Newham Housing Surgery at Stratford Library

This evening I attended the latest drop‑in Housing Surgery at Stratford Library alongside our Deputy Housing Cabinet Lead, Cllr Tonii Wilson, and local ward councillors.

A wide range of Newham housing teams were present — Housing Liaison Officers, ASB, Allocations, Rents and Service Charges, Repairs, Homelessness, Asset Management and more — all working together to support residents who need help now.

I had some constructive but difficult conversations with residents on the Newham Council waiting list. One family of four with very young children is living in a single room in a shared private rented house, unable to afford anything larger. Their situation is sadly not unique, and it underlines the scale of the challenge we face.

Our Labour Government has already invested many billions into building more affordable homes, but the truth is simple: we need even more national investment if we are to truly solve the housing crisis and give every family the dignity of a secure, decent home.

My thanks to all the Housing and Library staff who supported residents throughout the evening. These surgeries are happening across the borough — please look out for one near you.

Thursday 4 September: ‘The Challenges of the Management and Maintenance of Social Housing’

 

This Thursday 4 September (7pm), LHG Executive Committee Member Cllr Asma Islam joins us to discuss the crisis in social housing.

Cllr Asma Islam is a Labour and Co-operative councillor in Tower Hamlets with a strong record of public service and grassroots activism. She has held senior leadership roles on the council, including Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, and Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, where she championed transparency and better outcomes for residents.

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/xMANfA1-TKSLFC5uk55y4w#/registration

(I have known Asma for a number of years and regret that I will have to miss this talk due to a clash)

"Exploring the Elizabeth Line" - Walk 20 Shenfield to Brentwood via Ingrave & Thorndon Country Park

 

Gill and I were lucky today to have a perfect warm, sunny spring Sunday to complete this 7.5 mile walk from Shenfield station to Brentwood Station. This was courtesy of this book "Exploring the Elizabeth Line", which has 23 walks starting (and mostly finishing) from the new London Crossrail line. 

Just around the corner from Shenfield station, we stopped of at petrol station with M&S food store, for picnic supplies (I had to eat, there and then, their hot sausage roll - super delicious). 

The first part of the walk is through the "Hutton Mount" estates, which I had assumed beforehand was a Council estate but turned out to be hundreds of mostly gated luxury homes with  private security security patrols. Incredible - I have never seen the like outside central London. None of whom had Labour Party posters up (see end of walk). I note that some homes cost more than £4 million. Which to me, to be honest, pretty sickening, that some have so much while so many others have so little.  

Wikipedia however, describes the wider village of Hutton, as being where the first Essex Policeman was murdered on duty in 1850 and were in 1905, the Chair of Poplar Board of Guardians (East London workhouses) George Lansbury (famous for going to prison over the Poplar rate rebellion and becoming the  leader of the Labour Party), built a training school for destitute children. I use to manage the social housing block called "George Lansbury House" in Tower Hamlets. 

Thorndon Hall was also an impressive building to view. A former stately home (top left) now converted into luxury private flats. I doubt "very much" it contains any social housing.

It was surprisingly quiet and even isolated in most part but there were a fair number of walkers, cyclists and runners enjoying the countryside. Due to recent rain it was very green and lush. The bird song was marvellous, lots of squirrels and occasional dragon flies. There was also lots of shade and lovely dappled sunshine paths. 

No stiles or obstructions to climb over (on the day). 

Instructions in book pretty clear but best to have a gps backup on your phone such as Detailed maps & routes to explore across the UK | OS Maps

Just before we finished in Brentwood, we came across a large "Vote Labour" placard (bottom left) on the balcony of a flat in a small tower block, which I am not sure if it was private or social housing but I am sure it did not cost £4 million. 

Afterwards stopped off at the Holly Tree in Forest Gate, where I enjoyed a pint of Spitfire in the crowded pub garden (but in plastic cup). 

Inside Housing calls for the next government to "Build Social"

 

Many will support the new campaign by magazine/social media site "Inside Housing" for the next Government to build more social housing. As a London Councillor and front facing Housing worker, I see pretty much every week the devastation that the inadequate supply of affordable housing causes to so many vulnerable families.

"The reasons for urgent action to deliver better outcomes for people in need of stable housing are painfully obvious. To quote just a few: right now there are more than 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation in England including 131,370 children, 14,000 households, including 9,130 children in Scotland, 4,465 households or 13,000 people in Wales and almost 4,000 households in Northern Ireland. These figures have been rising steadily and represent a blight on the lives of children, individuals and families across the UK. They are unacceptable and need to change".

They are calling for around 100,000 social housing homes per year to be built across the UK. Their call and their evidence is spot on. 

While it is a non political campaign, the truth of the matter is that to deliver this we need to elect a government which is willing to provide the subsidy needed to provide truly affordable social housing. 

While there are massive governance and accountability issues also to address. In my view it is only the election of a Labour Government with a working majority that can deliver anywhere near this aim (or possibly exceed).

Social housing bosses need formal qualifications? Yes but....

Today the Government has announced that it will change the law to make it compulsory for Social Housing Managers to hold formal qualifications in a similar way to social workers and teachers. The reasons given were "both Grenfell and the death of Awaab Ishak showed the "devastating consequences of residents inexcusably being let down by poor performing landlords who consistently failed to listen to them"

Personally, I would support this requirement. I am a London Councillor and work in social housing. I happen to have a post graduate diploma in Housing and I am a Practitioner member of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIOH). I would also agree with the housing campaigner, Kwajo Tweneboa, that this should not be just senior managers but all housing officers should hold these qualifications.

But if it is right for Housing Associations and Council Housing managers, what about the huge Private Rental sector? A sector well known for problems regarding damp and fire safety. Would this requirement also apply to the private sector managers who maintain ministry of defence" properties plagued also by damp or those who provide often substandard homes for Asylum seekers.

Damp is often caused by overcrowding and/or fundamental design faults. I often see families of 5 or 6 living in a one bedroom flat with no adequate washing or drying facilities. Where is the money to build the new homes desperately needed to overcome overcrowding and rebuild defective housing?

It is going to cost a huge amount of money to really tackle fire safety, damp and mould. As well as making our housing stock green and low carbon. At a time of below inflation rent caps (welcome obviously to tenants) where is this money going to come from?

The simple truth of the matter is that many Housing Associations and Councils are already being forced to compromise on management standards in order to "sweat" their assets (cut costs) to find the funds to build more affordable housing due to grossly inadequate state provision. 

My final point for now is that since there is little meaningful, independant and democratic tenant representation, who will make sure that landlords will actually "listen" in the future?

Developer defends plans to put social homes in blocks serving as a ‘noise buffer’

A dreadful story reported in "Inside Housing"

"Developer Lovell has defended itself after sparking an outcry by describing blocks of flats containing most of a proposed Bristol development’s social homes as a “noise buffer” between industry and other housing".

This story is behind a paywall so problem if you do not subscribe to Inside Housing (they have to pay their way with subscribers)

I am not sure if Lovell deny the accuracy of this story. Check out the "free to view"  Bristol Post coverage of the wider campaign against this development.  

Virtual Cabinet meeting

On Wednesday, Newham Council held its first, totally virtual Cabinet meeting. Usually Cabinet meetings are held in public but due to COVID-19 the government has allowed Councils to hold "virtual" meetings instead.  We have held virtual Cabinet meetings before Wednesday but had the minimum quorum of 3 cabinet members physically present (but maintaining social distance) in case technology failed and meeting had to be cancelled. The meeting was also published live on Facebook.

Check out the agenda here. 

Amongst a number of items there was a comprehensive report on our response as a Council to the COVID-19 emergency and I was pleased that we agreed to invest in yet another social housing scheme, spending £35.3 million at the Brickyard scheme in East Ham. 

Impact investing in Social Housing: An Asset Owner & Landlord Prospective

Last month I was on a panel at a seminar on "social impact investing" in property. In my capacity as a pension trustee seeking long term financial returns and as the lead member for Housing in a Council with a desperate housing crisis. 

While the primary objective for any pension fund investment must be to pay pensioners their money when they retire. Full stop. If at the same time a social good or impact can be achieved that pension scheme members are likely to support and does not have a determental impact on the financial returns then that is surely win, win?  

The Newham Council pension fund (for its staff) has £1.5 billion in assets and as part of its investment mix needs assets which are relatively safe, stable and inflation linked. So we have been actively looking for some time for investing in social housing to achieve our income requirements and also a positive social impact. 

At the same time we have 27,000 residents on our Council housing waiting list and over 5000 families in often expensive temporary accommodation. A number of investors including large pension funds have made "pitches" to Newham about building or buying homes then leasing them back to us for temporary accommodation. These will be cheaper than private sector "nightly paid" accommodation and better quality. So, if these proposals make financial sense this should be "win, win" as well. 

The Pension fund (which is run separately to the Council) and Newham Council is actively considering these different proposals and we have also put a capital growth bid in this years budget to buy property. 

Following the General Election last week we will all have to raise our game. 

Below is a video promo for the event. There was a number of great speakers and a lively Q&A. 

Why voluntary right to buy for Housing Associations is nuts

So scare government grant is being used to effectively give an existing social tenant a home which will then be lost for ever from social housing instead of being used to help build another social home? This is nuts in a housing crisis.

Hat tip Red Brick

Voluntary Right to Buy: should housing associations be ‘proud to be involved’?

Posted on May 10, 2019 by stevehilditch

"The headline is based on an Inside Housing article this week by a director of a national housing association, Stonewater, which is one of those taking part in the government’s pilot scheme in the Midlands. Sue Shirt says they are ‘unashamedly supportive of the VRTB’ and ‘proud’ to be selling off their houses, estimating that around 170 will be sold in the pilot period (presumably in most cases houses currently let at social rents). She gives two main reasons for this. One is that they are giving tenants what they want. The second is that (unlike with council housing right to buy) they plan to replace every home sold. She says that it keeps tenants in their communities whereas otherwise they would move out to buy. In Stonewater’s view, VRTB ‘helps the social housing journey’ by enabling financially secure tenants to buy instead of rent.

Superficially, of course, Ms Shirt has a point. No doubt the lucky buyers of Stonewater houses are over the moon, especially as they have qualified for discounts of up to 70% – or £82,800 outside London – the same levels as for council right to buy. They’ll have to raise a mortgage but instead of paying rent they’ll have a valuable asset to pass on to their children or to sell or let out at a later date. In many ways it’s surprising that the pilot scheme isn’t proving more popular. Stonewater has so far completed just 11 sales, and if it reaches its projected level of 170 it will have sold just two per cent of its stock in the region. That’s a lot of effort to reach such a small proportion of tenants, and the government is said to be considering extending the pilot scheme to raise more interest.

What is missing from Sue Shirt’s assessment is any examination of the wider picture if the pilot scheme does turn out to be successful. Of course, one reason why a housing association like Stonewater is willing to take part is that it gets full and instant recompense for the hefty discounts it has to give, so they can aim to have one for one replacement of their own stock. The money comes from a Treasury pot of £200 million created for the purpose. An extended scheme would need more money. Failing some magic by the chancellor, the only sources are the rest of the housing budget or reviving the Treasury’s original plan, which was to force councils to sell their high-value council houses and hand most of the money over to subsidise housing association discounts.

Either way, a lump sum worth up to £82,800 to one ‘financially secure’ tenant who buys their home comes at the expense of the same amount invested in new social housing for people who are struggling to rent, let alone buy. It is not the narrow perspective of whether Stonewater replaces one for one, the essential point is that the money available in the housing system will produce fewer additional homes in total for people in need.

Sue Shirt says that the ‘crucial point’ about VRTB is that it helps more people into much-needed, modern, energy-efficient housing. But this is a very suspect argument. After all, tenants exercising VRTB are in a nice comfortable home already, and while the mortgage they will now pay releases a receipt that Stonewater can reuse, that’s only because the rest of the sale price will be made up by the government.

A supposed advantage is that VRTB buyers stay in their home when they might have moved out to buy elsewhere. While this may be advantageous for the community in the short term, it ignores the issue of what happens when the buyer eventually moves. A house that could be relet at social rent may well end up in the private rented sector, as is frequently the experience with the council RTB. It will be let at higher rents – costing more in housing benefit if that is needed – and quite possibly with minimal management, causing problems for other tenants in the area.

While the pilot scheme might involve selling a relatively small number of homes, up to 3,000, the real danger lies in its potential success. This could have two effects. One is that it hastens the day when all housing associations are persuaded into a ‘voluntary’ scheme by attractive offers about how fast they can access the receipts, without answering the crucial question of where the money will come from once the Treasury’s £200 million has been spent and what the impact of that will be on other programmes. Back in 2015, when it was planned to use ‘council high value sales’ to fund the VRTB, in Selling off the Stock CIH showed that a popular VRTB scheme might require all the receipts from selling high-value homes, leaving no money for replacements.

The second effect will be to prolong the right to buy in England when it should be on its last legs. It was scrapped in Scotland in 2016, it died in Wales earlier this year and soon it may be gone in Northern Ireland too. Only in Whitehall do politicians continue to find ways to breathe life into a policy that’s not relevant to today’s problems. Let’s put some more nails in its coffin, not try to revive the corpse".

Old ladies tell off kids playing in London council estate 1970s

An age old problem. It hadn't changed that much when I first started working in Council Housing in the early 1990s in Bethnal Green and still goes on in Newham and elsewhere today.

hat tip "From the Kinolibrary Archive Film collections. To order the clip clean and high res or to find out more visit http://www.kinolibrary.com. Clip ref CC8"

Shot on the Loraine Estate and Holloway Estate, Holloway Road. Which by coincidence is near to where my UNISON Housing Association branch office is located.

Community Wealth Building Seminar for Labour Councillors 21 July 2018

This well attended seminar sponsored by APSE (Association for Public Sector Excellence) of was excellent. Held in the UNISON centre (HQ) in Euston Road, London.

Speakers Paul O’Brien and Mo Baines, APSE; Neil McInroy CLES, Cllr Matthew Brown, Leader of Preston City Council and Cllr Asima Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic and Community Development, Islington Council.

Chair was Mo Baines who works for APSE but is also a UNISON branch President and member nominated representative on the Greater Manchester Local Government Pension Fund.

Paul O'Brien warned us that the "Barnet Map of Doom" could still happen - social care budgets will rise and rise and soak up all Council budgets! London local authorities depends at the moment on Council Tax for 40% of its income. In 2020 that will be 51%! (a huge problem for Councils who have failed to increase Council tax in the past even by inflation and therefore decimated their tax base)

While Neil McInroy reminded that we live a world were 5 super rich men control 50% of its wealth while workers suffer wage contraction, how we must build wealth locally and stop global capitalism from extracting wealth for the super rich.

Cllr Matthew Brown described the "Preston Model" and long, hard, slog to bring about changes following the destruction of traditional local industries and the failure of private led regeneration schemes to develop the city centre.

Cllr Asima Shaikh explained how Islington Council had won court battles over private developers who had overpaid for land and therefore claimed that they could not provide 50% social housing.

A really positive event. At the end I had a number of very constructive conversations with London Councillors about the possible role of local government pensions funds investing in social housing. Watch this space.

(Hat tip pictures Cllr Sakina Sheikh)

"Shifting Housing’s Overton Window"

Another great article by stevehilditch on Redbrick (even though I had to Google "Overton Window")

"It's a sign of a remarkable comeback for social housing that the new CIH report ‘Rethinking Social Housing’ contains few surprises. Only 3 years ago this report would have seemed a radical contradiction of the dominant narrative. It probably would have been attacked for lacking realism and harking back to the long lost 1970s.

Social housing reached its nadir around and after the 2015 General Election. It was unaffordable, past its sell-by date, consigned to the history books as the government and most of the housing industry focused their concerns on ‘the only game in town’, building homes that did not require grant, at significantly higher ‘Affordable rents’ or market prices, pushing forward with policies (right to buy, 'conversions', market sales) that would feed the development programme.

Housing’s ‘Overton window’ - the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse – had become very narrow indeed and those of us who argued for social housing were made to feel oddballs well outside mainstream opinion. So it was that the very expensive National Housing Federation ‘Homes for Britain’ campaign prior to the 2015 Election choked on the words social housing. Joining the newly formed SHOUT campaign for social housing felt like heading upstream without a paddle.

So, what explains the turn-round between then and now, when the government is allocating funds specifically for new social housing, everyone is reviewing and rethinking the purpose of social housing - coming to the conclusion that it is an essential component of a fair and functioning housing market - and CIH feels confident enough to describe it as 'a pillar of the welfare state' without provoking guffaws of laughter?

Here are several possible factors. First, the refusal of tenants, campaigners, many people working at the grassroots in housing, and a few brave housing leaders, to stop banging the drum for genuinely affordable (as opposed to joke affordable) housing. Second, over-reaching by the Tories so their housing policies and the consequent rise in homelessness just confirmed their lack of empathy for poor and disadvantaged people. Third, the advent of unashamedly pro-social housing Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership, which changed the nature of the debate in the Labour Party. Fourth, the general public, who did not obey the rules of the Overton window because they never lost sight of the simple idea that council housing was a good thing – even if they also thought it was subsidised and not for them. And fifth, Grenfell, which changed everything.

The new CIH report reflects a lot of background work with tenants and the sector and demonstrates that social housing is firmly back within the spectrum of acceptable thought. It identifies 3 key themes:

Social housing, its affordability and the security it offers to people living there, are highly valued
It has much wider value by allowing residents to prosper and thrive, through its contribution to tackling poverty, the success of local and national economies, and individual health and well-being
However, there is stigma attached to social housing as a ‘product’ and to the organisations providing it and the people living in it

And so,

"Social housing has a unique and positive part to play in housing people, helping to create thriving, mixed communities, and meeting needs that the market will not. Done right it does great things. But it isn’t always the case that homes and neighbourhoods are well managed and well maintained and it’s important that we own and address this.

"It’s time to reclaim the role of social housing as a pillar of the society we want to be, along with free health care and education – and it must be at the centre of government plans to solve the housing crisis. And, having ‘reclaimed’ the role of social housing, we need to push on – creating an ambitious vision of what a plentiful supply of social housing can do help people thrive in communities that prosper."

Some of the information in the report might surprise a general reader. For example, registered unemployment amongst social housing tenants is only 8%. The vast majority are either in work, retired or unable to work due to physical or mental disability or carers. Homeless people also take up around a quarter of lettings, far fewer than might be imagined.

The report contains a helpful discussion of the question ‘who is social housing for?’ based on a wide range of views from the public and the sector. The answer seems to be that ideally people want the sector to be ‘for anyone’ but that pragmatically it will remain highly rationed for many years to come. Given the vital role that security of tenure plays in enabling people to become established in their neighbourhood and having a platform on which to build their future, it is remarkable to note that there are still widely differing views on whether social housing should be a long term solution or, given scarcity, a short-term, reviewable, stepping stone.

CIH look forward by identifying six areas for further action, with some detailed proposals attached to each - including, for example, a call to suspend the right to buy which might become the headline proposal for the report.

• there should be a new definition of social housing to get away from the current confusion.
• tenants must have a greater voice.
• there should be an increase in the supply of ‘genuinely affordable’ homes.
• everyone should be able to afford a place to call home, with a move towards income-related rent-setting.
• homes and neighbourhoods should be better managed.
• there should be greater efforts to challenge the stigma and stereotyping attached to social housing.

It’s a reasonable agenda. And given the general drift back to accepting the importance of social housing it will be fascinating to see how far the government is willing to go when it releases its Green Paper before the summer recess.

"Mayor unveils first members of Cabinet" - New (ham) Kids on the block!

The last 8 years as a backbench Newham Councillor has been a fantastic experience and a real honour to serve my constituents. It has been "difficult" at times but I have enjoyed nearly all of it.

Yesterday evening it was officially confirmed that I have been appointed by our Directly Elected Mayor, Rokhsana Fiaz, to be the Cabinet member for Housing Services.

As a Councillor and someone who has worked in Social Housing for most of his adult life I know this will be a "challenging" position but I am absolutely delighted at the appointment and cannot wait to get stuck in.

Hat tip Newham Council Website 

"Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz has unveiled the first members of her Cabinet who will support her in ensuring that residents are “at the heart of everything Newham Council does”.

Mayor Fiaz said: “The people of Newham have put their trust in me for the next four years to work with them and for them on making things better for everyone. I am pleased to be able to announce the first members of a talented new Cabinet who have the vision and drive to help deliver the promises I made in my manifesto.”

The first appointments to the Cabinet are aligned to the priorities Mayor Fiaz was elected on. These include addressing the housing crisis by creating genuinely affordable homes at social rent levels, promoting youth safety, ensuring continued improvements in education, delivering regeneration that involves and benefits local people, and promoting financial transparency as well as stability.

The Mayor will be leading on the portfolio areas of Strategic Housing Delivery, Regeneration and Planning. Other appointments confirmed so far, with more to be announced in due course, are:

• Councillor Charlene McLean – Deputy Mayor, Youth Safety Board and Corporate Parenting
• Councillor Julianne Marriott – Education, Children and Young People 
• Councillor John Gray – Housing Services
• Councillor Terence Paul – Finance

The Mayor added: “The role of a councillor as a public servant is one that we should promote. I am looking forward to working collaboratively with my Cabinet colleagues and with all the elected members to listen to residents who will be at the heart of everything Newham Council does.

“We shall be doing things differently with a huge emphasis on transparency, accountability and with residents involved in the decision making process through public question times and citizen assemblies. I want people to feel more confident in the way the council works, to be able to have the conversations with us that shape our priorities, and be able to hold me, my Cabinet colleagues and councillors to account.”

"Cllr Rokhsana Fiaz promises council transparency and affordable housing if elected as Newham mayor"

Newham Councillor Rokhsana Fiaz was selected last night by a Labour Party interview panel comprising West and East Ham CLP Executive Officers and London Labour Board members as the only candidate to take on long time incumbent, Robin Wales, to be our next  Newham Directly elected Mayor.

This is great news. Rokhsana will make a fantastic change and unity candidate.

After work I was out delivering #NewhamRokhs leaflets and door knocking members with supporters.

All the members I spoke to were delighted that Robin Wales was being challenged after seeking almost 3 decades in charge.  They want a new face, a collaborative approach and fresh ideas from a Labour Mayor of Newham.

Hat tip Newham Recorder

"Cllr Rokhsana Fiaz has outlined her plans for Newham if she becomes mayor after being shortlisted
as a Labour candidate this morning.

She named housing as her priority, but also pledged for greater council transparency and opposition to the Silvertown tunnel scheme.

She is one of just two candidates in contention to be Labour’s mayoral hopeful, with the other being Sir Robin Wales.

“In Newham, we have some 20 to 24,000 families on our house waiting lists and huge numbers of homeless people, which will invariably increase once the homeless treaty comes into force,” Cllr Fiaz said.

“We have a situation where people are struggling to survive here because of the cost of living, with an average Newham income of around £25,000.

“The important issue will be the need to start building council owned homes, meaning genuinely affordable homes at social rent levels. My target will be 1,000 built by the end of my first term.”

Cllr Fiaz also promised to double the number of youth hubs in the borough from four to eight and pledged to oppose academisation.

Improving council transparency is another focus point.

She said: “I know that there’s an issue around the way we as a council involve the residents in our decision making.

“We need to become more open and transparent, and Newham residents need to be at the heart of what we do.

“I will be looking at introducing measures improving accountability of the council and of councillors to our residents.”

She pledged to oppose the Silvertown tunnel scheme, claiming it will contribute to congestion levels, and promised to commit the council to London’s transport strategy.

As a lifelong resident of Newham, she said her candidacy was supported by a vested interest in the borough.

“I’ve been pleased with Newham’s progress but I want more,” she said.

“This is the place that I call home, and I can see its potential.

“I’ve got a very distinctive and different idea of what I want our council to be. We’re a very insular and closed council and we seem almost scared to be engaging with our residents. Ultimately we have to become much more open.”

The vote to select Labour’s mayoral candidate will open to eligible party members on Thursday, March 1. The mayoral elections will be on May 3".

25% so-called "Affordable" Housing is not enough! West Ham Branch Labour Canvass & Petition about former Ford Car showrooms development.

Picture collage from last Sunday when I was with Cllr John Whitworth and a West Ham CLP Labour team campaigning in my ward, West Ham. We were again asking for signatures for a branch petition calling for more social housing on the proposed development of the former Ford Car showrooms in 259 Plaistow Road, E15. Every resident I spoke to signed the petition.

There is a meeting of the Newham Council Strategic Planning Committee this Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 6pm at the Old Town Hall in Stratford to decide on the application.  Councillor Whitworth and I have asked for speaking rights on opposing the application. Other local Party activists are also attending.

I am really disappointed that Council officers have decided to recommend that the committee accepts the developers offer of only 25% of the development being for so-called "affordable" homes and not the 35-50% required according to the Newham Plan and the 50% requirement according to the GLA London wide (draft) plan.

This is a significant development with 323 homes proposed.

Below is copy of an email that we sent to Council officers about the development last year

“Dear Deirdra, In response to your letter to residents, inviting them to comment on the application to develop the 259 Plaistow Road site, we as ward councillors would like to state that we will only support this application if the Assessed in Section 8 of the report. London Borough of Newham,259 Plaistow Road, E15 3EU proportion of agreed affordable housing is in the 35-50% range and that 60% of this is social housing. This is, of course, a requirement of Newham’s housing policy. We believe that we reflect a strong feeling in the ward and beyond that this site should yield a large number of much needed social housing units. 

Thank you for your attention. 
Regards, 

Cllr Freda Bourne, Cllr John Gray, Cllr John Whitworth West Ham Ward”

While I understand that that there are legal restrictions on what Council officers and planning committees can consider in such applications, I think it should be rejected and the developers told to go away and come back with a fresh proposal with far more social housing to be included. I believe that the developers will face very significant local opposition including lawful direct action if this does not happen.

Check out my previous post here  and there is still time to sign the on line petition 

Petition To Newham Council: Affordable Housing levels at former Ford Motor Showroom in Plaistow Road.

This petition is being supported by West Ham Labour Party ward. It is really positive that the branch is leading a campaign by local residents to ensure that regeneration projects comply at least with our own Borough targets for social housing. 

Ward Councillors John Whitworth and myself have formally objected to the current proposals by the developers. we have already been knocking on doors and asking residents to sign the petition. 

"The former Ford Motors’ showroom, on Plaistow Road E15, is going to be developed into

residential accommodation. As Newham residents we are keen that the site will be developed

for desperately needed social housing and not only for private sale. At the moment the

proportion of affordable housing proposed by the developers is 25% - with 60% of this

fraction being social housing. This is inadequate and falls well short of Newham’s own

targets of 35-50%.

We ask the Council to give an assurance that an increase in the proportion of social and

affordable housing in the development is being pursued on behalf of local people and in line

with its own and the improved London-wide suggested targets of 50%. We consider 50%

affordable housing to apply to 50% of all types of housing units and 50% of housing square

footage in the development".

We're urging Theresa May to make homes safe from fire.

A great video and I would encourage everyone to sign the letter to the prime minister to make social housing homes safe but dare I say pretty much all Housing blocks should have this protection as well as all of our schools?

Dear John Thousands of families are living in high-rise properties in the UK, yet only an estimated 2 per cent of blocks have sprinkler systems. The evidence is clear, fitting homes with fire safety systems, like sprinklers, saves people's lives in the event of a fire. So today I am calling on the government to use the Autumn Budget to make homes safe. Will you join me? Theresa May — we urge you to fit all high-rise social housing with life-saving sprinkler systems: Sign our letter Independent research has shown that sprinklers are hugely effective — extinguishing or containing fires in 99 per cent of cases. Sign our letter now to help us make sure that residents of high rise social housing can sleep safe in the knowledge that avoidable disasters will not happen to them. Together we can make homes safe. Jeremy Corbyn Leader of the Labour Party

Grenfell Tower: The anatomy of a disaster & the future of social housing in London - Newham Fabians 20 Sept 2017

This looks like a really good event. Well done to the new Newham Fabians Officers for organising this. Thankfully we now have a local Fabian society that  actually does stuff! Tom will be a great speaker. 

The end of social housing? 10 Tory plans to finish it off

Hat tip to progressive Housing blog "Redbrick" where I have stolen their arguments about Government housing plans and put my own slant on it.  They highlight 10 problems with these plans for social housing :-

1. "The new Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) – which precludes building for letting at social rents. 
2. Conversions – the last AHP (which ended in March) led to 80,000 homes being built but at the cost of converting more than 80,000 existing homes from social rents to ‘Affordable Rents’. Even more conversions will be needed for the new AHP. 
3. Right to buy sales – council starts (see above) have been vastly exceeded by sales and the gap will grow as discounts are increased. 
4. Right to buy 2 for housing associations – like RTB1, it will see social rented homes sold and (perhaps) replaced by units at Affordable Rents. 
5. Planning gain (section 106) – numbers of units delivered will fall as more loopholes open up, allowing obligations to be reduced or avoided completely. 
6. Estate redevelopment – with encouragement from the housing minister, more homes will be demolished and the new units will be less affordable and fewer still will be let at social rents. 
7. Welfare reforms – the next wave will hit social housing even harder, making it especially difficult to house larger families and pushing more low-income tenants out of their homes. 
8. Discretionary housing payments – helping to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax and other ‘reforms’, are being cut year-on-year. 
9. High-value council house sales – yet-to-be-defined plans will force councils to sell off their most valuable properties as they fall vacant; if replaced, they will be with homes at Affordable Rents.
10. (If we add the possible end of prudential borrowing to this list").

Redbrick concludes that this "starts to look like a concerted attack on social housing (and particularly on council housing)" I think if all above happens then this will effectively mean the end of social housing. High rent areas such as London will be "cleansed" of the poor first. The poor will be forced to move to low cost areas but this increase in demand which will eventually force up rents even in traditional low cost areas. One day there will be virtually no "social housing" anywhere since everywhere will be at some 80% of market rents (so called "affordable rents").

Ironically, this will also result in life long dependency on housing and state benefits for all low income workers at a massive cost to the taxpayer.

(Photo of Labour canvassers in a Tower Hamlets social housing block last month.  If these 2 and 3 bedroom flats are let at 80% market rent, then families on benefits will not be able to live here)

"Chavs", "lazy thinking" and Pension investments into Social Housing

A couple of weeks ago Pension Weekly published this useful article on "The risks and rewards of social housing".

I've been a pension trustee (of sorts) for about 16 years and during this time I have asked various property fund managers and professional advisers "why don't we invest in social housing?"

To which I have had a number of different replies, most of which have not been that convincing to be honest.

Why is there this apparent mismatch between  social housing providers who say that there is not enough investment available for them to build while pension funds say there is inadequate opportunities to invest in such long term stable investments linked to inflation?

Usually the first response from a fund manager to my question is a blank look, followed by a little bit of waffle about how their current property portfolio is so good then saying this is a "very good question" and that they will speak to their people and get back to me (they don't).

However, over the years I have been told that there is a "reputational risk" if a pension fund invests in social housing since the fund agents may have to evict residents for non payment of rent etc. Well, Councils for example already evict tenants for non payment of rent up and down the country yet they still run pension schemes?

At a drinks reception after a pension conference (I admit not a reliable source for information) I was told by a property fund manager that  no one invests in social housing because of the risk that "chavs" would turn up at their posh City HQ demanding that they fix their leaking central heating!

Only once or twice have I heard the argument that the return from investing in social housing is not good enough compared to other asset classes.  Now this is a real argument but rather odd since pension funds normally invest in a range of investments with variable returns in order to spread risk. I also understand that the yields from bonds issued from housing associations are far greater than gilts or other bonds?

I am also aware that it may be possible to get a greater possible return from an investment by a pension fund if it was able to share in the capital appreciation of new build social housing stock? Obviously the funds would have to take more risk to get this return but I am informed that it is risk that is currently putting off existing social landlords from making new investments. So why can't Councils and Housing Associations share this development risk with pension funds?

I suspect that the real problem is that property fund managers and advisers are use to what they know. One adviser told me that the excuses put forward by such managers is just "lazy thinking". They are experienced in investing in shiny new retail parks, hotels and warehouses. Investing in Social Housing is outside their comfort blanket. Also Housing Associations are not use to sharing the capital appreciation of their assets either.

We need to sort this out. In other countries I understand that pension funds invest in social housing as a matter of course. They make decent money for their beneficiaries and they build affordable homes for rent. Kick starting the economy with new construction starts is another important consideration you would think. How often do we get a possible win-win-win on such a question?