Transcript JRF Workshop Slides 9th September 2016

Tackling poverty through housing
and planning policy in city regions
Will Eadson
Aidan While
Ashford, 9th September 2016
Workshop 1
Housing and poverty - what are
the challenges and how are
these being addressed?
Research objectives
• Aim = explore the scope for, and value of,
embedding 'poverty reduction, affordable
housing and inclusive growth' in housing and
planning at the city-regional level
• Objectives:
– Understand logics of housing and planning policy
– Explore how devolved funding and powers are
being used
– Identify where city regions can add value (or not)
– Explore options for future freedoms and flexibilities
Our approach
•
•
•
•
Evidence review
Analysis of documents
Stakeholder interviews (c.45)
Policy workshops in five areas
What does the evidence say?
• National policies on housing
and planning are reducing
capacity of housing to
buffer against poverty
• City regional policy reflects
national emphasis on
accelerating supply +
supporting growth
• Limited appetite to address
factors that link housing and
poverty at CR level
• Missed opportunities to
ensure growth is more
inclusive?
http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.
ac.uk/files/tackling-poverty-housing-planningcity-regions.pdf
Session 1: What are the
housing challenges faced by
low income households?
National policy marginalising housing need?
• Key policy aims post 2010:
– Increase supply through planning reforms (e.g. NHB), new
housing delivery vehicles (e.g. Housing Zones) and new forms
of finance (e.g. Build to Rent)
– Support access to home ownership (e.g. Help to Buy,
Starter Homes, RTB)
– Tackle dependency and reduce spend (removal of subsidies
for social rented housing, affordable rents, decreased levels of
LHA/HB)
– Make more efficient use of social housing (reduced security
of tenure, Pay to Stay, RSRS)
'A lot of people that are poor will not be helped by [the
Housing and Planning Act 2016] whatsoever' (London).
But new opportunities for tackling poverty?
• 'Devolution revolution':
– Creation of LEPs and combined authorities
– Growth Deals
– Devolution Deals
– 'Metro mayors' (Cities and Devolution Bill)
– New powers around H&P (Mayoral call-in +
CPO powers, spatial frameworks, CIL etc)
The link between housing and poverty
Housing
variable
How it can contribute to poverty at household level
Material poverty outcomes
Impacts negatively on health and
well-being
Lack of appropriately sized housing contributes to overcrowding
Availability
Shortage of housing in social rented sector leads to homelessness or
being housed in high cost and/or poor quality PRS housing
HOUSING MARKET
DRIVERS e.g.
National policies on
housing and planning
LOCAL HOUSING MARKET
CONDITIONS
Macro-economic policy
(interest rates and
access to mortgage
finance)
Demand for housing +
Housing supply (quantity,
quality, cost, tenure, size and
location)
Reduces household income e.g. if PRS
rents higher than social rents
Impacts negatively on health and
well-being
Reduces earning potential if it impacts on
ability to secure or maintain employment
Reduces household income
High direct costs (rent/mortgage payments)
Cost
Reduces household income
High indirect costs (e.g. fuel, utilities, transport, repair and maintenance)
Inability of housing-related benefits to cover costs e.g. due to 'Spare Room Reduces household income
Subsidy' or changes to Local Housing Allowance regime
Reduces household income
Asset speculation (e.g.
buy-to-let)
'Non-decent' homes drive up costs of repair and maintenance
Quality
Impacts negatively on health and
well-being
Availability of land
HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES
Poor quality housing has negative impacts on physical or mental health
and well-being
Attitudes and practices of
key stakeholders (e.g.
Registered Providers,
private landlords,
developers)
(Household composition,
income (including access to
benefits), expenditure
(including debts), and
charactersistics (age,
gender, ethncity, health,
disability etc)
Distance from local job opportunities can prevent individuals from
accessing paid work or increases cost of commuting
Reduces earning potential
Lack of affordable goods or services (e.g. food, banking) in immediate
area
Reduces household income
Tax and benefits system
Non-material poverty outcomes
Location
Impacts negatively on health and
well-being; increases risk of crime
Conditions in wider neighbourhood (e.g. crime, physical neglect)
Neighbourhood effects' such as social networks with limited engagement Reduces earning potential
with paid work limit awareness of employment opportunities
Economic growth (scale
and location)
Insecure tenancies and enforced mobility e.g. because of unfair eviction
constrain access to employment and training opportunities
Regulation of housing and
housing law
Security
Reduces earning potential
Reduces household income
Direct cost of frequent involuntary moves
Insecurity of has negative impact on health and well-being
Impacts negatively on health and
well-being
Housing costs impact on poverty
Source: DWP, 2015
And housing reforms cut incomes
Average loss per
affected h'hold/individual
£ p.a.
HB: 18-21 year olds
2,600
Benefit cap
2,350
‘Pay to stay’
1,850
LHA cap in social rented sector
(1)
750
Additional post-2015-16 impact of pre-2015 reform
Sources: HM Treasury, Impact Assessments and Sheffield Hallam estimates based on official data
For discussion (1)
• How are housing market(s) changing across the
LEP area? How does this affect housing
opportunities for low income families?
• What are the housing challenges facing low
income households? How does these vary
across different groups? And at what scale?
• What is the impact of national policy on i)
housing markets and ii) low income households?
Session 2:
To what extent does housing
and planning policy at the city
regional level support poverty
reduction, affordable housing
and inclusive growth?
SEPs: A narrow growth agenda?
Increase availability
Black Country
Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
Cheshire and Warrington
Coast to Capital
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Coventry and Warwickshire
Cumbria
D2N2
Dorset
Enterprise M3
Gloucestershire
Greater Birmingham and Solihull
Greater Cambridge & Greater Peterborough
Greater Lincolnshire
Greater Manchester
Heart of the South West
Hertfordshire
Humber
Lancashire
Leeds City Region
Leicester and Leicestershire
Liverpool City Region
London
New Anglia
North Eastern
Northamptonshire
Oxfordshire
Sheffield City Region
Solent
South East
South East Midlands
Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire
Swindon and Wiltshire
Tees Valley
Thames Valley Berkshire
The Marches
West of England
Worcestershire
York, North Yorkshire and East Riding
Accelerating
housing
delivery/
increasing
supply
Increasing
the supply of
housing in
the PRS
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Increase the
supply of
affordable
housing
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Improving quality
Increasing
Reusing
the supply of empty
local
homes
authority
housing
through
increased
HRA
borrowing
Improving
housing
quality
●
Reducing costs
Delivering
Regulate the Reducing
housing-led PRS
direct
regeneration
housing
costs
●
●
●
●
●
Energy
efficiency
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Supporting employment
through housing activities
Linking
Providing
housing
employment
development support
to job
creation
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Innovation (of a sort) in SEPs + Growth Deals
•
Regulating the PRS: Using Housing Benefit as a lever to enforce quality
(Lancashire and South East); establish commercial vehicle to acquire
and manage stake in PRS (Lancashire)
•
Subsidising housing costs: Using LGF to subsidise rents for affordable
housing (Leeds CR)
•
Housing finance: Launching a REIT to raise investment for affordable
housing (Buckinghamshire TV)
•
Large scale housing-led regen: Growth Deal outlines plans to refurbish
4,500 homes (Humber)
•
Supporting employment: Linking ex-offenders to job opportunities in
construction (Heart of the South West)
•
Promoting local labour in construction: Developing local supply chain
and workforce through procurement frameworks (Leeds CR)
Innovation across city regions (1)
•
New strategic partnerships: GM's MoU gives housing providers strategic role;
commits to tackling poverty; cuts across policy areas (e.g. health and housing).
•
Direct delivery/ Joint ventures:
– Birmingham CC's Municipal Housing Trust (BMHT) built 1,000 homes for rent
and 7,100 for sale 2010-15. Scope for scaling up?
– Liverpool CC exploring Rent to Buy model
– Bristol CC looking to set up a housing company to deliver council + HA
housing plus shared ownership as well as housing for sale, with profits used
to subsidise lower cost housing.
•
Reducing housing + fuel costs: Leeds CR investing in off-site manufacture.
•
Tackling fuel poverty: Leeds CR/WYCA investing £10m in Better Homes
programme to improve energy efficiency in PRS.
Innovation across city regions (2)
•
Area regeneration: Leeds CC Neighbourhood Approach = street-bystreet multi-agency programme to tackle empty homes, inspect 100% of
PRS properties, deliver wider physical improvements + support residents
through initiatives such as employment support, energy efficiency advice,
fire safety checks and benefits advice.
•
Improving quality in PRS:
– Lancashire devolution discussion exploring possibilities with DWP for
reducing LHA payments for properties that fail to meet minimum
space standards.
– South East used a £2 million LGF to tackle 'problem’ PRS/HMO
housing e.g. converting 40 HMO ‘spaces’ into eight houses.
•
Aligning policy areas/public service reform:
– GM looking to scale up Hospital Discharge and Readmission
Prevention pilot (HA staff in hospitals); housing elements in Health
and Social Care plan
– Leeds undertaking Health Impact Assessment to inform co-design of
health + housing intervention with CCGs
The limits of devolution?
•
Policy: National policies e.g. Starter Homes do not meet local needs or
undermine local activities e.g. bedroom tax + cut in social rents
•
Caution: City regions ask for what they can get
•
Geography: City region not always appropriate spatial scale e.g. for
tackling poor quality PRS
•
Politics: Different political affiliations plus tensions with cross-boundary
working e.g. greenbelt development
•
Institutional capacity: Difficult to tackle complex issues while institution
building alongside staff cuts in LAs
•
Austerity: Limits scope for action and determines priorities e.g.
maximisation of receipts from land sales
•
Asks knocked back: Request for full devolution of HCA funding not
granted (yet).
CR as a bulwark to national policy?
'Talk of devolution almost always seems to
assume it would end up in a more left wing
social democratic solution...The experience in
London is that it hasn’t necessarily ended up
being more socially democratic ...it depends
on the people they elect... but we’re setting
up over the next few years the emerging city
regions with elected mayors like Bristol,
Manchester who are going to be Labour
trying to get powers out of the Tory
government, that’s interesting'.
For discussion (2)
• What are the current housing and planning
priorities in the South East LEP area? To
what extent are they likely to support
'poverty reduction, affordable housing and
inclusive growth'?
• What innovations/good practice in the
South East LEP area? And could you adopt
examples from elsewhere?
• What stops you from doing more?