Agenda item
Housing pressures in Brent
The report provides an overview of the housing pressures impacting on the borough, drawing on the Housing Strategy 2014-19 and other information, with particular regard to homelessness and wider housing supply and demand issues.
Minutes:
Jon Lloyd-Owen (Operational Director – Housing and Employment, Regeneration and Growth) presented the report and began by highlighting the significant population growth in the borough between the 2001 and 2011 Census exercises, in line with other London boroughs. In particular, there had been a marked increase in average family size and the numbers of children and this had led an increase in demand for homes in Brent. The demand increase, coupled with rising rents and prices, meant that for many housing was becoming increasingly unaffordable in the borough. Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that there had also been a large increase in the amount of housing that was privately rented, rising from just over 17% in 2001, to around 32% now, whilst the proportion of social housing had remained around the same. House prices in Brent had continued to rise between December 2013 and December 2014 and this had contributed to the decline in the number of owner occupiers in the borough.
Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that homelessness applications and acceptances had been rising across London and this was expected to continue, with Brent receiving around 50 applications a week and it was anticipated that there would be around 700 applications for the year. Due to the high levels of homelessness and limited social housing, Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that Brent had the highest number of households in temporary accommodation than any other authority. Furthermore, Housing Benefit restrictions and rising rents had limited the council’s ability to secure temporary accommodation in the borough, meaning increased reliance to seek properties in other London boroughs or further afield. Whilst the private rented sector played an important role in providing accommodation, demand helped increase rents and there had been an increase in multiple occupation, overcrowding and in some cases residents living in “beds in sheds”. Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that to address this, the council supported the use of voluntary accreditation schemes for landlords and agents, whilst an additional licensing scheme requiring all properties let as houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) to be licensed had been introduced on 1 January 2015.
Jon Lloyd-Owen informed members that the welfare reform had raised critical issues that had impacted significantly on Brent residents and drove a number of pressures in the housing market. The council had set up a joint team with staff from Housing Needs and Revenue and Benefits working with Job Centre Plus and Brent Citizens’ Advice Bureau to provide early stage support to mitigate the impact of the welfare reforms on Brent households. Members heard that the Overall Benefit Cap had led to 1,173 live cases being affected by it as of the end of January 2015 and the average rent in the borough was significantly more than the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates for one, two, three and four bedroom properties. In order to tackle the housing issues, Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that local planning policy included plans for at least 22,000 homes between 2007 and 2026, of which 50% would be affordable housing. The Housing Strategy had also set a target of 5,000 affordable rent and low cost home ownership properties by 2019.
At this stage, Councillor Shahzad informed the committee that he managed two properties in the borough, however he did not regard this as a prejudicial interest and remained present to consider this item and participate in discussion.
During discussion, members welcomed the Lead Member for Regeneration and Housing in introducing the additional licensing scheme. A member expressed concerns about overcrowding and whether properties met Building Regulations and how was this checked. She also stressed the importance of communicating positive news about housing, such as the licensing scheme and publicising where enforcement had taken place. Another member also welcomed the licensing scheme and stated that the council and landlords should work together more closely to address homelessness and landlords should not be put off by what the council was trying to achieve. The committee asked how residents were informed about the licensing scheme and how many properties were available in the borough in the private rented sector. A member queried how many staff carried out enforcement in respect of residential properties and welcomed the appointment of additional staff for this. He sought views on whether the LHA would reduce the choices and quality of accommodation of those on lower incomes or social housing tenants because of demand for private sector rented property. The member asked what the long term timeframe was for addressing this issue and were intermediate market rents helping. He also asked whether housing the less well off outside of the borough would risk changing the profile of Brent and by such action was the council failing this group. The committee queried who was responsible for land and property purchased outside the borough and what were the legal implications of this. It was asked what happened to the proceeds of any sale of property or land in Brent.
A member commented that there was a considerable amount of empty properties in the borough that could be obtained to help with housing, whilst there was also a number of pockets of land and sites available too, such as the Unisys building in Stonebridge Park, and more effort should be made to make use of these. He also stated that issue of extensions in rear gardens needed to be investigated more. Another member queried whether information held on landlords was confidential and commented that it was regretful that the large housing stock the council had in the 1980s had been eroded by selling a significant proportion to housing associations at lower cost over the past few decades. He added that he felt that the council’s Pension Fund should invest more in housing.
With the approval of the Chair, Councillor Filson addressed the committee. Councillor Filson stated that the council was not receiving full value from the sales of the Right to Buy scheme because of the discounts that buyers were receiving. In respect of “beds in sheds”, he commented that if this was not spotted earlier, it became increasingly difficult to take enforcement action the longer the building remained and he suspected that number of buildings of this type were growing in the borough.
In response to the issues raised, Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that overcrowding in the borough had increased as a result of the welfare reforms and some landlords had exploited the situation, particularly as some residents were keen to remain in Brent. Reports of overcrowding would be investigated and each licensed property would be inspected. Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that the last housing condition survey had been undertaken in 2008, however under the licensing scheme some 15,000 to 20,000 properties would be inspected. Members heard that the Enforcement Team was presently quite small with six members, however funding through the licensing scheme would allow for expansion of the team for around ten additional staff. Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that the council retained responsibility for residents who were provided temporary accommodation outside of the borough. With regard to new social housing that was acquired through capital purchases outside the borough, this would be subject to an access agreement between the hosting local authority and the council, whilst acquiring an existing site would be subject to agreement and negotiation.
Jon Lloyd-Owen advised that there was no timeframe in place yet in terms of addressing the housing issues the borough faced, however a key principle of the Asset Management Strategy was to consider investments and acquisitions opportunities and this would help provide more clarity over timing. He informed the committee that it was hoped funding would in place by May/June 2015 for the Alperton regeneration scheme which would include increasing the amount of intermediate market rent properties. Jon Lloyd-Owen confirmed that information on landlords was confidential.
Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Regeneration and Housing) stated that the licensing scheme was designed to enable the council to take action against rogue or criminal landlords and not to penalise good landlords. Members heard that the Private Sector Housing Forum met quarterly to help inform both landlords and tenants. Councillor McLennan acknowledged that the welfare reforms had led to residents having to leave the borough and this was also happening across other London boroughs. Although every effort was made to ensure residents could continue to live in Brent, there were occasions when this was not possible and this particularly affected young working families, which was an issue that needed to be addressed.
In respect of provision of social housing and for those on lower incomes in the future, Councillor McLennan stated that a strategy would need to be devised to provide a number of different types of housing and it was possible that land could be bought and assets created to reduce costs. The Asset Management Strategy would look at every asset the council had and consider what use could be made of it and Councillor McLennan stressed that a proactive approach would be needed. She confirmed that the proceeds of any sales would be reinvested in future developments. Councillor McLennan added that a large proportion of tenants who were evicted from properties were former looked after children and this was another issue that needed to be investigated.
The Chair requested an update on this item in six months’ time, including details of the number of people who were leaving the borough.
RESOLVED:
that the report on housing pressures in Brent be noted.
Supporting documents: