HousingHousing
Tackling the affordable housing crisis and challenging the
Mayor to actIn Ken Livingstone's London Plan, published in February 2004, the Mayor acknowledged that there is an annual demand in London for 33,600 new homes, 25,700 of which need to be affordable for people on low incomes. However, the Mayor set a supply target of 30,000, which falls short of the demand level.
Mike with LibDem campaigners in Havering
With respect to affordable houses, the new Mayor Boris Johnson abandoned his predecessor's pledge they should comprise 50% of all the new housing provided in London. Even if this had been kept, it would yield a annual maximum of 15,000, which is 10,000 fewer affordable houses than are needed each year.
Mike has a record of challenging both mayors hard to lead concerted action to tackle the housing crisis. The current Mayor is relying heavily on government funding, and hoping the Boroughs will use their planning powers to reach his targets.
Whatever the exact numbers, a huge gap remains between need and likely supply. Read the transcripts below showing how Mike repeatedly called for action at ‘Mayor’s Question Time’ when he was Lib Dem housing spokesperson.
For an up-to-date account of Mike's questioning of the Mayor, visit the official GLA website and browse by name or topic - click here.
Questions below were posted before the official database was compiled.
Mike Tuffrey
How do you reconcile your threats to 'crush borough planning authorities' who delay or refuse planning decisions with the fact the worst performing planning authorities in London are Labour controlled?
The Mayor: My concern about the poor performance of some boroughs is based on my experience of cases defined as major by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which most closely relates to strategic cases. For the year ending 31 December 2003, the 17 Labour led borough councils in London decided, on average, 49% of major cases within the 13-week target period. This is fractionally better than the 10 Conservative led boroughs which achieved 48%, and significantly better than the five Liberal Democrat led boroughs whose performance was a lamentable 34%. 47% of Labour led councils managed to complete more than half of major cases within the deadline; 40% of Conservative ones were able to match this, but only 20% of Liberal Democrat boroughs. Only 18% of Labour boroughs failed to deliver at least four out of 10 major cases within the deadline, whereas 20% of Conservative boroughs failed to do so, and a staggering 60% of Liberal Democrat boroughs failed.
My recent concerns are directed particularly at Lambeth and Southwark Councils. Other borough councils are also failing to do all they can to deliver affordable homes, but it is particularly regrettable that both Lambeth and Southwark have recently obstructed, opposed or otherwise held up housing schemes for no good reason. For example, in Lambeth the council opposed the proposed residential tower at Vauxhall, which would not only have increased the number of units already permitted, but also have resulted in an increase in the number of affordable units and, given the riverside, a much-needed boost in terms of architectural quality.
In Southwark, the council opposed a 33-storey residential building at 44 Holland Street, of which the applicant was willing to provide 50% of units as affordable. As a consequence, the applicant submitted a smaller 20-storey scheme with 18 fewer homes and 16 fewer affordable homes. The council opposed even this, but fortunately planning permission was granted on appeal, but it could and should have been granted by Southwark Council for the original scheme which had the additional benefit of real design quality. At Tabard Square, Southwark Council forced the reduction in the height of a splendid residential development resulting in 35 fewer homes and 17 fewer affordable homes. Fortunately, having obtained planning permission, the applicant is seeking permission for a scheme very similar to the original that will restore the lost potential units. If Southwark Council rejects this excellent scheme, I will support the applicants at the inquiry, should they choose to appeal. There are other examples that I am sure you already know about.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I also have the numbers too, so let me name the five worst authorities in London for granting planning permission within eight weeks: Hackney, Camden, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Barking and Dagenham - all Labour authorities. The five worst planning authorities in London are Labour in terms of granting permission on time. In terms of granting permission at all, four of the five worst are Hackney, Brent, Hounslow, Haringey - all Labour authorities.
The Mayor has chosen to answer this question in a confrontational way, which is a pity because I was hoping that this new term of office would show the Mayor adopting a co-operative and partnership approach to the planning authorities in London. Would you not agree that if we are to get the development that we in the Liberal Democrats want in London, if we are to get the affordable housing that we in the Liberal Democrats want in London, we need the borough councils, who are the planning authorities, to work effectively and efficiently and you need to be co-operative with them? What are you going to do to help boroughs get planning permissions processed rather than attacking them with pejorative language such as 'crushing' councils? What can you do to help this situation?
The Mayor: I have here the list of all boroughs ranked from top to bottom on four grounds of major decisions and minor decisions, but you have chosen to quote from all decisions made within eight weeks. Of the top 13 best councils in London, seven are Labour, five Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. Of the 13 worst councils in London, three are Liberal Democrat, eight are Labour and two Conservative. None of us is going to defend a council being at the bottom of the pile, whether it is Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, but Islington, Lambeth and Southwark are in the bottom 13. It is silly to have this sort of piddling point-scoring when we all know that councils of all political stripes fail, while others of all political stripes do very well. Richmond upon Thames is up there with 72%, right behind the City of London in terms of major decisions. Ealing, Brent and Bromley, are the best three councils, and as you pointed out, Camden, Hackney and Hillingdon, are the worst three.
Your attempt to point-score with these spurious statistics is no more accurate than your last-minute leaflets through my door predicting the result of the election. How did Simon Hughes come not to be sitting here when the leaflet confidently predicted he would be?
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Blair's Mayor was indeed elected. It was you who went to the media before the election talking about 'crushing' Liberal Democrat boroughs who would not do what you said. In fact, in April your own Labour Housing Minister was on record as saying that authorities can set policies which deviate from those laid out in your strategic plan. So, if you recognise that this is a partnership, not a case of you telling boroughs what to do and 'crushing' them if you do not like what they do, I repeat the question I asked you. If we are to get the development that we all want through, what are you going to do to help boroughs? I will offer you a deal: if you stop attacking Liberal Democrat authorities for doing the job they are there to do, I will stop attacking you and making these points. If you do not want to play the party-political blame game, let us have a deal and work together to try to improve the situation.
The Mayor: Much though I love all Members of the Assembly, if I had to choose who is the most partisan nitpicker of the 25, you have always been that. You now offer this great working partnership!
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Could you stick to answering the question? What are you going to do to help the situation?
The Mayor: We are working our way through all 32 boroughs of all political stripes. We are calling them in to discuss all the sites available for housing in their area, many of which councils of all persuasions have sterilised for too long with inappropriate planning designations in the hope of a world returning that will never happen.
The reason I particularly singled out Southwark and Lambeth is because I cannot think of a more consistent pattern of those four great schemes, all of which should have gone ahead, all of which were blocked. I cannot think of anything else like that in any Conservative or Labour borough, where developers, presumably not my natural supporters, come along with good schemes and are turned down often on the most arbitrary whim, and in the case of some of the Southwark decisions, by their local ward councillors being given a veto over anything new in their area. This is not credible political leadership.
If I find a Labour council turning down a good scheme, certainly any one of them, let alone four of them, I will condemn them as well. However, there has been a particular problem with Southwark and Lambeth with the rather odd way in which the Liberal Democrat administration has managed decision-making, which has led to the loss of four very good housing schemes, all of which are justified and should have gone ahead.
Mike Tuffrey
How much funding has been allocated to Greater London under the Key Worker Living Programme funding and how many key workers in London do you expect this to help?
The Government announced its Approved Development Programme (ie the amount of money to develop new homes) for London for 2004/5 and 2005/6 in November 2004. This identified that, of the total amount of £780m to develop new homes in 2004/5, some £177m (23%) will be directed to key workers. In 2005/06 the equivalent figures are £803m and £194m (24%). Overall, the Housing Corporation identifies that 8,100 key worker households in London will be assisted over the two years.
At the beginning of April the Government announced that its £690 million Key Worker Living Programme. Wouldn't you agree that the affordable housing crisis could be tackled more successfully if these funds were invested in building more houses to address the severe shortage of supply, rather than subsidising demand levels to help only a handful of those in need?
I welcome and support the Government's investment in Key Worker Housing, which will help to ensure that Londoners get the quality of public services they deserve. I have consistently argued that the main housing problem in London is lack of supply and it is for that reason that my London Plan has set ambitious targets both to increase supply overall and affordable housing in particular. My position on this has been accepted by all parties on the London Housing Board and is reflected in the London Housing strategy. The recently published Barker Report shows that the Government now also accepts this position. I have used my influence through the London Housing Board to ensure that 60% of the spend of the Key Worker living programme will be targeted to new build, rather than demand subsidies.
Mike Tuffrey
The present London Housing Strategy (LHS) is based on the Draft London Plan so is already out of date. The Strategy is being revised next year prior to the review of the London Plan figures, which takes place in 2006. This means that the new LHS' housing provision and monitoring targets will once again be out of sync with the London Plan. Won't this cause confusion about which is the authoritative document on housing provision and strategy?
As I stated in response to your previous question (451/2004), it is anticipated that the next London Housing Strategy to be published in 2005 by the London Housing Board will incorporate the target set out in policy 3A.1 of the published London Plan that " The Mayor will seek the maximum provision of additional housing in London towards achieving an output of 30,000 additional homes per year from all sources." The London Housing Strategy does not set housing provision targets at borough level, but the next strategy should be able to take on board the outcome of the new housing capacity study will which will be completed in December 2004.
Mike Tuffrey
Do you agree with your Labour colleagues in Southwark who blocked a Liberal Democrat amendment to the UDP which would have secured 50% affordable housing on new residential developments?
I welcome Southwark's proposal to revise their UDP to set a borough wide affordable housing target of 50% consistent with the London Plan.
Mike Tuffrey
Do you agree with your Labour colleagues in Islington who are on record as opposing additional affordable homes as part of the Arsenal Regeneration Project? I understand that my Labour colleagues have not opposed additional affordable homes as part of the Arsenal regeneration project. Rather, they have expressed their concern at the reduction of the numbers of affordable housing and the loss of a proposed community centre.
I agree with them regarding the loss of the community centre. I would also agree regarding the loss of affordable housing units unless the loss of units resulted in no net loss of affordable housing floor space, therefore providing larger units in response to local housing needs assessments.
Mike Tuffrey
When is the planned Londonwide housing capacity study due to be completed? Why was it not started earlier in the London Plan process, so that its crucial results could inform the targets in the final Plan?
Current London Plan targets were derived from the 2000 Housing Capacity Study and informed and are consistent with Government Regional Planning Guidance (RPG3). The EIP Panel concluded that this Study remains the most comprehensive study of London's housing capacity undertaken (para 4.19).
A new Londonwide housing capacity study by its nature requires several years to produce valid, consistent and consensual targets, and work on the new study started in 2002 with the appointment of consultants to work with the boroughs, housebuilders, GOL and other key stakeholders to agree a new methodology. This approach was commended and endorsed by the EIP Panel (para 4.20).
The consultants report was finalised in July 2003 and formally consulted on shortly afterwards. The GLA appointed software designers in October 2003 to build the necessary IT infrastructure, which is currently being tested in three pilot boroughs.
The main phase of the London Housing Capacity Study will start in July 2004 with initial borough returns due by September 2004. These will then be discussed with individual boroughs and preliminary results should be available for analysis by the middle of December 2004. Sensitivity and validity testing is programmed for early 2005 and conclusions will feed into the first review of the London Plan in 2006.
Mike Tuffrey
Since the start of the scheme in December, how many key workers has the government's Starter Homes Initiative (SHI) helped to buy a home in London and at what cost?
The Housing Corporation, which runs the Starter Homes Initiative, reports that a total of 947 purchases had been made by key workers under the Scheme from the start of 2003 to the end of September. At the end of December 2003, the total had increased to 2,009. The reason for the late surge in purchases in late 2003 was a focused marketing campaign by the government and other agencies that started in late September.
The Starter Homes Initiative began in September 2001. By the end of March 2003, it is expected to have helped 9,000 key workers to buy their first home, from the original budget of £250 million. A further 1,200 are expected to complete purchases in the first few weeks of the new financial year.
A new £690 million 'Key Worker Living' programme has just been launched by the Deputy Prime Minister. This will replace the Starter Homes Initiative. 446 / 2004 - Homelessness and Housing Policy Mike Tuffrey Why had the number of families forced to live in temporary accommodation across London grown by 14,000 in the last three years, now nearing the worrying total of 63,000 households? Why have your housing strategies failed to curb this increase?
While I am committed to working with partners to tackle and prevent homelessness, the London boroughs rather than I, have statutory responsibility for producing and delivering homelessness strategies.
As stated in my response to you in November 2003, demand from homeless households (ie the number of households accepted as homeless) has increased slightly (by two per cent between 2001/2 and 2002/3), mainly as a result of the extension of the priority need categories in July 2002. This slight increase in demand is only a partial cause of the large increase in temporary accommodation use.
Much more significant is the reduction in the supply of social rented lettings, which has fallen by 26% over the last five years. Although over 45,000 affordable homes were completed over the period, almost 63,000 were sold under the Right to Buy - resulting in a substantial net loss of affordable housing.
Increasing the supply of social rented housing is a clear priority and completions are set to rise substantially. The London Plan recommends a 50% affordable target for all new housing developments - 15,000 affordable new homes per year. As announced by the Housing Corporation recently, the investment programme in London from 2004 to 2006 is set to produce nearly 20,000 new homes for rent and sale spread across London and in the London Thames Gateway.
The GLA is a key partner in delivering the 2003 London Housing Strategy and has direct responsibility for implementing 11 the 18 action points in the Strategy directly concerned with homelessness. Through its membership of the London Housing Board, the Housing Forum for London (HFfL) and the HFfL's Homelessness Policy Sub Group, the GLA is ensuring that tackling homelessness remains high on the agenda and is a key issue for the 2005 London Strategy.
Mike Tuffrey
How may meetings have you had with Berkeley Homes or their representatives since you became Mayor - on what dates and for what purposes?
On 9 April 2003 I received a presentation on four major housing sites in the borough of Barnet. A representative from St, George Regeneration, part of the Berkeley Homes group, explained the proposals for RAF East Camp. Choices for Grahame Park, a partnership between the Notting Hill Housing Trust and Notting Hill Home Ownership, together with Barnet Council, explained their proposals for Graham Park. Barnet Council and a Metropolitan Housing Trust consortium with Lovell Partnership and Bellhouse Joseph explained the proposals for estate renewal at West Hendon. Barnet Council set out its emerging ideas for the Colindale Hospital site. This was an excellent opportunity for me to understand the way these proposals can make a major contribution to housing needs in north west London, and for me to stress the principles of high density, well-designed, accessible housing with mixed tenures and housing formats and a high level of affordable units in line with the policies in my London Plan.
I have had no other formal 'meetings' with Berkeley Homes, but in addition I have met with Tony Pidgeley, Managing Director of the Berkeley Group and around a dozen other leading developers at a dinner at the MIPIM conference in Cannes in March 2003. The purpose of this informal discussion was to talk about the London Plan and wider development issues. I have also met informally with a number of Berkeley Homes representatives at the opening of the Imperial Wharf development in 28 June 2001 and at the opening of the Thames Path at Vauxhall Bridge in 22 May 2003.
Mike Tuffrey
You state in a recent letter to the Local Government Chronicle (LGC 12/03/04) that it was the Examination in Public Panel's 'own suggestion that 23,000 new homes a year be used as a monitoring target' by the London Plan for annual housing provision. Could you point me to the exact paragraph where the Panel's report specifically recommends or suggest this?
The panel recommended that policy 3A.1 be amended as follows (R4.3 & R8.2) "The Mayor will seek the maximum provision of additional housing in London towards achieving an output of 30,000 additional homes per year from all sources. Housing provision over the first five years, 2001 - 2006 will be monitored against a minimum target of 23,000 additional homes per year, and the borough targets set out in Table 3A.1". Paragraph 4.19 of the Panel Report states that the 2000 HCS "..remains the most comprehensive study of London's housing capacity undertaken, and the draft Plan's annual targets derived from it represent the best available basis for monitoring housing provision in the short term".
Mike Tuffrey
What do you see as the main obstacles in achieving the targets for affordable housing?
I refer you to my response to the almost identical question no 420/2004 :
There are a number of obstacles, but the main issue is the need for all boroughs to sign up to the London Plan targets to deliver more housing, of which 50% should be affordable. Although some boroughs have raised their game to meet these targets there are still too many that have not. It is vital for boroughs to ensure that all negotiations with developers on individual sites make the appropriate contribution to this target.
The other main issues worth considering are:
Resources: This is primarily the amount of money available to develop new housing in the single capital pot for London. I warmly welcomed the substantial increase in resources available for housing development over recent years, which has seen the ADP programme more than double since I became Mayor. I recognise that still more is needed to fully meet my targets in the London Plan. However, as in the answer to question 452, there are a number of other sources of funding that can and will make a contribution to this over the coming years.
Other priorities: Given limited resources, the London Housing Board must balance the sums allocated to new housing with those allocated to competing priorities such as improving homes to meet the decent standard and private sector renewal programmes.
Capacity: Whilst the London Plan now sets the objective of developing 30,000 homes a year, the existing capacity study only identifies where 23,000 per year of these can be sustainability developed. The new housing capacity currently underway will seek to identify additional capacity to deliver the 30,000 target, on the basis that 50% of this higher target will be affordable as defined in the London Plan
Mike Tuffrey
Do you consider the differences in housing and affordable housing targets in the London Plan and the London Housing Strategy as a potential problem?
No. The London Housing Strategy 2003 was consistent with the targets in the draft London plan. It is anticipated that the next London Housing Strategy will incorporate the target set out in policy 3A.1 of the published London Plan that "The Mayor will seek the maximum provision of additional housing in London towards achieving an output of 30,000 additional homes per year from all sources." My officers are working closely with both ODPM and GOL officials to ensure not only that strategic guidance is consistent but that this target is delivered.
Mike Tuffrey
How much funding has the Government provided for affordable and social housing in London through the Approved Development Programme (or equivalent) each year for the past ten years? Do you agree with evidence provided by GLA officers to the Economic and Social Development Committee that to meet targets including the backlog of housing need, London's ADP funding needs to be virtually doubled?
The figures for the last ten years of the Housing Corporation's main Approved Development Programme in London (not including the Challenge Fund and Rough Sleepers Initiative) are as follows:
1997/98 £248m
1998/99 £309m
1999/00 £260m
2000/01 £347m
2001/02 £474m
2002/03 £558m
2003/04 £581m
2004/05 £514m
2005/06 £886m
The figures quoted in the question for extra resources required would assume that all increases in affordable housing development will be funded purely through the Approved Development Programme. Significant contributions are, and will be made through other sources, such as Section 106 on new developments, English Partnership's programmes and by bringing back into use empty properties.
The Barker Review, recently published by the Treasury, identifies other sources of funding to be investigated, including: greater borrowing by Housing Associations, models to develop social housing without grant, options to release equity in existing social housing and land development taxes.
The Chancellor has announced that housing capital spending will not be frozen in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Treasury and ODPM have accepted the Barker Review's conclusion that there needs to be a significant increase in housing supply. This reflects the arguments made in the Case for London.
Mike Tuffrey:
How many extra affordable housing units have been built as direct result of steps you have taken?
Ken Livingstone: By using my planning powers and campaigning vigorously, I have set the agenda on this issue in the capital.
Eric Ollerenshaw: Point of Order, Chairman. Sorry to interrupt the Mayor. Can I just ask about the procedure, because the Mayor has already issued this answer as a press release at 10.02am, saying he had already answered at MQT. I mean what is the point? I don’t want to interrupt procedure. I just want to know, do we set protocols about these questions or what? Because if the Mayor’s office is issuing these as press releases before we actually hear them ourselves at the meeting, then something is not quite right and it needs to be looked at.
Ken Livingstone: Could I say, I’ve got a copy of the Assembly press release about what you are asking me as well. So let’s not get too pompous about this.
The Chair: The Assembly press release merely lists the questions and was, I think, released last week. It is a very fair point and not one I think that can be dealt with at this moment and I think that Mike is entitled to an answer to the questions that he wants to ask. If he wants to go straight to his supplementary that is up to him.
Mike Tuffrey: The press release does not answer the question. Could I ask you to answer the question, please?
Ken Livingstone: I think the Assembly would have a complaint if I was issuing my answers the day before. We have issued a press release to catch the relevant edition of the Standard. The public won’t see the answer before you do.
Since my election most London boroughs have moved to increase their affordable housing targets in the knowledge they will have my support. Camden, Harrow, Lambeth and Ealing have all moved to adopt 50% affordable housing targets. Other boroughs have raised their targets between 30% and 50% including Barnet, Brent, Hounslow and Kingston. This is vital in terms of UDP policy implementation as most residential planning applications are not of strategic scale to be referred to me.
I successfully supported objections to Wandsworth’s new plan, which said they didn’t need affordable housing. These objections were upheld by the Planning Inspectorate and, as a result, Wandsworth will be under considerable Government pressure to include a more robust affordable housing policy. The draft London Plan will include detailed affordable housing policies for Greater London where two-thirds of boroughs will have a target of 50% and the remaining one-third 35%. I have successfully negotiated with Lewisham to increase their UDP affordable housing policy from 30% to 35%, they being one of the boroughs in the lower category. Many boroughs have followed my lead by adjusting their policies to widen the net of affordable housing requirement to private residential developments by reducing the trigger from schemes of 15 units to 10 units.
My Housing Commission report, the Three Dragons report and the Speeding Up Delivery report all support the view that residential development values can help finance affordable housing and this should not prejudice the level of housing supplied. My aim is that 50% of new housing construction in London should be for affordable housing and that should address the backlog of unmet housing needed in the capital over the next 10 years.
I have increased affordable housing through my direct intervention in major planning applications. To date this has had to take account of targets affected by existing Unitary Development Plans, which carry considerable weight in the planning process, which are often not more than 25%. Recent examples are the Grand Union Village in Ealing and Hillingdon where I have secured an increase in affordable housing of 85 units; the Normansfield Hospital in Richmond - 70 units; Falcon Wharf in Wandsworth - 21 units; Arsenal Stadium – 174 units; Bromyard House in Acton - 135 units; the Dolphin site in Romford - 46 units; Feltham Town Centre - 210 units and the Seager Distillery - 114 units. That is a substantial improvement by my direct intervention.
I have also used my powers to vastly increase payments in lieu. In the most obvious case - the Harrods Repository application in Westminster, I tripled the off-site housing contribution agreed by Westminster. This list of examples adds to a total of 855 extra affordable housing units and this is just the tip of the iceberg as it only covers strategic applications. I only see 300 of the 70,000 or so planning applications in London each year. The important contribution a Mayor can make is in setting examples of what can be achieved by boroughs. Harrods Repository led Westminster City Council to revise their payment in lieu policy securing significantly more additional payments over the time that followed.
My officers are seeking to secure 50% affordable housing in strategic opportunity areas such as Stratford City - 5,000 units, Greenwich Peninsula - 7,000 units, Cricklewood - 4,000 units, Ilford Town Centre - 5,000 units. That would mean 10,500 new affordable homes on those sites. This is just the beginning. The broader picture, which includes my collaborative work with the boroughs is significantly larger; my London Plan hasn’t even been issued yet. The full total will not be available until 2004 or 2005 because of the time scales and the construction process.
Mike Tuffrey: I appreciate the need to read the press release into the record and we should, indeed, be grateful that this subject, which the Liberal Democrats regard as crucially important for London, is the subject of your media spin for today.
What I want to do is to get beyond that long list of aspirations for the future to draw your attention to the fact you haven’t actually answered the question, which was, “How many extra affordable housing units have been built as a direct result of the steps you have taken?” The answer is what mathematicians would call ‘tending to zero’ and politicians would call ‘pitifully small’. So could we move on then. I want to probe you in three particulars areas. The effectiveness of your own powers in relation to the 50% guideline, the role you are taking in terms of leading others in London to address this crisis and the national ramifications of this.
On your 50% guidelines, do you accept that the 50% planning guideline is wholly inadequate in terms of reaching your own goals? Your own Housing Commission said we need 43,000 units of which 28,000 would be affordable. Currently the net addition of affordable units per year is just 4,000 against the 28,000. Do you acknowledge that the Three Dragons report shows even if the 50% guideline is achieved - which it will only be with luck and more public money - that is only around 10,000 to 13,000 extra units per year of affordable housing; half your own guideline? So, do you agree that there is a huge gap between your own objectives and targets in the Housing Commission and what the 50% guideline can achieve?
Ken Livingstone: I would say it is quite clear the Member did not listen to my answer. These are not aspirations. I listed a series of sites where I have intervened and managed to achieve 855 additional affordable homes for Londoners.
Mike Tuffrey: But they don’t add up to the total that you have set. That is the point. My question is do you accept that list does not add up to the 28,000, which is your target in the Housing Commission?
Ken Livingstone: It does not. What we don’t know yet is what has happened on the other 70,000 planning applications in London, all of which now will have to conform to the 50% or 35% margin. And so, what we will find is that basically 50% of the homes in London are going to be affordable. The question is more how can we increase the supply? That is why I have been working with Charlie Falconer and his department to increase London’s allocation of basic Housing Corporation funding so that we will get the homes for rent that are actually important in all of that. It is also the case that he and I will shortly be issuing a consultation document about extending the Docklands Light Rail through Barking Creek where we would perhaps get a doubling of the available housing on what is the biggest single housing site in London.
I would like to have another half million homes in London now, today. Unfortunately, you have to have a planning process and build them, but what has happened is a dramatic increase in homes that are going to be affordable for London. Without the changes that I have initiated, which I am working completely closely with the government on, which I am sure is supported by the majority of parties here, we are going to create tens of thousands of new homes for Londoners, decade by decade, that are affordable.
Mike Tuffrey: We can all welcome, and we do welcome, those steps. My point is that that is not enough and this is why my second question is around the role you play in terms of getting others around the table. If you accept that the Speeding Up Delivery report is correct in terms that there is a capacity in the building industry, for example; if you accept that the boroughs have got to up their own game in terms of speeding up the planning process; if you accept, as you have implied you do, that boroughs need to step up to the 50% guideline and boroughs like Wandsworth aren’t; what are you doing to actually bring people around the table so that all the parties to the possible solution to this problem are working together? If you agree with that, will you agree with this - because I need to convey to you this morning a request from the new Liberal Democrat-led administration in Lambeth, to urgently get involved in planning for a new local housing forum so that we can look not just at the growth along the riverfront in terms of housing and how to put that into the hinterland, but also to find some cross-borough boundary solutions, because that is part of the partnership working. Would you agree to do that?
Ken Livingstone: I am happy to agree to do that. I remember when I was Vice-Chair of Housing in Lambeth in 1971 we had meetings with other boroughs to devise cross-borough solutions. We tried to acquire land in Croydon for development there. We co-operated. So, there will be no problems working all together.
What has been interesting is that, although the initial response of some in the building industry was that this would never work, my office is in constant contact with the building industry. They are involved in this. We have managed to bring them along and the government’s along as well. This is an example of where the Mayor, although I have very limited powers, has actually achieved a complete change in housing policy in London in co-operation with boroughs and the Government and the private sector.
You are right, it is not as quick as I would like it to be. I would much rather have the powers of the Mayor of Moscow who builds 100,000 homes a year, sells 70,000 and gives 30,000 away to key workers.
Mike Tuffrey: My final point is that actually the solution to this is not only regionally but nationally and will he therefore agree that we need to reform the borrowing rules? National Government needs to reform borrowing rules so we can have parity; that we need to reform the payments in lieu rules so that we can transfer some of these things between boroughs. A whole range of things. Will he, indeed, agree that the 50% guideline is effectively a back door development land tax and, if the public thinks we can extract value from the booming housing market we should do that in an honest and accountable way? In other words, do you agree that we need a greater share of national resources put into affordable housing and, if you do, will you stop pulling your punches in an effort to cosy up to the Labour Party and be let back in, and instead start speaking for Londoners in the housing crisis?
Ken Livingstone: I think I agreed with all 25 of the member’s supplementary questions. Yes, this is a back door development land tax. Londoners have not had their share of the development potential on sites in London for decades, particularly during the Thatcher/Major tyranny, and now we are trying to claw some of that back.
Mike Tuffrey:
Will you stick to your aim of achieving 50% affordable housing on development sites when it comes to the redevelopment of the Millennium Dome site?
Ken Livingstone: It is premature to indicate the level of affordable housing that I will seek on the Millennium Dome site until my draft London Plan is published on Friday and Greenwich Council refers the planning applications to me.
As you know, my overall policy is to seek 50% affordable housing subject to viability. The Greenwich Peninsula has land capacity for substantial amounts of development to contribute to the wider regeneration of the Thames Gateway and East London. I would expect the Millennium Dome site to maximise opportunities for affordable housing subject to economic consideration of delivering a mixed and viable community. I will be working with Meridian Delta Limited, English Partnerships and Greenwich Council to secure the maximum affordable housing contributions through a mix of social rented and key worker housing.
I have already had considerable success with the amount of affordable housing secured through the planning system in London. I reported to the Assembly at the last Question Time that, on large sites alone, I have secured nearly 900 additional affordable houses. My success was recognised by the London Assembly, when their report mentioned that I seek amendments on 75% of applications that reach my meetings but ultimately I have to direct refusal on only a small minority and they congratulate me as a successful negotiator. The report states, "His claims of increases in affordable housing are undoubtedly impressive". I really enjoyed reading that report.
I aim to keep up this type of success through my negotiations with developers of the Greenwich Peninsula.
Mike Tuffrey: Thank you and we await Friday. Can I ask you just to clear up one confusion for us then today? In November 2000 the Housing Commission, whose conclusions you endorsed, said that we needed 43,000 new housing units a year in London, of which 28,000 should be affordable. By last time we met, 22 May, your press releases were saying you had a target of 19,000 - I don't know where that number came from - and last week your housing advisor of the House of Commons issued a press release talking about 11,200 new affordable homes a year. Just what is your annual target for affordable housing in London?
Ken Livingstone: Well, the initial figures that talked of 43,000 I think were based on assessments of London's population over the next 15 years, which turned out to be miscalculating household formation. Basically what's happened is as the density increases and the price increases, people are accommodating themselves in smaller amounts of space than was the case before. This is bringing down the sort of figures that we started talking about. So, it is the later figures, not the first ones. The first ones were done before we actually got on top of the changes. When we first drew up those figures we had no idea of the scale of increasing population that was coming. This is leading to people accepting that they're going to have to live in smaller accommodation than would have been the case.
Mike Tuffrey: So, what is your annual affordable housing target for London?
Ken Livingstone: The annual target for housing, we inherited 19,000 homes being built a year. This we would like to see raised to 23,000, of which 50% should be affordable. After the 23,000 -
Mike Tuffrey: So, you're now saying that you're moving from 28,000 units to fewer than 20,000?
Ken Livingstone: Well, I would like to see us replicate what's happening in Moscow, where the Mayor builds 100,000 homes a year, sells 70,000 and gives the other 30,000 away to key workers. If the government gives me more money, we'll do it.
Mike Tuffrey
What is your response to the news that rocketing house prices may result in the introduction of 50 year mortgages?
Offering a 50-year mortgage might appear superficially attractive - enabling people to spread their repayments over a longer period, giving less impact on their annual housing costs for the same amount of loan than in (say) a 25-year mortgage.
In practice, I am doubtful that this is such a good idea. For example: How many people will be able to service a loan for that length of time, bearing in mind likely length of working lives? Even with property turnover, this will still be an issue. Will such a scheme tend to favour one group over another? Will people in say their 30s be penalised by not having access to such mortgages? - My main concern is that the likely impact is that people will say 'Now that I am paying less per year, I can afford to take out a bigger mortgage…'.
So we may well end up with people simply outbidding each other, and driving London's ruinous house prices even higher, with a debt burden that will last for decades.
But we must look at all the options, and I have instructed officers to discuss this option with (for example) the Council of Mortgage Lenders. But I fear that the drawbacks may well outweigh the apparent benefits.
The best answer is to increase supply, not fuel demand. That is why I am seeking to maximise the range of choices available for new affordable homes for rent and for sale. The London Assembly has recognised the considerable success I have had in doing this already. Taking another [i.e. see Question 333] positive quote from the Assembly’s report on my planning decisions, it says: “To the extent that he seeks amendments on 75% of applications that reach his meetings, yet ultimately finds he has to direct refusal on only a small minority, he would appear to be a successful negotiator. And his claims of increases in affordable housing are undoubtedly impressive.” Many thanks for that
Mike Tuffrey:
Your London Plan sets a target of building 23,000 homes per year across London, 10,000 of which should be affordable. However, the Plan also acknowledges that London will need 31,900 new homes a year, of which 25,700 should be affordable. How do you intend to plug this gap given that your planning powers alone will not be enough?
The Mayor: My draft London Plan sets a minimum target of 23,000 new homes a year - that has been agreed in the capacity study carried out by the boroughs - and the target of at least 50% of all new developments to be affordable which would, if achieved, produce at least 10,000 affordable homes a year, a very significant increase on current levels.
The draft Plan also makes a commitment to a new housing capacity study with the aim of setting a firm, higher target in agreement with the boroughs. In his introduction to the Housing Commission Report, Chris Holmes, who I appointed to be the Chair, said:
“We do believe significantly more affordable housing can be achieved in London by more consistent, robust and imaginative use of planning policies but even on the most optimistic assumption the provision will fall short of what is needed. It is essential, therefore, that we look at every other possible opportunity. We are proposing what we call a portfolio approach, including a substantial programme of buying vacant dwellings, making better use of existing homes and reducing the loss of rented homes as well as realising the potential of the privately-rented sector”
I completely agree with that statement, and the conclusion that was emphasised throughout the Housing Commission’s report, that meeting London’s affordable housing requirements will require the implementation of a portfolio of new housing and planning policies. My draft London Plan puts in place one of the central elements of this portfolio, achieving the maximum reasonable contribution to affordable housing from new developments and the planning system. The GLA is working closely with its partners on the Housing Forum for London on other policy issues that are critical to increasing affordable housing. In most cases the principal delivery responsibility is with others, in particular the Government, the Housing Corporation and the boroughs, by making key contributions in certain areas, for example, leading work on reducing empty homes.
I shall continue to give this work high priority and to lobby for the additional resources and other changes needed to meet London’s needs for affordable homes. I am encouraged by the commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement last week to ambitious solutions for the housing pressures in London and will be meeting Lord Rooker tomorrow to discuss the Government’s proposals, in particular how to work with them to deliver additional homes in the Thames Gateway.
Mike Tuffrey: Can I thank the Mayor for that answer, and I would like to focus my supplementary questions on the role of the private sector, starting particularly with the private rented sector. Indeed, you have referred to the Housing Commission and one of the conclusions of that, a key finding of our report, is the importance of modernising the private rented sector. Given that, are you aware that the Housing Forum for London, which you have just referred to, at the conference in February said one of the four priority themes for the Forum is making use of the private rented sector? Do you share my concerns that of the 39 separate studies in the Housing Forum’s work programme just 2 relate to the private rented sector? One of those two is the National Shelter Rowntree-funded study which has been published. When is the other report going to be ready which is going to allegedly bring forward detailed policy proposals for the private rented sector?
The Mayor: The private rented sector is an important part of the solution. The Government needs to legislate, as promised, to sort out regulation of the worst landlords but I do wish to encourage more institutional investment in new build for private rent and this, in London, may require incentivising through changes in the planning system.
Mike Tuffrey: My concern is that you may favour it but it seems to me you have not actually done anything. You have not told us this morning what you have actually done since the December 2000 Housing Commission report. For example, that Shelter report in May of this year recommended having a code of management practice to ensure landlords set fit and proper standards and recommended having an independent best practice guide. You referred earlier to your empty property hotline which is being funded. Why are you not funding an initiative to get the private landlords within London to come up to the mark in terms of their standards?
The Mayor: Private landlords are involved in the Empty Homes Programme. That may be only a minority of the empty homes we are looking at but they are still involved in that. The problem we now have, I think, is that an awful lot of the increase in private renting has been individuals buying one or two properties for themselves, almost as a supplement to their pension, simply because of the lack of returns on the stock market at the moment. Now that, I suspect, is going to lead to quite substantial problems in the future because it is a real catapult effect across different parts of London.
It might be that what we look for now is guidance to those people who have ventured into private renting, with no previous experience and just own one or two properties, to get the maximum benefit to London out of that. Unless financial institutions see this as a good form of investment long term, you are not going to get any dramatic rise of the private rented sector other than the people buying one or two homes each.
Mike Tuffrey: My concern is about the standards in the private rented sector. Why not have a hotline for people with difficulties with their landlords, worried about those landlords and so forth? Do you agree, for example, with the suggestion of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors who also in May called for a system of independent arbitration between landlords and tenants when they are in dispute? Isn’t there a role for the Mayor to get the key players to step up to the mark on that sort of initiative?
The Mayor: Whilst the hotline for people to be able to phone in about problems with their private landlords is a good idea, it certainly should not be a GLA responsibility. It has to be with the local boroughs. It would be impossible here, with our small core staff, to start getting involved in massive numbers of often very complex problems that take a lot of time. It has to be a borough responsibility. It might well be that we could coordinate a basic standard across London; I would be happy to look at that.
Mike Tuffrey: On many other services, on the business service, there is a case for a single number for London, not 33 numbers. I absolutely agree about the delivery of the service, it is a question of taking the initiative and coordinating it London wide.
The Mayor: I would be happy to talk to the ALG Housing Committee to see whether we can coordinate that.
Mike Tuffrey: Can I move on to the role of the private sector as builders and developers. The February report, Speeding Up Delivery, the joint GLA/House Builders Federation report, contained about 40 recommendations, more than a quarter of which, by my reckoning, contain specific commitments from the house builders. What have you done since February to get the developers and the house builders to live up to these commitments?
The Mayor: What we do is set the planning framework. Therefore, the publication of the London Plan makes it clear to those people, who perhaps hoped we might change our mind or might water down the targets we are setting, that these are targets they will have to meet. And in the individual schemes that come to me in my planning role. Until some time towards the end of next year when the SDS has the force of law, we are still in a position where an awful lot of developments will not achieve the targets we would like to see.
Mike Tuffrey: Do you recall that the recommendations were not related so much just to the Spatial Development Strategy but to things like getting them to do proper consultation? Just one suggestion was they should fund a university chair in community consultation and urban regeneration. Have you gone back to them to say, “Okay, that was six months ago, and of these recommendations that you’ve signed up to, which have you now delivered on”?
The Mayor: Someone may very well have gone back to them from the GLA, but as that was not the question I do not have the brief to answer it.
Mike Tuffrey: OK, I will invite you to return to that one afterwards. Just concluding this point, that report showed that just five house builders account for more than half the housing units built in London from 1995 to 1999. It is a relatively small number of developers. Are you aware that in many other sectors of the economy, big firms have got together, whether it is the ITT firms to tackle the digital divide, to turn their rhetoric on corporate social responsibility into action? Would you take an initiative to get the house builders in London to set up some sort of London house builders social responsibility initiative to force them to put up or shut up on these aspirations that they talk about?
The Mayor: We do not need to get them to agree what my planning targets are, they will be bound by them by law. If there are other things, such as the consultation you mentioned, that would be voluntary, then I would be happy to be involved in bringing them together. If you are talking about five major players that set the market, it should be relatively easy to achieve. I think we need to be quite precise about what we are asking them to do.
Mike Tuffrey: I am talking about beyond the Plan, getting them, where they have published grand statements of how socially responsible they are as corporations, to actually put up. I think there is a role, would you not agree, for your office in actually asking those questions and getting them together in quite a high profile way at the London-wide level.
The Mayor: I think we could do that. I need to be absolutely clear about precisely what it is we are asking them to do before we go down that road. There is no point bringing them all together unless we are clear in our own mind what it is we want them to actually give us.
At the moment, and in the last two years, all the focus has been about numbers. Now there is also the issue of policy and consultation that you mentioned. I would be happy to look into that but at the moment my main concern has been to lead the industry to the point where it accepted the numbers and not load many more things on which might have increased resistance to the numbers target that we are setting.
Mike Tuffrey: I take it then you would welcome some ideas?
The Mayor: I think we just need to decide what we want out of them. There are some things they will be quite happy to give, there are others which I suspect they will be resistant to.
Mike Tuffrey: Thank you.
Mike Tuffrey
Do you now accept that your affordable housing policy is fundamentally unachievable, given the central conclusion of the ‘Affordable Housing in London’ report in August by ATIS Real Weatheralls namely: “we do not consider that a rigid 50% affordable housing target could be achieved in nearly two-third of London Boroughs at present. Likewise, we do not believe that the 10,000 affordable houses per annum identified as viable by the original study could be delivered”? (Page 6, Commercial Impact Assessment of the ‘Three Dragons’/Nottingham Trent University Report, commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Government Office for London and GLA)
The Mayor: There is no proposal in my draft London Plan for a rigid 50% affordable housing target in any London borough. Policy A3.8 in the draft plan states that:
“Targets in relation to planning agreements should not be applied rigidly but sensitively, taking into account individual site costs, economic viability, the availability of public subsidy and other planning objectives”
My plan makes clear it is for the boroughs to set targets taking into account what can be achieved from affordable housing sites, private housing sites and other sources. The plan assumes that 25% of sites will continue to be developed with 100% affordable housing with direct investment subsidy. My plan also makes clear the delivery of a minimum of 10,000 affordable homes a year depends critically on the availability of public subsidy.
I welcome the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that an extra £1.1 billion will be made available for housing investment over the next spending review period and I continue to put the case to Ministers that London should receive the allocation it needs of this extra money, to realise the delivery of my targets for affordable housing. Other issues I dealt with in the lengthy quote I read out from the Weatherall’s Report and I assume you wouldn’t want me to do that again.
Mike Tuffrey: Can I just say that if you have read, you haven’t understood the point being made by the study, which does blow a hole below the waterline in the assumptions that are in your plan in terms of the achievability of affordable housing targets.
Can I push you on what was perhaps the most worrying thing, for me anyway, that this study reveals about the role of the private sector, in terms of your assumptions? It says that your assumptions do not reflect the real-world behaviour of landowners and developers, pages 4 and 6:
“We believe that landowners are now more likely to withhold land than previously indicated in the earlier studies”.
Do you not agree that there is an urgent need to bring the private sector to the table, with the boroughs, the housing corporation and central government to confront the gap between the need for affordable housing generally in London and the likely availability, even on the most optimistic assumptions? Do you not agree that it is time that you took an initiative to bring people to the table to get a strategy that will work?
The Mayor: I think that Mike’s looking at a problem that does not exist. The Weatheralls Report says: “This is an innovative development of the residual method of valuation; we conclude it is an acceptable technique of considerable value”. Also, since I became Mayor, the number of planning applications granted to housing development has soared by something like 40%.
People are bringing more developments forward, they are doing higher densities, and they are increasing affordable housing. Whether the land available in London can be released fast enough to tackle the housing crisis that we have is another matter. Certainly, all that has happened since I became Mayor, is an improvement in the provision of affordable housing and no developer has walked away from negotiations with my office about affordable housing on their site.
Mike Tuffrey: I willingly concede that there is some improvement. Why I keep coming meeting after meeting on this issue is that that falls well short, even under the most optimistic assumptions, of what is actually needed. Did you notice, in the report, that of the survey they conducted: of 22 out of 33 London boroughs, 11 out of 27 developers, 7 out of 10 social landlords and 3 landowners, of all of those only 1 respondent believed that the 50% target was achievable?
Do you accept that for a strategy to be successful it has to be credible? Isn’t it desperately necessary that you take an initiative over and above what has already been thought of to build a coalition around affordable housing and housing stock generally and that strikes to the heart of your whole London Plan?
The Mayor: I can only repeat what I have just said. The number of planning permissions granted is accelerating. The Government is, I think, about to provide the funding we need to actually get the affordable housing. The Deputy Prime Minister has re-energised the development of the sites in the Thames Gateway.
We’re talking about where, as the Bellway scheme at Barking Reach was talking about 6,000 homes, we’re now talking more in the range of 12,000 to 20,000 homes. I think we are getting that. I would have liked it if the Labour government had started a municipal housing programme as well. They haven’t done so. I would like it if I had the powers to do so, but I don’t. Within the powers I’ve got, I think we’re making real improvements here. Year-by-year, we’ll either see whether I’m right or whether Mike is right.
Mike Tuffrey: The reason I’m gloomy is because everything that I see and all these studies that are published, show that we’re falling well short of what we need. There was another one this week, the Corporation of London’s place in the UK economy from the LSE. A quarter of this report actually focused on housing, and the critical role it plays in London’s economy, and it concludes, “Housing requirements in London, therefore, remain far ahead of potential provision”.
Another study says that 45,000 units per annum are needed, not the 32,000 that you’re working on. So that’s yet another study to confirm my gloominess. That phrase, “Housing requirements in London therefore remain far ahead of potential provisions” is economist-speak, it seems to me, for saying, “Time you pulled your finger out and got your act together because otherwise the housing crisis will blow away all the other gains that you’re hoping for, in terms of London’s economic and population growth, quality of life which the plan is built on”.
It really is time for you to go beyond what is already planned, which isn’t going to achieve the goals, and got people around the table to hammer out a credible strategy in this area.
The Mayor: We are getting people around the table. Both government and private developers have had meetings about what needs to be done in terms of subsidies and releasing sites. And you’re right, we should be able to wave a wand and produce at least 50,000 new houses immediately, just to tackle the people who are in bed and breakfasts.
I would love to have those powers; I don’t have them. Within the powers I’ve got, I think we’re pushing right at the margin of what is achievable.
Mike Tuffrey
Isn't it long overdue that the activities of the Housing Corporation's London office and its spending of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds of public funds be made accountable to Londoners, through the Greater London Authority and London Development Agency?
Yes. I share your concerns about the Housing Corporation's accountability to Londoners. Like many others I have had these concerns since the Corporation's establishment in the mid-1970s.
However, it has been vital for me to work in partnership with the Housing Corporation's London Regional Office. There has been a close and constructive working relationship between officers of the GLA and LDA, especially on identifying strategic sites and bringing them forward for development. I am pleased to say that this cooperation is producing results.
The Corporation's regional housing investment strategy for 2003/04 will increase the proportion of resources to be allocated on a regional and sub-regional basis. This will assist the implementation of the London Plan's policies to increase the supply of affordable housing.
I have also influenced the Government Office/Housing Corporation 2002 London Housing Statement. However, it is my view that it is inefficient to have responsibility for regional housing planning, strategy and investment in London split between three bodies (GLA Group, GOL and the Housing Corporation). In other regions of the country the new regional assemblies have a strong strategic housing role. It is important that the Assembly works with me to persuade the Government to allow this to happen in London.