The social cleansing of social housing.

[Greebo]

'Barrio' possibly, although that doesnt have quite the same connotations as those other words.

Nor does "banlieue", which means "suburb" but now has the connotation of a rough housing estate in the Parisian suburbs (outside of the Peripherique), mainly populated by 1st and 2nd generation North Africans.

FWIW the closest neutral French term for council housing is "HLM" (habitation a loyer modere - housing with a restricted level of rent).

 

[DotCommunist]

funny how 'estate' in english can have two very different meanings re: housing

 

[Greebo]

funny how 'estate' in english can have two very different meanings re: housing

True dat - it led to a longrunning misunderstanding on a mostly American mailing list about my being overprivileged when I mentioned living on a council estate and being able to see the park from my back windows.

 

[andysays]

True dat - it led to a longrunning misunderstanding on a mostly American mailing list about my being overprivileged when I mentioned living on a council estate and being able to see the park from my back windows.

Greebo & ViolentPanda recently

 

[ViolentPanda]

View attachment 74857

Greebo & ViolentPanda recently

Silence wretch, or I'll take the butt of my musket to you!

 

[Greebo]

View attachment 74857 <snip>

VP's nowhere near that thin, thank fuck, or I'd be very seriously worried, and I usually only wear a dress under protest. Apart from that, the view over the back isn't that disimilar, if you remove the railings.

 

[Lurdan]

Initially the differences weren't significant, a few quid extra, but I came across a new tenancy today where the rent is around £40 extra, in other words if the new tenant had been a transfer rather than completely new , they'd have paid around £40 a week less rent. Grossly unfair.

Ouch. And that's with the national cap on Social Rents still in place.

I have to say I'm a little puzzled about one aspect of this. My post which you quote was written just before the budget announcement of a 1% rent reduction per year for four years beginning April 2016. That has changed the situation.

My reading (which could be incorrect) of the relevant section of the "Welfare Reform and Work Bill" suggests that after next April in some circumstances it may no longer be possible to make this kind of increase at the time of a new tenancy : for existing tenancies rents have to be 1% lower than the rent applicable over the previous 12 months - taken to be the rent applicable on the 8th July 2015. I'm wondering if that means that an increase applied when creating a new tenancy between 8th July 2015 and April 2016 might have to be reversed in full plus the 1% cut in some cases ? I guess it would be relevant when a given Council's policy to charge 'formula rent' for new tenancies first became applicable.

I'm probably not reading it correctly, or have missed some supplementary guidance. I understand the DCLG have confirmed the Welfare Bill will not stop Social Landlords from converting social rent tenancies to higher 'affordable rent' tenancies, which suggests it's not their intention to stop increases to 'formula rent' levels (or in practice the 'rent cap' level) for new Social tenancies. Still it might be worth asking the question.

 

[Mation]

I went past some odeous new development on the bus to work this morning. It advertised the number of 'affordable' flats with the inverted commas included in the sign.

Total, utter, even more cunty cunts or informal anarchist action?!

 

[brogdale]

Interesting cartographic evidence suggesting rapid social cleansing of Inner London from the Guardian.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm probably not reading it correctly, or have missed some supplementary guidance. I understand the DCLG have confirmed the Welfare Bill will not stop Social Landlords from converting social rent tenancies to higher 'affordable rent' tenancies, which suggests it's not their intention to stop increases to 'formula rent' levels (or in practice the 'rent cap' level) for new Social tenancies. Still it might be worth asking the question.

I do know a Tenant Management Coop ( the housing owned by a Housing Association) where the HA has been trying ( so far unsuccessfully) to get the TM Coop to let out new tenancies at the "affordable rent".

Some old HAs like Guinness Trust are letting out new tenancies at the so called "affordable rent" with time limited tenancies. Only the existing tenants are guaranteed long term tenancies with cheaper rents.

The worst aspect of the "affordable rent" is , if im correct, that tenancies may only be for say 5 years. After which one has to prove that one still needs the housing. Am I correct in that? I am not clear if a HA can refuse to renew a tenancy or what grounds it can use.

In London the new "affordable rents" pegged at % of local market rents are not really affordable in practise without benefit top ups.

 

[Lurdan]

The worst aspect of the "affordable rent" is , if im correct, that tenancies may only be for say 5 years. After which one has to prove that one still needs the housing. Am I correct in that? I am not clear if a HA can refuse to renew a tenancy or what grounds it can use.

If the tenancy has a fixed term and tenancies are only open to qualifying tenants then in principle if you no longer qualify there will be no obligation to renew. How that works in practice will entirely come down to the policies of the particular Social Landlord and the wording of their tenancy agreement. In the case of the TMO you refer to, if it's in property which the Housing Association acquired as a result of a stock transfer from a Local Authority, any guarantees given at the time of the transfer may also affect what the HA can oblige the TMO to do. (Sadly this normally only protects the existing tenants who transferred).

There are wide differences between Housing Associations about whether and how to implement this kind of change, but the consequences have been pretty significant for those affected by the conversion of Social Rent tenancies to 'Affordable'. Reported back at the end of March :

Tenants hit by £50m rent rise as social housing converted to 'affordable' homes - Guardian

About 11,000 homes in the capital have been converted from “social” housing to “affordable” since 2012, according to latest figures from the Greater London authority, and thousands more are to follow in a policy that has sparked tenants’ rebellions.

Many housing associations have exploited the category change to set rents at the highest possible level, with the effect that only relatively wealthy people can afford to live in homes originally meant for poorer tenants. Over half of the housing associations set the converted rents higher than 70% of market rate in the last recorded period in the City Hall figures. Others, determined to keep housing genuinely affordable, have charged much lower rents.

While not all Housing Associations are going down this road the rhetoric employed by some of the more 'socially responsible' HA's to 'justify' not doing so can be vomit inducingly paternalistic :

Why we will no longer convert social rented homes to ‘affordable’ rent - Guardian

People who move into these homes must be able to afford them over the long term, however. Once our residents have found the right home, we want to help them achieve their aspirations, leave benefits behind and contribute towards communities that thrive economically.

In London the new "affordable rents" pegged at % of local market rents are not really affordable in practise without benefit top ups.

Which of course are being capped. From Inside Housing (17th July)

Families priced out of affordable rent - Inside Housing. (It's pay walled so I'm posting the article and graphic)

Spoiler: Text of article

17 July 2015 | By Heather Spurr

Analysis finds benefit cap leaves three-bed homes out of tenants’ reach.

Families hit by the reduced benefit cap will no longer be able to pay affordable rents in swathes of southern England, with most market rents in the country now out of reach.

This is the conclusion of analysis by consultancy Savills, seen by Inside Housing, which suggests that three-bedroom affordable rented homes will be too expensive for those hit by the lower benefit cap across south east and parts of south west England.

In the private rented sector, which houses 1.5m benefit claimants, a three-bedroom house in every region south of the midlands and the majority of the north will now be unaffordable to tenants hit by the cap.

In last week’s Budget, George Osborne announced that the benefit cap would be reduced from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside the capital.

Savills’ analysis assumes that families would be able to spend up to 35% of benefits on housing costs. Under the £26,000 cap, a family living in a three-bedroom affordable rent property in Bournemouth which cost an average of £159.66 a week would be able to afford the rent. However, under the new £20,000 cap, this family will face a shortfall of £25 a week.

Since 2011, the government has limited grant funding to affordable rentals, which are up to 80% market rent.

Mervyn Jones, director of Savills housing consultancy, said housing associations would have to be ‘a lot more careful about who they house’ in affordable rent properties, with council nomination agreements ‘suddenly becoming very important’.

Brendan Sarsfield, chair of the G15 group, said: ‘We can’t just let to people who can’t afford to pay, but we’ve got to find a way through this because where else are [tenants] going to go?’

Savills research: Affordable rents under the benefit cap

Source: Savills

Areas in black mark where the average three-bedroom affordable rent property would be unaffordable to families hit by the benefit cap.



Benefit cap: in numbers
Weekly level of current benefit cap: £500
Weekly level of proposed benefit cap in London: £442.31
Level of proposed benefit cap outside London: £384.62
Average weekly rent for three-bedroom affordable rented property in Bournemouth: £159.66
Average weekly rent for three bedroom private rented property in Derby: £150.31

Source: Savills Housing Consultancy, HM Treasury

Given that the benefit cap may well be lowered further in future it's very likely to get significantly worse.

 

[hash tag]

Cost of private housing is rocketing out of the reach of mere mortals. Could this be why

Private Eye | Official Site - the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs magazine, edited by Ian Hislop

 

[SikhWarrioR]

If in the middle of a supposed economic recession we can find £100 Bn to rent the Trident penis extension from the yanks to pretend its ours as we stagger around the world pretending the UK still has an empire surely we can find another £100 Bn down the back of the same sofa we found the money for Trident to build new council/affordable flats and houses, And if it bombs the overinflated and unsustainable UK property prices even better

 

[hash tag]

So agree. Ban the bomb

 

[treelover]

Westminster council could send homeless families to Coventry

 

[Pickman's model]

Westminster council could send homeless families to Coventry

have you an opinion on this?

 

[William of Walworth]

have you an opinion on this?

Or (@ the never-respondong treelover ) about entirely unalerted threadbumping, 16 months later?

 

[Old Spark]

How to solve the housing shortage.

1.Accept private sector on its own will never build enough.
2.Lend housing associations cheap money to build.
3.Allow councils to borrow to build.
4.Build up in cities.
5.Identify greenbelt areas around cities to build on.

Article here.

Britain’s housing crisis could be solved – if only the government wanted to | Jonn Elledge

 

[Teaboy]

How to solve the housing shortage.

1.Accept private sector on its own will never build enough.
2.Lend housing associations cheap money to build.
3.Allow councils to borrow to build.
4.Build up in cities.
5.Identify greenbelt areas around cities to build on.

Article here.

Britain’s housing crisis could be solved – if only the government wanted to | Jonn Elledge

If you were to do the first four correctly there would be little reason to build on greenbelt. The demand to build on greenbelt is primarily being driven by the big volume house-builders and developers, in short its a bit cheaper to build on greenbelt therefore their profit increases. Bear in mind the housing crisis in the SE has been primarily driven by these same house-builders as under supply = ££££ profit.

 

[Artaxerxes]

If you were to do the first four correctly there would be little reason to build on greenbelt. The demand to build on greenbelt is primarily being driven by the big volume house-builders and developers, in short its a bit cheaper to build on greenbelt therefore their profit increases. Bear in mind the housing crisis in the SE has been primarily driven by these same house-builders as under supply = ££££ profit.

I certainly think there is a need for at least a couple of new towns in the greenbelt areas, but the biggest aid to fixing the housing crisis is getting businesses and economy moving up North. The South East is creaking and its habit of moving millions to and from London is probably the biggest issue we face, its un-environmental, its unsocial and its unsustainable.


Other than that the article is fairly reasonable by these articles standards, build up, invest government money and stop hoping private firms will magically solve the problem.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How to solve the housing shortage.

1.Accept private sector on its own will never build enough.
2.Lend housing associations cheap money to build.
3.Allow councils to borrow to build.
4.Build up in cities.
5.Identify greenbelt areas around cities to build on.

Article here.

Britain’s housing crisis could be solved – if only the government wanted to | Jonn Elledge

Even when number 2 happened (when HAs got large-volume grant aid in the late '80s and early '90s) they were unable and/or unwilling to build at volumes large enough to even dent need. I don't put any faith in them being able to (or wanting to) build significant volumes.

 

[NoXion]

Wouldn't building on brownfield sites be less environmentally damaging than building on the greenbelt, if renovating old stock and building up isn't sufficient?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wouldn't building on brownfield sites be less environmentally damaging than building on the greenbelt, if renovating old stock and building up isn't sufficient?

Did you miss the fact that our S of S for Dept of Communities & Local Govt re-defined "brownfield sites" to include urban and suburban council estates last year?

 

[NoXion]

Did you miss the fact that our S of S for Dept of Communities & Local Govt re-defined "brownfield sites" to include urban and suburban council estates last year?

...the fuck? For real?

 

[ViolentPanda]

...the fuck? For real?

Yeah, for real. My estate can be "regenerated" because it's classified as a "brownfield site".

 

[NoXion]

Yeah, for real. My estate can be "regenerated" because it's classified as a "brownfield site".

Fucking hell. I thought brownfield sites were things like old industrial estates and abandoned factories and shit like that. Not residences where people are still actually living. Fuckers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fucking hell. I thought brownfield sites were things like old industrial estates and abandoned factories and shit like that. Not residences where people are still actually living. Fuckers.

Yep, just one of the many bombshells in last year's Housing Bill.

E2A. I should make clear that this doesn't (yet) apply to all estates, just a hundred or so described as "sink estates" (a bullshit description that means anything a council wants it to mean).

 

[NoXion]

Yep, just one of the many bombshells in last year's Housing Bill.

E2A. I should make clear that this doesn't (yet) apply to all estates, just a hundred or so described as "sink estates" (a bullshit description that means anything a council wants it to mean).

I'm guessing that "contains a significant amount of people the council considers to be scum" is a large part of that definition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm guessing that "contains a significant amount of people the council considers to be scum" is a large part of that definition.

Yep.
Mind you, in the case of my estate, that's worked for us. The council consistently under-estimates us, then gets in a lather when we trip them up about their corruption and ineptness. If my home were at risk, I'd take up pissing them off as a pastime.

 

[sealion]

L & Q are building plenty in London but not for social housing anymore. They have "apartments" for sale in st agnes place sw9 for a cool £1.2 million. These so called charities and social housing providers are taking the piss out of the system.