Agenda item

Hannah Bowman, Head of Housing Partnerships and Communities at Islington Council, made a presentation to the Board on changes to national social housing policy and the associated health and wellbeing impacts.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Housing and Planning Act enabled a significant amount of national housing policy to be enacted through secondary legislation. As regulations had not yet been published only limited details were available. It was expected for the legislation to have a negative impact on the supply of affordable housing and council tenants.

·         Due to the very high land values in the borough and the large number of council-owned homes, Islington was expected to be one of the areas most affected by the annual levy to be paid to the government which was intended to be funded through the sale of higher value empty properties. It was thought that the council could be required to pay a levy of around £200m each year, equivalent to the sale of around 300 homes. The levy was to fund discounts being offered to housing association tenants as part of the new Right to Buy. 

·         As the council did not routinely collect data on the incomes of its tenants the impact of the Tenant Tax was not yet known, however it was advised that this would not include adult children if they were not on the tenancy of the property. At one stage it was expected for any household with an income of over £50,000 to pay market rent on their council home, however it was now thought that a taper mechanism would be introduced. Income raised through the tax was to go towards national deficit reduction. 

·         The national emphasis on the delivery of ‘Starter Homes’ was expected to reduce the amount of new housing being developed for social rent.  Due to the sale of council housing the council was expected to have a third fewer properties available, and the supply of housing association properties would also decrease due to the new Right to Buy. 

·         It was commented that the requirement for all new tenants to be subject to fixed term tenancies would reduce tenant security. It was suggested that residents with lifetime tenancies would stay put, potentially in overcrowded or inappropriate housing, as a means of ensuring security.

·         It was thought that the sale of council properties on the open market would speed up the polarisation of communities; due to the high property prices in Islington only the wealthy would be able to purchase the council’s homes. This would alter the demographic profile of the borough and change the demand for services. 

·         Requiring income information to administer the Tenant Tax and implementing tenancy reviews could make the council’s relationship with tenants more adversarial which may impact on service delivery.

·         The council’s housing service was experiencing increased financial pressure due to the annual 1% reduction in social rents introduced through the Welfare Reform and Work Act. The council was previously expecting to implement 5% rent increases. The rent deduction would lead to a £1.7billion shortfall over the life of the Housing Business Plan. The policy presented a risk to the sustainability of supported housing, although it was exempt from the policy for one year.

·         The Welfare Reform and Work Act capped housing benefit to the shared accommodation rate for those aged under 35. As 40% of the council’s properties were one bedroom flats this could result in difficulties letting these properties to the most vulnerable people and increase the number of people in temporary accommodation.  This would have a disproportionate impact on those with health needs.

·         It was estimated that the NHS spent £2.5billion a year treating illnesses linked to living in cold, damp and dangerous homes. It was known that those living in social housing had a higher prevalence of health conditions. It was suggested that shortages of appropriate accommodation and the potential for overcrowding and tenants staying put in unsuitable accommodation would intensify such issues. An increase in housing stress for people with mental health issues was also anticipated.

·         The changes would significantly reduce the council’s ability to rehouse vulnerable people. Reduced opportunities to move people out of supported housing into their own properties was expected to lead to the silting up of supported housing. 

·         It was queried if the sale of council properties could impact on the council’s ability to house tenants with disabilities in accessible and appropriate accommodation. In response, it was advised that the council would need to adopt a strategic approach to property disposals, taking access and other factors into account.

·         It was suggested that the challenge of providing supported housing could be considered across North Central London alongside the STP process.

·         It was suggested that an increase in tenants inappropriately living in overcrowded or shared homes could result in safeguarding issues and compound problems for vulnerable tenants, contributing to the financial pressures on public services.

·         The Board considered that a greater awareness was needed of the health impacts of housing policy. It was suggested that engagement with GPs and coordination with other CCGs would be useful.

·         The importance of incorporating the implications of housing policy into local health profiles was recognised.

RESOLVED:
That the health and wellbeing impacts of changes to social housing be noted.