. We welcome that this question has been put forward for public consultation.
Summary of recommendations Chapter 6: Improving data on intermediate housing 18. The Committee recommends that housing associations should be required to collect and report staircasing data alongside additional data on arrears, the satisfaction of shared owners and the performance of this tenure type. 19. The Committee reiterates its call for the Mayor to require housing associations to report annually on staircasing sales (including those to less than 100% ownership), which should be broken down by year of original sale and should be made public. 20. The Mayor should require housing associations to survey shared owners on a three- yearly basis to identify barriers and motivations for shared owners who are not staircasing. 21. The Mayor should require housing associations to report annually on the tenure type(s) that shared owners who sell their property are moving into.
Conclusion COVID-19 has exposed massive inequalities in the housing market and the economic impact of the pandemic looks set to last for years to come. Intermediate housing has the potential to play a key role in supporting the economic recovery and meeting housing need in London. However significant challenges remain with products such as shared ownership, including cost barriers to entry, issues with service charges and staircasing, and a lack of clarity and transparency around the shared ownership model. In order to address these challenges, it is crucial that the GLA work alongside local authorities, housing providers and residents to implement a range of reforms to improve intermediate housing products. However, the Housing Committee believe that creating a core list of key workers for use in the allocation of intermediate housing should not be included in a suite of reforms, and instead allocation should be focused on income. The Committee welcomed the opportunity to respond to this consultation and will continue to work with the Mayor to develop an intermediate housing sector that delivers for Londoners’ diverse housing needs.
Page 92 Agenda Item 6
Subject: Responses to Investigations of the Housing Committee
Report to: Housing Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 10 November 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 The Housing Committee is asked to note the responses received to its outputs and recommendations from recent investigations.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the response from the Mayor of London to its letter and recommendations regarding affordable home ownership in London, as attached at Appendix 1.
2.2 That the Committee notes the response from the Mayor of London to its letter and recommendations on leasehold in London, as attached at Appendix 2.
3. Background
3.1 On 21 January 2020, the Housing Committee held an investigation into affordable home ownership in London, with a focus on whether the Mayor’s shared ownership homes are an affordable and otherwise viable route to full home ownership and to determine if shared owners are receiving an appropriate level of support and guidance.
3.2 Following that meeting, the Committee wrote to the Mayor of London on 25 March 2020. The letter made a number of recommendations, as follows: The Mayor should require housing associations to report on service charges and maintenance costs for each block of shared ownership homes under its management, and the Mayor should make this information publicly available. Housing associations should provide historic information on service charges to prospective buyers in advance of purchase.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk
Page 93
The Mayor should require that housing associations actively manage the lease extension process, including providing shared owners with support to ensure they are planning for lease extension at regular intervals, for example 95, 90 and 85 years remaining on the lease. They should also provide clear information on the implications of not extending the lease. The Mayor should require housing associations to report on an annual basis how many of their shared owners have 85 years or less remaining on their lease. These owners would be very near to reaching the point where their home becomes a less valuable asset, and appropriate management of the lease extension process should see no, or limited numbers, of owners in this position. The Mayor should work with housing associations to explore the possibility of providing longer leases for shared owners. The Mayor should require housing associations to report annually on the tenure types that shared owners who sell their property are moving into and staircasing sales (including those to less than 100% ownership). Data should be broken down by year of original sale. The Mayor should require housing associations to survey shared owners on a three-yearly basis to identify barriers and motivations for shared owners who are not staircasing. The Mayor should make this information publicly available. The Mayor should, as a condition of funding, require housing associations to provide prospective shared owners with a key features document which should, at a minimum, outline: a clear description of the ownership model; the length of the lease (including the fact that it may need to be extended should it approach 80 years and the associated fees); rent increase terms; the ground rent; historic information on and a 5 year estimate of service charges and maintenance fees; staircasing fees; permission fees; and any key restrictions on the lease such as owning pets or subletting. These key features should be made clear as part of any shared ownership properties listed on the Mayor’s Homes for Londoners portal. The Mayor should publish guidance material outlining routes for redress for shared owners who are not receiving adequate service in return for their service charges and contribution to major works. Housing associations should direct shared owners to this information as part of the information package at the time of purchase. The Mayor should advocate to Government for devolution of the affordable homes programme, to ensure greater flexibility on the allocation of different housing options. The Mayor should work with affordable housing providers to increase the delivery of London Living Rent where appropriate, and consider additional incentives for London Living Rent such as higher rates of grant. This should of course be coupled with rigorous outcomes evaluation of London Living Rent, and consideration of tenant satisfaction.
3.3 The Housing Committee used its meeting on 11 February 2020 for an investigation into Leasehold and Service Charges, focussing on what the Mayor could do to assist London’s leaseholders.
3.4 Following that meeting, a letter was produced and sent to the Mayor of London on 12 March 2020 containing the following recommendations: The Mayor should continue to lobby national Government to take concrete action, over and above voluntary deals with developers, to ensure that existing leaseholders benefit from remedies as a result of any reform in the leasehold sector.
Page 94
Once the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of commonhold are published, the Mayor should advocate that the Government implement any recommendations which will enable the use of commonhold for mixed-use developments and shared ownership homes. The Mayor should report to the Assembly on the progress of his lobbying in relation to leasehold by December 2020. The Mayor should work with London’s housebuilding industry and local borough councils to: o Encourage developers and councils to provide potential buyers with a copy of the lease early in the purchase process and before the potential buyer has made any commitment to the purchase. A key features document should also outline those elements of the lease which are most likely to cause later dissatisfaction among leaseholders: the length of the lease (including the fact that it would have to be extended should it approach 80 years), the ground rent, permission fees, and any key restrictions on the lease such as owning pets or subletting; and o Explore the possibility of developers building with residential management companies in place. The Mayor should ensure that any private sale, or affordable home ownership home, that is listed on the Homes for Londoners portal includes a key features document and/or explains the key features of the lease mentioned above. The Mayor should report to the Assembly on his progress by December 2020. The Mayor should, as a matter of priority, work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to ensure data is available on the number and distribution of leasehold across London. If MHCLG is unable to provide this information, the Mayor should ensure that the GLA begins producing and publishing this data by December 2020.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Mayor of London wrote to the Chair responding to the recommendations in the letter regarding affordable home ownership in London on 27 August 2020. The letter is attached at Appendix 1.
4.2 The Mayor of London wrote to the Chair responding to the letter regarding Leasehold in London on 28 August 2020. The letter is attached at Appendix 2.
4.3 The Committee is asked to note the responses received.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Page 95
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Letter to the Chair from the Mayor, dated 27 August 2020 Appendix 2 – Letter to the Chair from the Mayor, dated 28 August 2020
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Diane Richards, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7064 2956 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 96 Appendix 1
Unmesh Desai AM Our ref: MGLA260320 -6801 C/o [email protected]
Date: 27 August 2020
Dear Unmesh,
London Assembly Housing Committee review of affordable home ownership in London
Thank you for your letter of 25 March outlining the findings of the Housing Committee’s investigation into affordable home ownership in London. I am sorry for the delay in responding.
My priority is to deliver an increase in homes at social rent levels. However, even with a significant increase in supply, there are many Londoners who would be unlikely to qualify for homes at social rent levels but who still struggle with housing costs. Shared ownership homes can provide an affordable alternative to market housing for these households, and I want to ensure that I am doing everything I can to require that these homes are working effectively for Londoners.
This is why, on 4 August, I launched a wide-ranging public consultation on intermediate housing (including shared ownership) in London, covering issues relating to affordability, delivery, eligibility and allocations, key workers, and data. Details of the consultation can be found on the City Hall website at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/buying-home/ intermediate-homes-london and officers would be happy to meet with you and your committee members to discuss further.
In the meantime, I have outlined my response to your recommendations below, noting where these will be picked up as part of the public consultation.
Leasehold (service charges and lease extensions)
The Housing Committee found that service charges can lack transparency. I am aware of the dissatisfaction this causes and have already taken steps to tackle it through the development of the Shared Ownership Service Charges Charter (https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing- and-land/shared-ownership-charter-service-charges). The Charter sets out best principles around affordability, transparency and intelligent design and I am pleased that 27 major housing providers in London are signed up to it. However, I recognise that more can be done in this area. This is why I am consulting on whether to require housing providers to publicly report on service charge levels at regular intervals, to improve transparency and consistency.
The Committee also highlights the importance of ensuring that prospective shared owners are informed about the lease extension process and implications. I agree that it is important for buyers to be fully informed about the nature of the lease they are signing up to, and that housing providers have a key role to play in providing clear and transparent information prior to purchase. I have also taken action to support buyers to navigate the complexities of leasehold by publishing a
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦Page [email protected] 97 ov.uk ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Guide to Leasehold (https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/homes- londoners/leasehold-guide) on the City Hall website. This free resource, launched in 2019, sets out clear information on the issues that prospective purchasers of leasehold properties (including shared ownership properties) should consider before buying a property. This includes information on lease extensions and the risks associated with not extending the lease.
While I agree that housing providers should be monitoring the number of homes which have 85 years or less remaining on their lease, I do not believe that requiring housing providers to report this information to the Greater London Authority (GLA) is appropriate as the GLA does not have powers to take action in this area or to directly support those affected. However, I am encouraged that housing providers told the Committee that they would be interested in exploring what more can be done to offer longer leases (therefore potentially avoiding this issue arising in the first place). I have asked my officers to follow up with g15 representatives to discuss this further.
Understanding the motivations of shared owners
The Committee highlights the lack of information on the number of shared owners who staircase. Housing Research Note 5: Intermediate Housing: the evidence base (https://www.london.gov.uk/ what-we-do/housing-and-land/housing-and-land-publications/housing-research-note- intermediate-housing-evidence-base-0) which was published alongside the consultation, sets out GLA analysis of households staircasing to 100 per cent. However, I agree that this information alone is not enough to fully understand the journey shared owners take following purchase of the property.
The consultation seeks to establish what data is already collected on staircasing and asks for views on how this can be improved. The consultation also asks about whether additional data should be collected on the types of tenure shared owners move into if they sell their shared ownership home; and what the barriers to collecting this data are. This will enable the GLA to gain a more detailed understanding of what data is currently captured and identify how we can better understand the motivations of shared owners and use this to inform policy making in future.
I note the Committee’s recommendation on requiring housing associations to survey shared owners every three years to identify barriers and motivations for shared owners who are not staircasing. While I agree that such information would be useful, I believe that the priority in the first instance should be on understanding, and systematically collecting data on rates of staircasing, before exploring options for more detailed qualitative work to explore the reasons behind these decisions. In addition, before adopting any requirement for landlords to undertake such a survey, it would be necessary to establish whether residents would be happy to be surveyed on a regular basis about this issue, given that staircasing may not be a priority for all households.
Transparency
I agree with the Committee that it is important to ensure that prospective shared owners (and leaseholders more widely) are provided with clear, timely and transparent information. This will ensure that individual owners are not disadvantaged later down the line and help increase confidence in the product itself. Transparency is one of the key principles in my Shared Ownership Service Charges Charter, which states that ‘customers should be provided with explanatory information to assist them in understanding their charges’. In addition, my Guide to Leasehold provides information on what information prospective purchasers should look out for when purchasing a new home, as well as information on redress where owners feel that they have not received adequate service in relation to service charges or major works.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] 98 ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
Listings for Help to Buy and First Dibs Homes on my Homes for Londoners Portal include links to my Guide to Leasehold, and I have asked officers to look at expanding this to shared ownership properties. However, while both the GLA and housing providers have an important role in ensuring that clear information is provided to prospective purchasers, it is important that this information is not treated as a substitute for purchasers seeking independent legal advice before buying a property.
Affordability
Analysis published in Housing Research Note 5: Intermediate Housing: the evidence base shows that shared ownership remains significantly more affordable for Londoners than purchasing on the open market and that it helps not only those households who aspire to buy, but also households who are struggling to afford private rents. However, while shared ownership can be an appropriate option for many households, I recognise the concerns highlighted by the Committee about the affordability in more expensive parts of London. In the consultation, I am seeking views on whether a formal cap on the value of shared ownership properties should be implemented to ensure that these homes are only delivered where they are affordable to a wide range of households. In addition, the consultation seeks views on what more could be done to support the delivery of London Living Rent homes.
I agree with the Committee that greater devolution of powers on the Affordable Homes Programme would give me the flexibility to more effectively meet London’s housing needs, and I continue to lobby the Government on this. The Housing Delivery Taskforce – chaired by my Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, Tom Copley, and set up to look at how the housing sector could most effectively recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19 – called on the Government to provide funding for a £1.33 billion tenure conversions programme. This would enable the GLA to offer housing providers the ability to convert shared ownership and market sale homes to low-cost rent or intermediate rented homes where there is a risk that they would otherwise remain unsold. This would provide certainty for developers and help to meet housing need. More broadly, I continue to lobby the Government to increase the overall amount of funding available for affordable housing, following a report last year from the GLA and g15 which showed that a settlement of £4.9 billion pa (seven times the current Affordable Homes Programme settlement) is required to meet London’s housing needs.
Yours sincerely,
Sadiq Khan Mayor of London
Cc: Murad Qureshi AM, Chair, London Assembly Housing Committee
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦Page [email protected] 99 ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 100 Appendix 2
Our ref: MGLA120320 -4925 Unmesh Desai AM C/o [email protected] Date: 28 August 2020
Dear Unmesh,
London Assembly Housing Committee review of leasehold
Thank you for your letter outlining the findings of the Housing Committee’s investigation into leasehold in London. I am pleased you have highlighted these issues and note that you have raised other issues in relation to leasehold in another letter that I have responded to separately. Please see below for my responses to the issues and recommendations outlined in your letter.
National Government reform programme
I am very much aware of the issues faced by leaseholders across London and I recognise these in my London Housing Strategy, which sets out measures to improve leaseholders’ experiences that can be implemented while working towards my overarching aim of wholesale reform of leasehold. As the committee points out in its letter, legislative reform is the primary means by which this issue can be solved. While I am pleased the Government has announced its intention to ban the sale of leasehold houses and cap ground rents at £0, it has been over two and a half years since these proposals were first announced and swift action is needed to bring about change. I continue to urge the Government to bring forward this legislation as soon as possible so that these benefits can be felt by Londoners.
In addition to reforms to the sale of new leasehold homes, I have long called on the Government to bring forward proposals to help existing leaseholders stuck in onerous contracts and to reform the leasehold system to improve processes such as lease extension and enfranchisement. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has responded to several Law Commission consultations in recent years and I am pleased that the Commission has now reported its proposals for reform, especially proposals to make collective enfranchisement easier and cheaper for leaseholders. If Government is serious about reforming leasehold, it must consider the Law Commission’s proposals and bring forward legislation to protect both new and existing leaseholders without delay. I can assure you I will continue to press the Government on this issue.
In the longer term, I support a shift towards commonhold as a new ownership model, which would allow freehold ownership of individual flats within a building. This could amount to an ownership revolution in London, owing to the proportion of flatted development in the capital versus the rest of the country. However, at present commonhold is not yet fit for purpose and there have been very few commonhold developments across the country. As you highlight, particular barriers are restrictions on mixed-use developments and the ban on residential leases that currently restrict the use of shared ownership in a commonhold. I am encouraged by the Law Commission’s proposals to mainstream commonhold through legislative reform and will ask my team to examine these in detail to understand how they could apply in London. In my response to the Law Commission’s consultation on commonhold, I noted that I would be willing to work with Government and others
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 101 in any way that is practical to remove any further barriers to the wider use of commonhold. This may, for example, include investigating how the GLA could use its range of powers and resources to support increased take-up of the tenure in London. I will continue to make the case for swift reform, but the power now rests with the Government to bring forward the necessary legislative changes that would allow this type of development to take place in London.
Engagement with the housebuilding industry
As the committee will know, last year I released my Leasehold Guide for Londoners, which features answers to a comprehensive list of frequently asked questions about leasehold, as well as other sources of advice and support. Since its launch last year, it has been accessed by almost 15,000 people. In addition, I already require that housing providers building shared ownership homes funded through my Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) provide a key information document with every lease. Furthermore, properties on my Homes for Londoners property portal include a field to show whether they are leasehold or freehold, and include a link to further information about leasehold and freehold so that prospective purchasers are aware of what they are buying.
As I noted in my response to your letter on affordable home ownership, I have produced a Shared Ownership Service Charges Charter, which sets out principles that housing providers should follow to ensure transparency and affordability of service charges and use intelligent property design to reduce the need for future payments. I am consulting on whether to require housing providers to report on service charge levels at regular intervals and to make this information available to the public to improve transparency and consistency. In addition, my previous Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, James Murray, wrote to councils to ensure that they were prepared for upcoming lease extensions that were likely as a result of the leases of many Right to Buy properties coming close to 80 years.
Understanding London’s leasehold sector
On the issue of data, my officers have been in contact with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to request regional level data which has subsequently been published (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/898194/Leasehold_Estimate_2018-19.pdf).
Yours sincerely,
Sadiq Khan Mayor of London
Cc: Murad Qureshi AM, Chair of the Housing Committee Sarah-Jane Gay
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 102 Agenda Item 7
Subject: COVID-19, Rough Sleeping and Homelessness in London Report to: Housing Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 10 November 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out the background information for a discussion with invited guests on COVID-19, rough sleeping and homelessness in London.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the report as background to putting questions to the invited guests and the subsequent discussion; and
2.2 That the Committee delegates authority to the Chair, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussion.
3. Background
3.1 Tackling rough sleeping and homelessness are key priorities in the Mayor’s Housing Strategy1, and the Mayor’s rough sleeping programmes had a budget of £19.2million in 2019/20.
3.2 While London already had a significant number of rough sleepers before the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, the pandemic has brought the issue sharply into focus. People who sleep rough are more vulnerable to COVID-19, are significantly more likely to have underlying health conditions and are unable to self-isolate without suitable accommodation.
3.3 On 26 March 2020, Government announced the Everyone In programme – funding to find accommodation for all rough sleepers by the following weekend. To do this, hotels were used to house people and by May 2020, 1,600 rough sleepers were housed in London in hotels funded by the Mayor, with a further 2,400 people in hotels funded by London boroughs. The Mayor says he has committed to supporting those people housed in hotels to move on to long-term, secure accommodation.
1 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2018_lhs_london_housing_strategy.pdf
Page 103
3.4 There is great concern that people housed in hotels may return to the street during a time that is notoriously dangerous for rough sleepers – winter. Under normal circumstances, London’s winter night shelters would begin to open in November. However, these facilities often offer communal sleeping space in buildings such as church halls and community hubs. The sector is now concerned about how the dual threat of COVID-19 and the risks that winter poses to rough sleepers will be managed, with Crisis stating that “people should not be facing a choice between the cold streets or an unsafe night shelter.”2
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Committee may wish to consider: The measures adopted by the Government and the Mayor of London in response to the crisis; The key challenges of implementing the Everyone In programme, and what can be learned from the initiative; Whether there are sufficient provisions in place to support people currently housed in hotels into long-term move on accommodation; and What must be delivered this winter in London, to protect rough sleepers both from the dangers of winter and the dangers of the pandemic.
4.2 The following guests have been invited to attend the meeting and participate in the discussion: David Eastwood, Rough Sleeping Lead, GLA; Steve Douglas, CEO, St Mungo’s; Tony McKenzie, Member Involvement Coordinator, Crisis; and A representative from Groundswell.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no direct financial implications to the GLA arising from this report.
2 Inside Housing Page 104
List of appendices to this report: None Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Sarah-Jane Gay, Senior Policy Advisor Telephone: 07783 805 827 Email: [email protected]
Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 106 Agenda Item 8
Subject: Housing Committee Work Programme
Report to: Housing Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 10 November 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out proposals for the Housing Committee work programme.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes its work programme as agreed under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 20 July 2020.
2.2 That the Committee notes the additional activity undertaken since the last meeting, namely the informal meeting, the annual Affordable Housing Monitor and homelessness data analysis.
3. Background
3.1 The Committee’s work programme is intended to enable the Committee to effectively fulfil its role in holding the Mayor to account; to examine and report on matters relating to housing in London and to lead on scrutiny of the Mayor’s Housing Strategy.
3.2 The Committee’s work involves a range of activities, including formal meetings with the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development and other stakeholders, site visits, written consultations and round table meetings.
3.3 The Housing Monitor Report is published annually to monitor the Mayor’s performance against his housing commitments.
3.4 The Committee receives a report monitoring the progress of its work programme at each meeting.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 107
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Committee’s work programme was formally approved under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 20 July 2020 and has been designed to proactively examine issues of interest arising from the COVID-19 crisis.
4.2 The topic for the November 2020 meeting is set out in the table below.
Meeting date Main agenda items
10 November 2020 COVID-19 and Rough Sleeping in London
4.3 The Committee released new statistical analysis on rough sleeping in London on 18 September 2020 following the publication of statistics from the Combined Homelessness and Information network (CHAIN), attached as Appendix 1.
4.4 The Mayor of London opened the Intermediate Housing Consultation on 4 August 2020. The deadline for responses was 11 October 2020. The Committee held an informal meeting on 21 September 2020 to discuss its response to the consultation and considered views from guests. See Agenda Item 5 for the Committee’s response to the consultation.
4.5 The Affordable Housing Monitor, Appendix 2, was released in September 2020 following agreement by party Group Lead Members. The Housing Monitor Report is predominantly based on the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) published affordable housing statistics, showing performance from April 2019 to March 2020.
4.6 The future work programme and formal meeting timetable will be confirmed in due course.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no direct financial implications to the GLA arising from this report.
Page 108
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Housing Committee data analysis on homelessness statistics (CHAIN) Appendix 2 – Affordable Housing Monitor
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Member Delegated Authority Form 1194 London Assembly Autumn Work Programme
Contact Officer: Sarah-Jane Gay, Senior Policy Advisor Telephone: 07783 805 527 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 110 Appendix 1
Notes: • The data has been obtained from CHAIN, based on their quarterly reports. • Where raw counts are small (<10), caution is advised regarding the use of the percentage change figures.
Table 1: Number of rough sleepers, 2018-20
Apr-Jun 2018 Apr-Jun 2019 Apr-Jun 2020 Number of rough sleepers 2595 3172 4227 Percentage change on the previous year - ▲63% ▲33%
Table 2: Number of rough sleepers by age, 2019-20 %change %change on on Apr-Jun Jan-Mar Apr-Jun previous previous Age group 2019 2020 2020 year quarter Under 18 years 2 1 2 ▬0% ▲100% 18-25 years 246 303 447 ▲82% ▲48% 26-35 years 857 1076 1270 ▲48% ▲18% 36-45 years 1048 1129 1297 ▲24% ▲15% 46-55 years 683 814 851 ▲25% ▲5% Over 55 years 336 369 360 ▲7% ▼-2% Total 3172 3692 4227 ▲33% ▲14%
Table 3: Number of rough sleepers by borough, 2019-20 %change %change on on Apr-Jun Jan-Mar Apr-Jun previous previous Borough 2019 2020 2020 year quarter Barking and Dagenham 6 35 62 ▲933% ▲77% Barnet 54 51 101 ▲87% ▲98% Bexley 13 17 37 ▲185% ▲118% Brent 89 108 137 ▲54% ▲27% Bromley 15 13 16 ▲7% ▲23% Camden 183 242 239 ▲31% ▼-1% City of London 174 172 140 ▼-20% ▼-19% Croydon 85 103 91 ▲7% ▼-12%
Page 111 Ealing 155 155 267 ▲72% ▲72% Enfield 31 85 110 ▲255% ▲29% Greenwich 29 49 84 ▲190% ▲71% Hackney 74 94 100 ▲35% ▲6% Hammersmith and Fulham 53 99 103 ▲94% ▲4% Haringey 82 95 164 ▲100% ▲73% Harrow 8 18 21 ▲163% ▲17% Havering 13 27 24 ▲85% ▼-11% Hillingdon 57 90 96 ▲68% ▲7% Hounslow 24 58 86 ▲258% ▲48% Islington 70 136 172 ▲146% ▲26% Kensington and Chelsea 89 99 128 ▲44% ▲29% Kingston-upon-Thames 43 33 30 ▼-30% ▼-9% Lambeth 137 102 215 ▲57% ▲111% Lewisham 61 60 120 ▲97% ▲100% Merton 18 25 44 ▲144% ▲76% Newham 166 272 174 ▲5% ▼-36% Redbridge 95 123 132 ▲39% ▲7% Richmond-upon-Thames 35 51 39 ▲11% ▼-24% Southwark 142 197 221 ▲56% ▲12% Sutton 14 5 4 ▼-71% ▼-20% Tower Hamlets 137 137 155 ▲13% ▲13% Waltham Forest 39 52 117 ▲200% ▲125% Wandsworth 47 68 166 ▲253% ▲144% Westminster 888 834 710 ▼-20% ▼-15% Total 3172 3692 4227 ▲33% ▲14%
Page 112 Table 4: Number of rough sleepers by nationality, 2019-20 %change %change on on Apr-Jun Jan-Mar Apr-Jun previous previous Nationality 2019 2020 2020 year quarter UK 1378 1772 2048 ▲49% ▲16% Ireland (Republic of) 40 47 47 ▲18% ▬0% France 18 16 31 ▲72% ▲94% Germany 13 15 9 ▼-31% ▼-40% Italy 41 43 48 ▲17% ▲12% Portugal 50 57 61 ▲22% ▲7% Spain 31 20 22 ▼-29% ▲10% Bulgaria 52 54 44 ▼-15% ▼-19% Czech Republic 27 18 16 ▼-41% ▼-11% Estonia 10 4 6 ▼-40% ▲50% Hungary 25 22 18 ▼-28% ▼-18% Latvia 26 30 35 ▲35% ▲17% Lithuania 64 77 68 ▲6% ▼-12% Poland 281 286 284 ▲1% ▼-1% Romania 405 367 343 ▼-15% ▼-7% Slovakia 14 12 14 ▬0% ▲17% Slovenia 0 3 0 ▬0% ▼-100% Other Europe 90 109 97 ▲8% ▼-11% Africa 176 224 469 ▲166% ▲109% Asia 118 218 292 ▲147% ▲34% Americas 31 34 40 ▲29% ▲18% Australasia 2 2 4 ▲100% ▲100% Not known 280 262 231 ▼-18% ▼-12% Total 3172 3692 4227 ▲33% ▲14%
Page 113 Table 5: Number of rough sleepers by support needs, 2019-20 %change %change on on Apr-Jun Jan-Mar Apr-Jun previous previous Age group 2019 2020 2020 year quarter Alcohol only 229 256 324 ▲41% ▲27% Drugs only 202 228 266 ▲32% ▲17% Mental health only 260 309 459 ▲77% ▲49% Alcohol and drugs 134 138 132 ▼-1% ▼-4% Alcohol and mental health 177 210 187 ▲6% ▼-11% Drugs and mental health 243 320 320 ▲32% ▬0% Alcohol, drugs and mental health 254 288 254 ▬0% ▼-12% All three no 334 560 1029 ▲208% ▲84% All three no, not known or not assessed 85 86 79 ▼-7% ▼-8% All three not known or not assessed 1254 1297 1177 ▼-6% ▼-9% Total 3172 3692 4227 ▲33% ▲14%
Table 2: Number of rough sleepers by gender, 2019-201 %change %change on on Apr-Jun Jan-Mar Apr-Jun previous previous Age group 2019 2020 2020 year quarter Male 2628 3075 3577 ▲36% ▲16% Female 514 567 620 ▲21% ▲9% Total 31722 36923 42274 ▲33% ▲14%
1 Nobody surveyed self-reported a gender other than male or female in these survey periods. 2 Gender not known for 30 people. 3 Gender not known for 50 people. 4 Gender not known for 30 people.
Page 114 Appendix 2 Affordable Housing Monitor Tracking the Mayor’s progress on his affordable housing commitments September 2020
Media contact: [email protected]
Scrutiny contact: [email protected] [email protected]
Committee 115 Page contact: [email protected]
Key points
• The Mayor has been granted £4.82 billion in government funding for affordable homes. He has committed to starting 116,000 new affordable homes by 2022, now extended to 2023 due to COVID-19. • In 2019/20, 17,256 affordable starts were made supported by Mayoral funding, meeting the Mayor’s minimum target of 17,000-23,000 starts. • 57,040 homes still need to be started to meet the target of 116,000 homes. • Social Rent/London Affordable Rent starts increased by 79% in 2019/20 compared to 2018/19. • In 2019/20, 7,775 affordable completions were made supported by Mayoral funding. LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 2 Introduction What are the Mayor’s How will COVID-19 affect the Mayor’s powers and what has housebuilding programmes? he committed to do? It’s too early to fully would enable the Mayor to The London Assembly Housing The most significant role understand the impact of buy homes from the open Committee exists to hold the Mayor to that the Mayor plays the COVID-19 pandemic on market and rent them at account on housing issues in London. in housing in London is housebuilding in London. social rent, and to change distribution of funding Many housebuilders the tenure of some homes The Affordable Homes Monitor is an to build new affordable closed their sites during the already in the development annual report by the London Assembly homes. The Mayor lockdown, and those that pipeline, from intermediate Housing Committee. The Monitor 5 of London receives have reopened have done to social rent. looks at affordable housing delivery an allocation of the so under social distancing in London and tracks the Mayor’s Government’s Affordable measures. There are also The AHP extension has progress against his commitments. Homes Programme reports of disrupted supply been granted as part of (AHP) fund. The last AHP chains, and delays in the a nationwide extension
London’s 116 Page housing need settlement for London was planning system. These of the fund, meaning that, £4.82 billion for the time issues are likely to result in in London, the target of London faces a huge challenge when period 2016-2021 (homes a reduction in construction. 116,000 starts must be met it comes to housing. Average rents must be started by 2023). by 2023, instead of 2022. are twice as high in London compared The Mayor must comply The Mayor has responded to other regions of the country,1 with government policy to these challenges by The Mayor has reiterated average house prices in London are recruiting a Housing his calls for £5 bn per 2 within the AHP. six times their 1970 level, and London Recovery Taskforce made year for the next London households in poverty are estimated, The Mayor committed to up of sector leaders in AHP settlement 2021/22- on average, to spend 56% of their total starting 116,000 genuinely London. The taskforce has 2025/26. However, it is net income on housing costs.3 affordable homes by made a number of calls unclear whether there will 2022, which has now to Government, including be capacity, particularly A key cause of increasing housing costs been extended by the calling for an extension given the current crisis, is the lack of new affordable homes. Government to 2023, due of one year to the AHP to deliver additional London’s Strategic Market Housing to COVID-19. Some of these agreement, and for an development at these levels. Assessment shows that that the capital homes are for rent, some emergency affordable may need 65,878 new homes a year to are for part-sale part-rent, housing investment of provide enough homes for current and and some are supported £5 bn for London. This future Londoners.4 Two thirds of these housing. need to be social or affordable tenures. LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 3 Definitions
The term ‘affordable housing’ is London specific affordable an umbrella term that includes housing Average rents in London social rented, affordable rented, and intermediate housing. The Mayor has developed other To illustrate the difference in the rented tenures in London, this Affordable housing is provided tenures for use in London: graph shows mean weekly rent in social tenancies (split by by local councils and housing housing association and local authority), affordable rent, and associations. • London Affordable market rent, from 2011/12 to 2018/19.7 Rent roughly corresponds • Affordable rented to traditional social rent at housing has a rent of no around 40–60 per cent of more than 80 per cent of market levels. local market rent. • London Living Rent offers • 117 Page Social rented housing time-limited tenancies, with rents are determined by a the idea that after 10 years, rent formula. This usually tenants then buy their home, works out at around perhaps through shared 50 per cent of local market ownership. London Living rent. Rent is based on a third of • Intermediate housing average local household is homes for sale and rent incomes. provided at a cost above social rent, but below market A condition of the Government’s levels. This includes Shared funding is that roughly 50 Ownership, which offers per cent of the homes funded households earning up to under the AHP must be for £90,000 per year, part- a form of “affordable home purchase of a home, with ownership” - 58,500 of the a below-market rent on the 116,000 homes to be built under unbought share. the AHP must be London Living Rent or Shared Ownership.6
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 4
London Living Rent and London Affordable Rent are capped by benchmarks. The benchmarks from 2017/18-2020/21 are:8
London Living Rent London Affordable Rent 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 One bedroom 880 899 905 926 144 150 155 159 Two bedroom 977 998 1006 1029 153 159 164 169 Three bedroom 1075 1098 110 6 1131 161 168 173 178 Four bedroom 117 3 11298 1207 1234 170 176 182 187 Five bedroom 1271 1298 1307 1337 178 185 192 197 Six bedroom 1368 1398 1408 1440 187 194 201 206 Page 118 Page
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee The Mayor’s Affordable Housing Starts 5
Starts were higher in 2019/20 than any other year in the current The Mayor focuses his targets on affordable starts Mayoral term, and each year has met minimum targets. This year rather than completions. is the highest number of affordable starts ever recorded by the GLA. Most of London’s affordable starts are part- funded by the Mayor. Other affordable homes Total affordable starts and target ranges in London for each year in the are built by the private sector as part of their current Mayoral term (2016–2020). planning obligations for new developments, by boroughs using their own funding, and by housing associations via cross-subsidy from other parts of their development programmes. Page 119 Page The Mayor met his minimum target for affordable starts this year
• In 2019/20, 17,256 affordable homes were started. This exceeds the bottom of the Mayor’s targeted range for the year (17,000 - 23,000). • Of these 17,256, 8,570 (50%) were for intermediate tenures, 7,156 (41%) were for Social Rent/London Affordable Rent, 9,588 (19%) were for Affordable Rent, and 603 (1%) were for an Affordable Tenure, type of which to be confirmed. • Social rent/London Affordable Rent starts increased by 79% in 2019/20 compared to 2018/19. • 57,040 of the total 116,000 homes remain to be started, with three years to go until the March 2023 target.
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee The Mayor’s Affordable Housing Starts 6
Affordable starts Top five boroughs Affordable starts by borough in Social Rent/London Affordable Brent 1,650 Rent is increasing, but London still 2019/20 needs many more homes at these Croydon 1,231 tenures Top five boroughs Greenwich 1,168 with the highest Southwark 1,108 London needs around 31,000 homes affordable starts in Barking and Dagenham 1,007 each year at the social rent level.9 While 2019/20 are: the annual number of Social Rent/London Affordable Rent starts is increasing, in line with increased Government funding, Page 120 Page it is still far behind where it needs to be.
In 2019/20, the Mayor part-funded 7,156 starts at social/London Affordable Rent levels – an increase of 79 per cent on 2018/19. This is the greatest number of social rent starts since 2010/11, which saw 11,329 social rent starts.10
Building for social rent/London Affordable Rent is increasing. However, it only accounts for just over one quarter (27 per cent) of all affordable home starts so far in this Mayoralty. This is in contrast with starts for intermediate tenure homes: 53 per cent of affordable starts this term are for London Living Rent
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 7 The Mayor’s Affordable Housing Starts Page 121 Page
Affordable starts by borough in the current Mayoral term 2016-2020
Top five boroughs with the highest affordable starts in the current Mayoral term (2016–2020) are:
Top five boroughs Affordable starts Tower Hamlets 4,429 Brent 4,203 Ealing 4,144 Newham 3,217 Southwark 2,910
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 8 The Mayor’s Affordable Housing Starts
Affordable starts by borough population in the current Mayoral term 2016-2020 Page 122 Page
Top five boroughs Affordable starts Tower Hamlets 1,416 Brent 1,274 Ealing 1,209 Barking & Dagenham 974 Newham 921
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 9 The Mayor’s Affordable Housing Starts
Social rent/London Affordable Rent starts by borough in the current Mayoral term (2016–2020) The top five boroughs with the highest percentage of affordable starts being of the Social Rent/London Affordable Rent tenure in the current Mayoral term (2016–2020) are:
Top five Percentage Affordable boroughs starts Kensington 73% 407
and 123 Page Chelsea Westminster 50% 835 Enfield 44% 886 Southwark 43% 2,910 Harrow 43% 1,662
Current Mayoral term (2016 - 2020)
Social Rent/London Affordable Rent share
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 10 Affordable completions
While the Mayor’s targets are for affordable housing starts rather than completions, we have also tracked the Total affordable completions in London by tenure for each year in number of affordable housing completions the current Mayoral term (2016–2020) in London. The rate of completions stayed similar to 2018/19 levels, with an increase of only There were 7,775 affordable completions 231 homes. in London in 2019/20, made up of the following tenures:
• Intermediate – 3,370 (43 per cent) • 124 Page Affordable Rent – 2,424 (31 per cent) • Social Rent/London Affordable Rent – 1,938 (25 per cent) • Affordable Tenure, type TBC – 43 (1 per cent)
The total number of affordable completions in London in the current Mayoral term (2016 – 2020) is 25,608, made up of the following tenures:
• Intermediate – 11,141 (44 per cent) • Affordable Rent – 10,543 (41 per cent) • Social Rent/London Affordable Rent – 3,844 (15 per cent) • Affordable Tenure, type TBC – 80 (0 per cent rounded)
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 11 Affordable completions by borough
The top five boroughs with the highest affordable completions in 2019/20 :
Top five Affordable boroughs completions Tower Hamlets 1,562 Southwark 585 Ealing 568 Page 125 Page Greenwich 394 Lambeth 351
Top five boroughs with the highest affordable completions in the current Mayoral term (2016–2020):
Top five Affordable boroughs completions Tower Hamlets 3,544 Southwark 1,552 Ealing 1,546 Greenwich 1,476 Lambeth 1,434
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee Affordable completions by borough Social Rent/London Affordable Rent completions in the current Mayoral term (2016-2020)
The top five boroughs with the highest percentage of affordable completions being of the Social Rent/London Affordable Rent tenure in the current Mayoral term (2016-2020)
Top five Percentage Affordable boroughs starts Kensington 66% 281 and Chelsea
Page 126 Page City of 34% 29 London Westminster 33% 424 Hammersmith 32% 358 and Fulham Greenwich 30% 1,476
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 13 Overcrowding and bedroom numbers
8% of households in London are overcrowded, a figure that ranges from 3% for homeowners to 15% for social housing tenants. Around 40% of children under 16 in social housing in London and a quarter of those in private rented housing in London live in overcrowded conditions.11
Family sized housing is a therefore key concern of the Page 127 Page Housing Committee, as many Londoners are faced with living in homes too small for their needs. It is not mandatory for organisations to provide the GLA with data on the number of bedrooms in homes started through the AHP. Thus, while we have some insight into bedroom numbers, the following is not complete data:12,13
Year 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Number of 2,892 2,005 2,005 homes with 3+ bedrooms
The Committee will continue to recommend increasing provision of family sized homes in London.
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 14 Previous Mayors’ affordable starts
Affordable housing completions in Mayoral It is hard to compare different Mayoral terms as terms 2008-12, 2012-16, and 2016-20 funding arrangements and tenure targets have varied considerably over the years. The below graphs show the Completions have declined in this Mayoral term: delivery figures since the 2008-2012 term.
Affordable starts
More 128 Page affordable homes have been started in this Mayoral term than in the past two Mayoral terms:
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 15 Supported and specialist housing
The Affordable Homes • Supported housing starts have Total completions of supported and specialist Programme also funds supported increased by 92 per cent housing in London by tenure for each year in and specialist housing, which is compared to the previous the current and previous Mayoral terms for people who have additional Mayoral term. (2012–2020) needs. Borough breakdowns • Under this Mayoralty the • 2019/20 shows an 83 per cent increase on supported are not available for supported proportion of supported housing completions compared to 2018/2019. housing due to the need for housing starts at Social Rent/ However, 2018/19 had considerably fewer location confidentiality. London Affordable Rent has completions than 2017/18. increased, rising from • The Mayor has committed to 21 per cent in 2012-2016, to 31
Page 129 Page spending at least £100 million per cent in 2016-2020. on developing supported housing in London.
Total starts of supported and specialist housing in London by tenure for each year in the current and previous Mayoral terms (2012–2020)
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 16 Affordable Housing Programme Funding Status
The Mayor’s Affordable The Housing Committee has Homes Programme has a requested information from total budget of £4.82 bn. the GLA about the status of The agreed total affordable the full £4.82 bn fund, and housing starts to be delivered will report on this in due
Page 130 Page under this programme is course. 116,000 homes between April 2015 and March 2023.
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 17 Overall new homes delivered in London
• London needs all The London Plan Annual types of housing. Monitoring report sets out Annual net additional dwellings in London The Strategic Market the absolute increase in Housing Assessment dwelling stock in London. identified in 2017 that 2017/18 is the latest London needs 65,878 year for which data is net new homes a year available.16 to meet its housing need.14 Page 131 Page • Data from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government register of new EPC certificates shows that in 2019/20, there were 42,633 new domestic properties in London.15 • However, we must consider net additional homes, as every year some homes are lost. In 2018/19, there were 31,851 net new homes, a shortfall of 34,027.
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee 18 Conclusion
Overall the Mayor has The Mayor has now begun increased the number of the process of negotiating affordable housing starts London’s share of the next compared to last year, and Affordable Homes Programme. met the minimum target for Government has indicated that 2019/20. While this is the the overall fund for the next highest number of affordable 5-year AHP is £12 bn,18 and it housing starts ever recorded is awaited to see what the final by the GLA, there is still settlement is. a long way to go before London’s 132 Page housing needs are The Mayor has argued that to met. deliver the affordable housing that London needs would In the next three years the require a Government grant Mayor has committed to of £4.9 bn per year.19 More delivering 57,040 affordable scrutiny is needed to identify if starts - an average of 19,013 the housing sector in London starts per year - to meet his has the capacity to deliver at target of 116,000 affordable that pace, particularly given homes by 2023. that we are yet to understand the full extent of how COVID-19 Looking further to the future, will affect housebuilding London needs 65,878 in London. Whatever the net new homes per year. settlement, the coming year’s However, Planning Inspectors affordable housing figures may who examined the new look very different. London Plan, found that there was only capacity to deliver 52,000 net new homes per year.17 LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee References
1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/privaterentalmarketsummarystatisticsinengland 2 https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/housing-london 3 https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/topics/housing/ 4 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_shma_2017.pdf 5 https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-and-housing-sector-call-for-5bn-investment 6 Affordable Homes Programme Funding Guidance https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/homesforlondoners-affordablehomesprogrammefund- ingguidance.pdf 7 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rents-lettings-and-tenancies 8 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/homes-londoners-affordable-homes-programme-2016-21 and https://www.london.gov.uk/ what-we-do/housing-and-land/improving-private-rented-sector/london-living-rent 9 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_shma_2017.pdf
10 133 Page https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn?resource=0ff48fbb-5119-4af1-9692-d0fa57093371 11 https://airdrive-secure.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/london/dataset/housing-london/2019-09-06T16%3A42%3A52/Housing%20in%20London%20 2019.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJJDIMAIVZJDICKHA%2F20200814%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_re- quest&X-Amz-Date=20200814T143055Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Signature=1cb0332f82397b8ec3afdaaa8c4c14b2dcefbefc79383b031d5386d16f8 c59b6&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host 12 https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/8945 13 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/increasing-housing-supply/affordable-housing-statistics 14 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_shma_2017.pdf 15 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882110/NB1_-_Domestic_EPCs.xlsx located here - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-energy-performance-of-buildings-certificates 16 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/amr_15_final.pdf 17 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/inspectors_report_and_recommendations_2019_final.pdf 18 https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/budget-2020 19 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/report_2022-2032_ah_funding_requirement_for_london_v2.pdf
LONDONASSEMBLY Housing Committee This page is intentionally left blank
Page 134