The Design for Manufacture competition is being run by English Partnerships on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It includes 10 sites across England which are currently in public sector ownership. Each of the 10 sites chosen for the competition is being sold to the successful developers in the usual way. It is anticipated that there will be mixed tenure on each site in order to ensure mixed communities, with some homes being available for affordable rent, some under shared equity and some for private sale. Around 50 per cent. of the homes will be affordable social renting or shared equity homes. For example, shared equity in two-bedroom homes on the first sites will be sold for between £55,000 and £70,000. The homes for full sales will need to take account of the land value as well as the construction costs, and their price will be set by the developers in accordance with the market conditions at the time. Therefore, the actual sales costs will be known once the homes are built on site and details finalised in accordance with market conditions at the time.
I have deposited the information in the Library of the House. The table shows social rented units, either built or acquired, provided through Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme and Local Authority Social Housing Grant (table A) and those provided by local authorities (table B).
Each local authority listed has been assigned an urban/rural classification based on the “Defra Classification of Local Authority Districts and Unitary Authorities in England” published in July 2005.
Using these classifications, the table also shows (from 1998-99 when the classifications can first be applied) percentages of social rented housing units delivered in predominantly rural districts. The percentage of the population in those predominantly rural districts is 23 per cent.
The classification criteria are as follows:
Major Urban:
Districts with either 100,000 people or 50 per cent. of their population in an urban area with a population of more than 750,000; there are 76 districts in this group,
Large Urban:
Districts with either 50,000 people or 50 per cent. of their population in one of 17 urban areas with a population between 250,000 and 750,000; there are 45 districts in this group.
Other Urban:
Districts with fewer than 37,000 people or less than 26 per cent. of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns; there are 55 districts in this group.
Significant Rural:
Districts with more than 37,000 people or more than 26 per cent. of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns; there are 53 districts in this group.
Rural-50:
Districts with at least 50 per cent. but less than 80 per cent. of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns; there are 52 districts in this group, and
Rural-80:
Districts with at least 80 per cent. of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns; there are 73 districts in this group.
The urban/rural classifications are only applicable to all local authorities as defined after the local government reorganisation in April 1988.
Information about local authorities’ actions under homelessness legislation is collected in respect of households rather than persons. The number of households accepted by local authorities in England as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and consequently owed the main homelessness duty, in each year since 1990-91; and the number of households in temporary accommodation arranged by the authority under homelessness legislation as at 31 March of each year, are tabled as follows. From 1998, information has also been collected on the number of people who sleep rough—that is, those who are literally roofless on a single night—and these are presented as follows.
Households accepted as owed a main duty during the year Households in temporary accommodation at end of year (31 March) 1990-91 139,290 50,000 1991-92 139,630 62,090 1992-93 136,230 61,380 1993-94 125,360 52,340 1994-95 116,850 46,350 1995-96 116,550 43,240 1996-97 110,810 41,250 1997-98 102,430 47,520 1998-99 104,260 56,580 1999-2000 105,580 65,170 2000-01 114,670 75,200 2001-02 116,660 80,210 2002-03 128,540 89,040 2003-04 135,430 97,680 2004-05 120,860 101,070 2005-06 1— 1—
Rough sleepers (number of persons) June 1998 1,850 1999 1,633 2000 1,180 2001 703 2002 596 2003 504 2004 508 2005 459 1 Not yet available Sources: DCLG P1E Homelessness returns (quarterly); and Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (annual) (for rough sleepers data)
There is no general definition of ‘unsuitable’ housing. The available estimates for the number of unfit homes (as defined by section 604 of the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act) are provided in the following table. This shows a decline from around 1.5 million in 1991 to around 1 million currently. The small differences relating to 2001 to 2004 are not statistically significant.
Number (Thousand) Percentage of all homes 1991 1,498 7.6 1996 1,522 7.5 2001 902 4.3 2003 1,005 4.7 2004 985 4.6 Note: Unfit homes are those which fail the statutory minimum standard as defined by the Fitness Standard and, since April 1996, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Source: DCLG: English House Condition Surveys
Planning Policy Statement 22 on renewable energy allows local authorities to set targets for the percentage of energy in new developments that should come from renewable sources. In a ministerial statement on 8 June I announced the results of a survey by my Department that showed a large percentage of authorities preparing new-style local development frameworks were including such policies in their plans. It is essential that all planning authorities adopt the positive approach to renewables set out in PPS22 at the earliest opportunity in their plan making. In particular the Government expect all planning authorities to include policies in their development plans that require a percentage of the energy in new developments to come from on-site renewables where viable.
The Government's forthcoming draft planning policy statement on climate change will be an opportunity to consider further how the planning process more generally can help combat climate change by extending the contribution of renewables from both on-site and off-site sources.
The numbers of new private houses and units of social houses built in Greater London and the borough of Bexley are given in the following table. New units of social housing includes all those built by local authorities and registered social landlords for sub-market rent, but does not include those sold below market value to groups such as key workers. Information on social housing is for financial years and figures for 2005-06 are not yet available. Local authorities can use section 106 negotiations on new residential developments to support new social housing.
2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 London Private (new build) 10,510 17,937 13,318 Social rent (new build) 4,228 4,054 — Bexley Private (new build) 196 101 103 Social rent (new build) 6 21 — Source: P2 returns from local authorities to DCLG, Housing Corporation.
The DCLG has requested that local authorities supply data on the number of secure tenancies they have demoted. The first returns for 2005-06 will be published later in the summer.
The Housing Corporation commenced the collection of this data a year earlier. Its regulatory and statistical returns for 2004-05, indicate that registered social landlords demoted 76 tenancies from June 2004 (when this tool first became available) to April 2005.
Current housing targets for the South East are set out in the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) and subsequent revisions for the Growth Areas. In reviewing this guidance, the South East Regional Assembly has submitted a draft Regional Spatial Strategy in which they propose housing targets for the South East. It would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to pre-empt the outcome of the forthcoming Examination in Public of the draft South East Plan by commenting on the housing targets proposed by the South East Regional Assembly.
Current housing targets for the South East are set out in the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) and subsequent revisions for the Growth Areas. In reviewing this guidance, the South East Regional Assembly has submitted a draft Regional Spatial Strategy in which they propose housing targets for the South East. The Government commissioned Roger Tym and partners to look at alternative levels of growth to provide independent evidence for an informed debate of the draft Spatial Strategy at the forthcoming Examination in Public. This report is not a statement of the Government's preference on housing numbers. Any statement on housing targets at this stage would be inappropriate and pre-empt the outcome of the forthcoming Examination in Public.
On 21 March this year Ispoke at the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) led seminar on The Evidence Base on Housing, and discussed the overall need for new homes. Neither I nor the Secretary of State have had separate discussions with the CPRE about individual regions. However, the CPRE contributed to the Affordable Rural Housing Commission’s report and are contributing to the regional planning process.
The following table shows the proportion of newly built homes defined as affordable in each region ("affordable homes" are those provided at submarket rent or for shared ownership). These affordable homes have been provided through the Housing Corporation's Affordable Housing Programme, Local Authority Social Housing Grant and section 106 planning agreements negotiated by local authorities.
Percentage 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-061 North-east 15 13 11 9 12 5 8 9 11 North-west 16 18 13 13 13 13 8 9 6 Yorkshire and the Humber 14 12 10 10 9 7 8 7 7 East Midlands 12 11 9 10 9 7 9 9 11 West Midlands 17 16 17 14 13 16 12 15 15 East 13 15 10 12 12 11 12 13 14 London 32 31 31 30 24 26 30 24 26 South-east 19 19 15 15 14 16 18 18 20 South-west 16 15 15 13 14 13 16 15 15 England 17 17 14 15 14 13 14 14 15 1 Provisional.
Section 106 data have been collected only from 2000-01 but are not yet available for 2005-06.
This information does not include new affordable homes provided through acquisition and refurbishment for both social rent and low cost home ownership.
Information about local authorities' actions under homelessness legislation, which includes the number of households living in temporary accommodation, is summarised in the Department's quarterly Statistical Release on statutory homelessness. The latest Release, covering statistics to the end of March 2006, was published on 12 June. Copies are available in the Library, and from the ODPM website at:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882& PressNoticeID=2095
Table 7 presents a regional summary of all households in temporary accommodation arranged by local authorities, as at the end of each quarter since March 1997.
The duty owed to a person accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need is to secure suitable accommodation. If a settled home is not immediately available, the authority may secure temporary accommodation until a settled home becomes available. As an alternative to the provision of temporary accommodation some authorities arrange for households to remain in their current accommodation (homeless at home), until a settled solution becomes available.
Our strategy, “Sustainable Communities: Settled Homes, Changing Lives”, sets out the challenging aim to halve the number of households in insecure temporary accommodation by 2010.
The English House Condition Survey annually publishes estimates of the number and proportion of “vulnerable” households living in homes that fall below the decent homes standard. The latest figures available are for April 2003 when there were 2,034,000 such households in the private and social sectors (36 per cent. of all vulnerable households). Vulnerable households are defined for the purposes of the Decent Homes programme in “A Decent Home: Definition and Guidance for Implementation—June 2006 Update”, available on the website at www.communities.gov.uk/ under “housing”/“making homes decent”.
The Government have made £388 million available in capital grant to local authorities in 2006-07 to support their private sector housing capital investment programmes, including meeting the Decent Homes standard for vulnerable people in the private sector.
Some 98 local authorities have put plans in place to deliver decent homes through the resources directly from Government and their own resources without using the arm’s length management organisation (ALMO), stock transfer or PFI programmes. A list of these authorities has been placed in the Library of the House.
Some 246 local authorities have used, or are expected to use, one or more of the three options for additional investment (ALMO, LSVT or PFI). A list of these authorities has been placed in the Library of the House.
There are a number of authorities which are reconsidering their investment options, following the need to change their original plans. These authorities have yet to confirm whether they will deliver decent homes without using additional investment.
Applications for the round 6 arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) programme, and the 2006 large-scale voluntary transfer programme (LSVT) are due by the end of July. We aim to announce the outcome at the end of September. The funding available to deliver these options will be determined through the comprehensive spending review.
The application period for the round 5 housing PFI programme closed on 31 March and 14 bids were received. We aim to announce the outcome of the PFI bidding round by the end of July. The funding for these schemes will come from the £1.2 billion allocated in the 2004 spending review. Funding for future bidding rounds will depend on the outcome of the CSR.
(2) what criteria the Housing Corporation took into account when deciding the size of the allocation under the National Affordable Housing Programme 2006-08 scheme to the bid submitted by Housing 21 in partnership with Sunderland city council to fund developments across the city of Sunderland;
(3) if she will ask the Housing Corporation to publish in advance the guidance it will follow in future decisions under the National Affordable Housing Programme on allocation of finances to local projects, with particular reference to extra care developments;
(4) what factors the Housing Corporation took into account when deciding not to allocate finance for plans by the Sunderland housing group for an extra care scheme at Houghton under the National Affordable Housing Programme 2006-08;
(5) what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the allocation of resources to the bid by Housing 21 in partnership with Sunderland city council from the National Affordable Housing Programme 2006-08.
The Housing Corporation’s Affordable Housing Programme (AHP) is a competitive bidding round.
In assessing bids the Corporation used a two stage process for the 2006-08 AHP round. Bids were assessed for compliance with the competition requirements as follows:
(i) Additionality—grant must be necessary for the affordable housing to be delivered;
(ii) Rent levels in accordance with Corporation or statutory rent regimes to ensure affordability;
(iii) Schemes must be financially independent;
(iv) Schemes must meet or exceed the minimum standards covering design and quality (expressed through the Corporation’s Scheme Development Standards, Housing Quality Indicator system, and a Very Good EcoHomes rating);
(v) Schemes must start on site by 31 March 2008;
(vi) Schemes must complete before 31 March 2011;
(vii) Schemes must conform to the relevant regional housing board priorities;
(viii) Schemes must meet management and maintenance standards (for housing associations schemes must comply with all of the Corporation’s regulatory requirements in relation to the management and maintenance of affordable homes);
(ix) Bidders must have the capacity to enter into a programme agreement.
Bids which met these competition requirements were then subject to competitive assessment using four criteria:
Value-for-money;
Quality;
Fit with regional and local housing strategies;
Deliverability within the programme time scale.
The Housing Corporation assessed that the bids from Housing 21 and the extra care scheme at Houghton submitted by the Sunderland housing group did not represent value for money compared with other bids received.
The Housing Corporation is continuing to work with registered social landlords and Sunderland city council over future housing needs in the city.
The Housing Corporation intends to publish its prospectus for the next bidding round in summer 2007. This will set out the general criteria including that for extra care schemes.
(2) how many representations she has received in respect of the decision of the Court of Appeal that section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996 is incompatible with article 14 of the European convention on human rights; what plans she has to rectify the situation; and if she will make a statement.
Two declarations of incompatibility have been made regarding section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996; one by the Court of Appeal in the case of Sylviane Pierrette Morris v. Westminster city council [2005] EWHC 1184 (CA), and another by the High Court in the case of the Queen (on the application of) Gabaj and the First Secretary of State, CO 7458/2005. In both cases, the court proceedings are complete. The Government are currently considering how to remedy the incompatibility. The Department has received one representation about the decision of the Court of Appeal (from the Housing Law Practitioners Association).