Putting people first

This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the London Assembly Liberal Democrats site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

The Liberal Democrat Assembly Members welcome the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Mayor's Housing Strategy.

This consultation addresses many of the housing challenges that London faces today: not only meeting the needs of the 62,000 households in temporary accommodation, and the 150,000 in overcrowded accommodation, but are also reducing London's core problems of worklessness and poverty.

Whilst we welcome the strategic powers that the Mayor gains, in deciding the London Housing Strategy and Investment Plan, we would emphasise at this early stage, the need for transparency and accountability in decision-making.

We are concerned that the Mayor's Housing Strategy risks taking an overtly top-down approach, with little evidence of work with local authorities. Above all, we emphasise the need for boroughs and other key stakeholders representing local communities to have their views taken into account.

As Assembly Members, we look forward to following and scrutinising GLA progress in this important area, and seek assurances that the Assembly will have appropriate powers to question all officers involved in the development and implementation of the Housing Strategy and Investment Plan.

The Housing Strategy should be allied to the Mayor's policies in other areas including the environment and transport as well as the London Plan. In addition to reflecting the Mayor's wider aims, there must also be a mechanism for regular review and engagement with external stakeholders, including communities, political groups and boroughs.

The Mayor must utilise his new powers to increase substantially the supply of affordable housing in London. Whilst levels of net housing have increased in recent years, it is lamentable that the proportion of affordable housing delivered has fallen considerably short of the 50% target set out in the London Plan, and the 66% identified in the 2004 Housing Requirements Study. We are concerned that the level of unmet need in London has risen considerably and consider it essential that the Requirements Study be updated at regular intervals.

We would also emphasis the delivery of intermediate housing as being an important part of the solution to London's housing shortage. We are concerned that the strategy risks treating intermediate housing as a distraction, rather than an area that is integral to meeting London's housing needs.

Mechanisms in the planning process must be used to ensure the provision of mixed tenure housing. The Housing Strategy should reinforce the London Plan's vision for all larger developments to contain 50% affordable housing. This should be incorporated onsite where possible, subject to the need to ensure that the total number of units delivered is maximised.

It is also important that housing of sufficient size is built, for larger families who need four or more bedrooms. The Mayor's Housing Requirements Study (2005) found that in the social housing sector, 35% of need was for two or three bedroom homes, and 40% for homes with four bedrooms or more. In 2005/06 however only 16% of new homes provided were three bedrooms or more.

Government reviews have identified homelessness as a key driver of child poverty and social exclusion. The London Housing Strategy must shift social housing investment towards the provision of more three and four bedroomed homes in order to meet the needs of Londoners in temporary and overcrowded accommodation. In terms of affordable housing contributions in large developments, contributions must be measured in terms of habitable rooms as opposed to total number of units, in order to ensure that housing better meets local size needs.

Whilst prioritising the delivery of more housing overall, the Mayor should also identify objectives and commit investment, to tackling problems associated with the housing need, particularly worklessness and the impact of developments on climate change.

It is vital that policies for housing, job creation and training are allied to one another. We clearly stated this in our response to the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan, expressing concern at the extent that areas earmarked for housing were located in outer London, with most job creation forecast for the Central Activities Zone. We recommend that the Housing Strategy clearly identify objectives and investment geared towards job creation and training, to accompany new housing. This is particularly important in the London section of the Thames Gateway, due to accommodate 120,000 new homes.

Unaffordable rents drive social exclusion, making it impossible for people out of work to return to employment. This needs to be addressed both through dramatically increasing the provision of social rented accommodation, guaranteeing long-term lower rents, but also through initiatives with young people leaving homes, to facilitate access to jobs and training. Investment in the intermediate sector, in shared equity schemes is also important in helping to reduce demand on the private rental market.

Local decision-makers in the planning process are ultimately responsible for determining the nature of planning consents, and should seek to ensure that they are not awarded to projects, which are not in accordance with standards in the Housing Strategy, or where there is little prospect of delivery.

In terms of speeding up development on large sites, we are concerned about the premise of the question which suggests that compulsory purchase powers might be a mechanism through which to meet housing need. We would emphasise that compulsory purchase powers should only be used as a last resort to release land, and not routinely.

We support long-term consideration of moving towards a system of land value taxation, believing that this would discourage speculation and provide an incentive for efficient development. We believe that the Mayor and the London Development Agency should actively promote reform of the basis on which business rates are charged to site value rating.

Public sector agencies should take a more proactive approach to working with developers. We endorse joint venture partnerships, such as in the Thames Gateway, as a means to drive forward development, as well as to retain benefits.

In terms of development gain, we feel strongly that the current local level Section 106 system should be retained, as a means to secure social infrastructure from development. We oppose the Government's proposal to introduce a planning gain supplement, which would take powers and finances away from local government and transfer them to the Treasury.

In addition to the wider tax changes outlined above, we would like to see greater enforcement of the 50% affordable housing target by local decision-makers. The Mayor should support local authorities, through his planning powers, in obtaining best value from Section 106 agreements with developments.

We support the Mayor's stated intention to work with a Housing Investment Panel to implement his Housing Strategy, and to bring the investment strategies of disparate agencies into line. We emphasise the need for this interaction to be transparent and accountable and open to London Assembly scrutiny.

Standards for new development, including on meeting the needs of London's diverse communities, should be determined in accordance with the Mayor's strategic development plan: the London Plan. The Mayor should broker agreement amongst all key bodies involved in investment in London, on standards and delivery. In doing so he should consult with boroughs and ensure that local considerations are taken into account.

Robust investment criteria should be attached to investment from the Housing Pot, particularly concerning the largest strategic sites. This should include specifications relating to design, environmental standards and tenure. Investment decisions must be undertaken in a demonstrably transparent and accountable manner however. We would not want to see arbitrary decision-making disadvantaging boroughs.

Local authorities should be empowered to capture increased revenue from new and renovated building, to invest in associated infrastructure. We believe that broad tax changes are needed and support the reintroduction of a localised non-domestic rate, applied only to land values and not to the total value of the property. This would better capture increases in land values that result from improvement in transport and other facilities, and would have a desirable influence in helping to fund infrastructure developments such as Crossrail.

As stated above, we would also like to see greater enforcement of the 50% affordable housing target by local decision-makers, and seek greater support from the Mayor obtain best value from Section 106 agreements.

The Housing Strategy should also prioritise more efficient use of existing stock, whether this means refurbishment, building more intensely, or converting existing social rented properties into larger units. We believe that VAT rates on repairs and renovations should be reduced as a means to incentivise development, and to help bring more empty properties back into use.

Housing investment from the regional pot should be allied to the London-wide standards and targets set in the London Plan. This should include internal and external space and design standards as well as those on environmental sustainability.

The Mayor's Housing Strategy and Investment Plan should be monitored against the London Plan objectives on housing design and environmental consideration, in addition to output targets.

Meeting London's existing housing needs, and significantly increasing the output of social rented accommodation must be the main objective of the Housing Strategy and Investment Plan.

However, we believe that there is also a case for continued investment into London's intermediate market, particularly into shared equity schemes, which enable more people to buy their first home. This could help both to reduce private sector rents as well as to retain key service workers in London.

In terms of shared equity schemes, we would promote the `golden share' model, being taken forward by Liberal Democrat run councils, where homes remain affordable because the council or housing association set limits on who buys them, targeting help towards those in need, and limiting price rises.

Liberal Democrats have also put forward mutual home ownership, a new concept, primarily aimed at helping young people starting out. With Mutual Homes, rather than simply paying rent to a landlord, a tenant's payments become their first step on the property ladder. The shares they buy in the Mutual Home Ownership Trust increase with value as house prices rise. When they wish to move - to buy a home on the open market - they can sell their shares back to the mutual, using the proceeds as equity for their new home.

Such homes would be affordable because the land on which the homes are built would be owned by a separate Community Land Trust. By permanently excluding the land cost from the house price, affordability would be locked in. Suitable sites for development would include surplus land now owned by the Government.

In terms of existing properties, we believe that the right to buy should be retained, with local authorities able to vary discounts according to local needs. In London, whilst there continues to be an acute shortage of social housing, this would mean that councils could reduce existing discounts to minimise the loss of social housing.

We support the development of the Capital Moves project as a London-wide scheme to promote choice based lettings and mobility in the social housing sector. We welcome the incorporation of the new Accessible Housing Register within the scheme.

We would support the scheme having a specific remit to tackle under-occupancy and to provide incentives and support (e.g help to cover the costs of moving) to encourage people to move on to more suitably sized accommodation, freeing up capacity for others in temporary accommodation. Integral to reducing under-occupancy is the provision of suitable secure accommodation for older people, particularly geared towards those moving in the socially rented sector.

We believe that there is scope in linking high demand areas, such as London, to low demand areas, with empty properties, and would support new investment in voluntary relocation schemes. Local authority-run schemes such as LAWN already help families voluntarily relocate to areas in the Midlands and the North, assisting with employment, schooling and relocation costs.

In order to facilitate wider mobility, much greater co-ordination is need across local authorities, to bring together information on housing, job opportunities and school places.

Much greater coordination is needed at regional level, on the information and funding available to help Londoners improve the performance of its existing housing. We believe that the GLA should play a key role in coordinating activities, making new investment in grants schemes for target groups, and improving the accessibility of information to Londoners.

The Mayor's London Housing Strategy, in referring to new build housing, should incorporate the environmental standards and technologies set out in the draft further alterations to the London Plan. We also support national incentives to improve the environmental performance of new housing, including a zero-rate of VAT for new homes meeting the EcoHomes `Very good' standard.

Refurbishment and adaptation must also be prioritised, both to bring empty properties back into use, and to ensure the most efficient use of existing housing space across all tenures. We support the reuse of existing sites, for more intense development, inline with space and decent living standards. To provide incentives to landlords, rates of VAT on all materials for repair and refurbishment should be reduced nationally. Liberal Democrats propose to pay for this tax cut by harmonising national VAT rates for new greenfield development with the new lower VAT rate for repair, modernisation and conversion.

New social housing, funded by the public sector, must be built to high environmental standards, meeting the challenges of both adapting and mitigating climate change. In terms of protecting vulnerable residents, this will mean building to avoid over heating in the summer, as well as providing reliable heating for the winter. Sustainable homes are more affordable homes, as they are much cheaper to live in. In reducing costs of water and heating bills, the costs of build higher standards of environmental homes can be offset over a few years.

We are particularly keen that the Mayor's Housing Strategy take into account the need for green space and play space to be allied to new housing development. This is important, both in terms of mitigating flood risk and also in building amenable environments for local communities.