![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper considers the future role of social rented housing in England. It is based on an analysis of policy trends over the past 30 years, and a critical examination of current policy dilemmas. The central contention is that there are fundamental tensions underlying the present government's policy objectives to maintain the ‘safety net’ role of social housing but at the same time widen access to the sector so that it becomes a more mixed ‘tenure of choice’. The paper charts the marked change of direction seen since 2000, with a switch from a highly rule-bound approach emphasising equity in housing allocations, to a more consumerist system stressing choice. Survey data and statistical returns are analysed to illustrate the changing mix of households entering social rented housing and to reveal the sector's varying role in regions characterised by contrasting housing market conditions. The paper charts the spread of the ‘choice-based lettings’ approach and discusses the possible implications of this development for the pattern of rehousing outcomes, and for the sector's broader role. It is concluded that, in higher demand regions such as London and the South, it remains very difficult to see how a social sector continuing to contract can widen its role from that of safety net for the most disadvantaged.
Notes
1 The focus of this paper is England, but sometimes it is necessary to draw on research or data with a British or UK-wide remit. This is clearly indicated whenever appropriate. It should be borne in mind that England is by far the largest of the four countries that comprise the UK and is almost always the dominant jurisdiction in these wider data and discussions.
2 Subsequent to this paper being accepted by Housing Studies, the Government Commissioned Professor John Hills to conduct a review of the future of social housing. At the time of final submission its findings were not available.
3 Since 2002 growing numbers of local authorities have been hiving off housing management (although not ownership) to ‘arms length management organisations’ (ALMOs). ALMOs are semi-autonomous bodies governed by boards comprising tenants, council representatives and ‘independents’ (ostensibly similar in structure to the governing bodies of stock transfer housing associations). By 2005 the management of more than 600 000 council properties (27 per cent of the total) had been delegated to ALMOs.
4 Housing Act 1996 Act (S167(2)) (as amended). Note that while these groups are generally thought of as categories of ‘housing need’, some of these categorisations reflect household types that may be considered especially ‘deserving’ of assistance rather than necessarily facing specific forms of housing need. The same might be said of many of the ‘priority need’ categorisations under the homeless persons legislation, discussed below (see Fitzpatrick & Stephens, Citation1999).
5 The Act came into force in 1978, and was consolidated into the Housing Act 1985 Part III in England and Wales, with minor amendments introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. A Code of Guidance, to which local authorities must ‘have regard’ in decision making on homelessness applications, was first issued in 1978, and has been revised several times, most recently in 2006. The Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2003a) is also relevant now.
6 R v Brent LBC ex p. Awua (1995) 1 A.C. 55.
7 Following the 1977 Act, local authorities generally operated two separate routes into their council housing, one for general waiting list applicants and one for homeless applicants.
8 Qualitative data from Niner (Citation1989, p. 29), however, demonstrate the ‘narrow and unsubstantial’ line between ‘genuine’ homelessness and collusion in situations of family dispute or tension. Recognising the typically ambiguous ‘homelessness status’ of many ‘family/friend exclusions’, official guidance has recently re-emphasised the need for home visits by housing staff as standard in such cases (ODPM, Citation2003b).
9 Given that the priority need rules give preference to households containing children or a pregnant woman, most statutory homeless applicants will be assessed as qualifying for a dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
10 Figures drawn from analysis of ODPM's SEH in relation to the characteristics of households moving into social rented housing in the three years preceding the survey in question. Other than for 2003/04, each row draws on a dataset combining together three years' SEH data.
11 The Homelessness Act 2002 (see below) abolished the requirement for local authorities to maintain a housing register, ostensibly to allow CBLs to operate. The Homelessness Act 2002 also promoted CBLs through outlawing the exclusion of applicants from outside the local authority area, and by amending the Housing Act 1996 (S167(2E)) to provide for the adoption of advertising schemes in social lettings.
12 Source: ongoing Heriot-Watt University research for ODPM focusing on the longer-term impact of choice-based lettings.
13 Source: see endnote 11.
14 As well as the statutory provisions outlined above, further regulatory pressure to adopt choice-based approaches was exerted through The Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation (ODPM, Citation2003a) and the Housing Corporation's Regulatory Code (2002), both of which encourage social landlords to offer applicants a choice of home.
15 Source: see endnote 11
16 As noted above, ongoing research by Heriot-Watt University for ODPM is investigating the longer-term impacts of CBL, including the effect on the pattern of rehousing outcomes for vulnerable and potentially disadvantaged groups.
17 The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002. SI 2002 No. 2051. Earlier secondary legislation had re-instated ‘reasonable preference’ in council house allocations for unintentionally homeless households in priority need (The Allocation of Housing (Reasonable and Additional Preference) Regulations 1997. SI 1997 No. 1902).
18 Under the Housing Act 1996, it became possible for local authorities to issue new tenants with Introductory Tenancies (ITs). These last for the first 12 months of a tenant's residence and convey only limited security of tenure over this period. Subsequently, the tenancy reverts to a secure status if conducted satisfactorily. A local authority opting for ITs is obliged to use them for all new tenants—there is no discretion as to the circumstances in which they may be granted. The IT regime applies only to local authorities; housing associations may, in certain circumstances, use Starter Tenancies that have some similarities. The proportion of local authority lettings in England made on ‘Introductory Tenancy’ terms rose from 42 per cent in 1999/00 to 61 per cent in 2003/04 (National Statistics, Citation2004). At the moment, the vast majority of these tenancies subsequently revert to secure status.
19 An aspiration to ‘target’ social housing more precisely towards disadvantaged households underpins the current plans of some Australian state governments to introduce fixed term tenancies to match the ‘duration of need’ (see, for example, New South Wales Government, Citation2005).